Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

ESCOBEDO VS. ILLINOIS

By Tariq Abdullah & Bryan Davidson

Legal 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 their right to remain silent, have they been denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment?"

Facts

  • Petitioner: Danny Escobedo
  • Respondent: Illinois
  • Decided by: Goldberg Court
  • Argued April 29, 1964
  • Decided June 22, 1964

Dissenting Opinion

Background

"The critical question in this case is whether, under the circumstances, the refusal by the police to honor petitioner's request to consult with his lawyer during the course of an interrogation constitutes a denial of "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. 335, 372 U. S. 342, and thereby renders inadmissible in a state criminal trial any incriminating statement elicited by the police during the interrogation."- Judge Goldberg

WORK CITED

  • Escobedo was accused of fatally shooting his brother-in-law.
  • When he was taken to Police HQ and was questioned, he was not allowed to consult with his attorney.
  • Though he incriminated himself in his "statement", he was not told that he could remain silent.
  • https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/378/478/case.html
  • He basically wasn't read his Miranda Rights when he was arrested.
  • http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/378/478.html
  • http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-weinreb/the-privilege-against-self-incrimination/escobedo-v-illinois-2/
  • https://quizlet.com/126832140/court-cases-impact-and-rational-flash-cards/

Comments

Decision

Holding

Rationale

  • 5-4 decision ruling in favor of Escobedo.

Tariq: I believe the SC's decision in favor of Escobedo was right. Though Escobedo did confess, it was the right thing to do because the police did their job terribly and sloppily by not telling him his rights.

Bryon: Agree with decision. Even

though this allows a guilty man to

go free, the precedent set shows the importance of the Miranda Rights. Thus, officers should hopefully not make such an oversight again, which could save some innocents from being incriminated.

  • "As soon as someone is in the custody of law enforcement, he or she has a Sixth Amendment right to speak to an attorney."
  • Upheld the ruling in Gideon vs. Wainwright (declared 14th amendment obligated the states to follow the sixth amendment and provide counsel to indigent defendants.).
  • Did not read him his rights.
  • Case was thrown out.
Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi