Escobedo v. State of Illinois

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964) was a U.S. Supreme Court case which overturned a conviction because the police did not grant the request by the accused for an attorney during an interrogation. This laid the foundation for Miranda v. Arizona two years later.

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. During interrogation, Escobedo continually asked to see his lawyer, however, the police repeatedly denied his request (even going so far as to when Escobedo's lawyer came to the police station to find him, the lawyer 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 confessions. 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.

Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote the decision for the 6-3 Court. He concluded:

We hold, therefore, that where, as here, the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police custody, the police carry out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements, the suspect has requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer, and the police have not effectively warned him of his absolute constitutional right to remain silent, the accused has been denied "the Assistance of Counsel" in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution as "made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment," Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S., at 342, and that no statement elicited by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a criminal trial.

Justice Potter Stewart wrote in dissent:

Supported by no stronger authority than its own rhetoric, the Court today converts a routine police investigation of an unsolved murder into a distorted analogue of a judicial trial. It imports into this investigation constitutional concepts historically applicable only after the onset of formal prosecutorial proceedings. By doing so, I think the Court perverts those precious constitutional guarantees, and frustrates the vital interests of society in preserving the legitimate and proper function of honest and purposeful police investigation.

Justices John Harlan II and Byron White also dissented.

External Links

Escobedo v. Illinois Supreme Court Case