Search results
Get a hint. Escobedo v. Illinois. June 22, 1964. Click the card to flip 👆. 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.
1 / 6. Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning. Over several hours, the police refused his repeated requests to see his lawyer. Escobedo's lawyer sought unsuccessfully to consult with his client. Escobedo subsequently confessed to murder.
People also ask
What happened in Escobedo v Illinois?
Did Escobedo have a right to counsel?
Did Escobedo shoot his brother-in-law?
Did DiGerlando tell Escobedo the whole story?
Start studying Escobedo vs. Illinois. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.
Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964) Escobedo v. 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 ...
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. They attempted to interrogate him, but, on the advice of his counsel ...
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment. The case was decided a year after the court held in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) that indigent criminal defendants had a right to be ...
XXV. The logical conclusion of this rationale would be that a criminal defendant has an absolute right to counsel27 during police interrogation, and therefore, any admissions made to the police without the presence of counsel should be excluded.2 However, the majority of the Escobedo Court would not go that far.
