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.
His attorney arrived at police headquarters soon after the petitioner did and was not allowed to speak to his client as the officers said they had not completed questioning. The petitioner also was not warned of his right to remain silent before the interrogation. He was convicted of murder and the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed.
Illinois No. 615 Argued April 29, 1964 Decided June 22, 1964 378 U.S. 478 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus 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.
- Facts of The Case
- Constitutional Issues
- Arguments
- Majority Opinion
- Dissenting Opinion
- Impact
In the early morning hours of January 20, 1960 police interrogated Danny Escobedo in relation to a fatal shooting. Police released Escobedo after he refused to make a statement. Ten days later, police interrogated Benedict DiGerlando, a friend of Escobedo, who told them that Escobedo had fired the shots that killed Escobedo’s brother-in-law. Police...
Under the Sixth Amendment, do suspects have a right to counsel during interrogation? Did Escobedo have a right to speak with his attorney even though he had not been formally indicted?
An attorney representing Escobedo argued that police had violated his right to due process when they prevented him from speaking with an attorney. The statements Escobedo made to police, after being denied counsel, should not be allowed into evidence, the attorney argued. An attorney on behalf of Illinois argued that states retain their right to ov...
Justice Arthur J. Goldberg delivered the 5-4 decision. The Court found that Escobedo had been denied access to an attorney at a critical point in the judicial process—he time between arrest and indictment. The moment in which he was denied access to an attorney was the point at which the investigation had ceased to be a "general investigation" into...
Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White authored separate dissents. Justice Harlan wrote that the majority had come up with a rule that “seriously and unjustifiably fetters perfectly legitimate methods of criminal law enforcement.” Justice Stewart argued that the start of the judicial process is marked by indictment or arraignment, not custody or quest...
The ruling built upon Gideon v. Wainwright, in which the Supreme Court incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney to the states. While Escobedo v. Illinois affirmed an individual's right to an attorney during an interrogation, it did not establish a clear timeline for the moment at which that right comes into play. Justice Goldberg outli...
- Elianna Spitzer
On the night of January 19, 1960, petitioner’s brother-in-law was fatally shot. In the early hours of the next morning, at 2:30 a.m., petitioner was arrested without a warrant and interrogated.
People also ask
What is Escobedo v Illinois?
What is the difference between Gideon v Wainwright and Escobedo v Illinois?
What did the Supreme Court decide in Escobedo v Arizona?
Did Escobedo speak with his attorney during the interrogation?
Get Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today.
