Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) is a landmark Supreme Court case that transformed American criminal procedure by establishing the right to counsel during police interrogations. This decision strengthened civil liberties, rebalanced power in the justice system, and led to the creation of the Miranda Warning. It also sparked debates on the Sixth Amendment's scope and its educational significance in law and criminal justice.
Show More
Danny Escobedo was arrested and interrogated by police in connection with the murder of his brother-in-law, leading to a landmark Supreme Court case
Guarantee of the Right to Counsel
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel and its protection during the criminal process
Applicability During Pre-Trial Phase
The Supreme Court's decision in Escobedo established the principle that the right to counsel is applicable during the pre-trial phase, specifically during police interrogations
The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the denial of counsel during police interrogations violated the Sixth Amendment and if evidence obtained without counsel should be excluded from court proceedings
The Escobedo decision required law enforcement to permit suspects to consult with their lawyers before and during interrogations, leading to a shift in police procedures
The Escobedo decision contributed to the creation of the Miranda Warning, which obliges police to inform individuals of their rights upon arrest, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney
The Escobedo decision significantly advanced civil liberties by affirming the right to legal representation for all individuals, including those suspected of serious crimes
The Escobedo decision extended the right to counsel to the police interrogation stage, reinforcing the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the right to counsel in criminal prosecutions
The presence of an attorney during interrogations serves to protect suspects from self-incrimination, reinforcing the Fifth Amendment's protections
The Escobedo decision sparked considerable debate, with critics arguing that it could hinder police investigations
Advocates of the Escobedo decision argued that upholding constitutional rights is fundamental to a just legal system
The Escobedo ruling continues to shape legal practices and the safeguarding of individual rights during police interrogations, making it an essential topic for those studying law and criminal justice
00
In the case, ______ was denied access to his lawyer while being questioned about the murder of his ______, leading to a significant Supreme Court decision.
Danny Escobedo
brother-in-law
01
Escobedo's Sixth Amendment rights
The case questioned if denial of attorney access during police custody violates the Sixth Amendment.
02
Admissibility of Escobedo's statements
The Court considered if self-incriminating statements made without counsel present should be excluded in trial.
