Legal Case Study: Ecobedo Vs. Illinois

Haneen Lulu
Escobedo v. Illinois
Decided: June 22nd, 1964
378 U.S. 478, 4 Ohio Misc. 197, 84 S. Ct. 1758, 12 L. Ed. 2d 977 (1964)

1.Facts of case and issue presented And decision in case
Facts:
* The petitioner Danny e=Escobedo asked to speak with his lawyer while in police custody.
* Before being formally charged he was denied.
* He was accused of murdering his brother inlaw.
* Lawyer got to police station defendent was not allowed to speak with lawyer
* Was not given Miranda rights
* Was convicted of murder and court of illinois affirmed.
Issue:
If a suspect has been taken into police custody and interrogated by police without their request to see an attorney being honored nor being advised of thier right to remian silent, have they

The sixth amendment protects the right to effective assistance of counsel.Here because the police investigation focused on the accused as a suspect rather than a less specific investigation, refusing to allow on accused to speak with his attorney is a denial of the sixth amendment right. The incriminating statements he made must thus not be admitted into evidence
Discussion:
*This case caused lots of confusion for many and they believed it had widespread application and others thougt it only applied to specific facts here. It mentions that a subject asserting their rights should not be somtehing the system is afraid of, but that it would render interrogation much less effective. This case is really best understoof as the precursor to the warnings that would arise from

2. Why did you choose this case
* The reason I choose this case is because it is important and can be used for cases in the long run with the same issue
It was used as an example several times in classes as well as text books. It was also an intresting case to read,
It allowed me to see how police would handle things during the time of the arrest. Main reason I choose to use this

The courts is also incharge of making the choice if the violotion was an actual vilition of the rights of the person. The courts are responsaible to uphold justice to both sides. 4. Document your thoughts,ideas,feelings,and/or opinions about the case.
* The most important thing in this case it shows i believe the importance of the criminal suspects still have the right to counsel during police interrogation under the 6th amendement.The miranda was created during this time they came about in the year
1962 and where adopted by police all over the nation and was made sure to be used. Then this case up and it violated the rights so the judge had to make a choice . The man was let free because all evidence pointed to his sister which killed her husband.
Son with out the violation he would have still behind bar with out that right and the 6th amendemnt portection he would had to pay for a crime he didnt committ.

Resources: