Changes

In '''''Escobedo v. Illinois''''', 378 U.S. 478 (1964), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] established a right to counsel during [[police]] interrogations.

In '''''Escobedo v. Illinois''''', 378 U.S. 478 (1964), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] established a right to counsel during [[police]] interrogations.

In 1964, Escobedo was arrested with his sister in connection with a murder and brought to the police station, accused with the fatal shooting of his brother-in-law. He continually asked to see his lawyer, but but always was denied his wishes. When his lawyer went to come to the police station to find him, he was not allowed to enter. Escobedo soon confessed to firing the shot that killed the victim, while under interrogation. He was soon convicted as a result.  

In 1964, Danny Escobedo was arrested with his sister in connection with a murder and brought to the police station, accused with the fatal shooting of his brother-in-law. He continually asked to see his lawyer, but but always was denied his wishes. When his lawyer went to come to the police station to find him, he was not allowed to enter. Escobedo soon confessed to firing the shot that killed the victim, while under interrogation. He was soon convicted as a result.  

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction when Escobedo appealed to it. The Court decided that Escobedo's confession should not have been permitted as evidence and alloted the "[[exclusionary rule]]" to illegitimate [[confession]]s. The Court also delineated the "[[Escobedo Rule]]" which says that anyone has the right to a lawyer when an inspection is no longer a customary question but has begun to concentrate on a certain offender. The ruling continued on to detail that  the offender has been taken into observation and the suspect has asked for his attorney, and the police have not addressed him of his right to stay mute, the suspect has been forbidden advice in encroachment of the [[Sixth Amendment]].<ref>Escobedo v. Illinois Supreme Court Case[http://library.thinkquest.org/2760/escobedo.htm]</ref>

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction when Escobedo appealed to it. The Court decided that Escobedo's confession should not have been permitted as evidence and alloted the "[[exclusionary rule]]" to illegitimate [[confession]]s. The Court also delineated the "[[Escobedo Rule]]" which says that anyone has the right to a lawyer when an inspection is no longer a customary question but has begun to concentrate on a certain offender. The ruling continued on to detail that  the offender has been taken into observation and the suspect has asked for his attorney, and the police have not addressed him of his right to stay mute, the suspect has been forbidden advice in encroachment of the [[Sixth Amendment]].<ref>Escobedo v. Illinois Supreme Court Case[http://library.thinkquest.org/2760/escobedo.htm]</ref>