Search results
Escobedo v. Illinois. June 22, 1964. After being arrested and taken into police custody as a suspect in the murder of his brother-in-law, the petitioner asked to speak to his attorney.
In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Goldberg, the Court ruled that Escobedo's Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The Court reasoned that the period between arrest and indictment was a critical stage at which an accused needed the advice of counsel perhaps more than at any other.
Argued: April 29, 1964 Decided: June 22, 1964. Petitioner, a 22-year-old of Mexican extraction, was arrested with his sister and taken to police headquarters for interrogation in connection with the fatal shooting, about 11 days before, of his brother-in-law. He had been arrested shortly after the shooting, but had made no statement, and was ...
Escobedo – Miranda. C) Mapp – Terry. D) Both A and C are correct. 6: The first notable incidence of Supreme Court intervention into interrogation practices came about in Brown v. Mississippi, in 1936. The major decision of the Supreme Court in this case was: A) the right of a defendant to have an attorney present during interrogation. B)
Escobedo v. Illinois. 378 U.S. 478. Case Year: 1964. Case Ruling: 5-3, Reversed and Remanded. Opinion Justice: Goldberg. FACTS. At 2:30 A.M. on January 20, 1960, police arrested Danny Escobedo, a twenty-two-year-old of Mexican extraction, for the murder of his brother-in-law.
ESCOBEDO v. ILLINOIS. 378 U.S. 478 (1964) MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG delivered the opinion of the Court. The critical question in this case is whether, under the circumstances, the refusal by the police to honor petitioner’s request to consult with his lawyer during the course of an interrogation constitutes a denial of “the Assistance of Counsel ...
People also ask
What is Escobedo v Illinois?
Did Escobedo have a right to counsel?
Did Escobedo shoot his brother-in-law?
Did Escobedo tell DiGerlando he was lying?
