Who:
- : Twenty- Two year old Danny Escobedo, a Mexican male, convicted of murder brought his case to court claiming that during police interrogations he was denied his right to counsel as guaranteed by the sixth amendment. The defendant is the Illinois Supreme Court.
Reason for Litigation
Benedict DiGerlando, another suspect in custody, told police that Escobedo was the one who had shot the victim (Escobedo’s brother-in-law) because he had mistreated his sister. Police again arrested Escobedo and his sister Grace and urged them to confess during a fourteen and a half hour interrogation. During this interrogation they denied Escobedo his right to counsel and his right to a speedy and quick trial. He brought this case to court.
Supreme Court Findings
The Supreme Court overturned the conviction. The court made clear to prolong the “exclusionary rule” to illegal confessions and ruled that Escobedo’s confession shouldn’t have been used as evidence.
Legal Question at Hand
Escobedo V. Illinois
1. Was Escobedo denied his rights to a fast and public trial under the Fifth Amendment?
2. Was Escobedo denied his right to counsel under the sixth amendment?
Cites
: www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_615 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escobedo_v._Illinois
kids.laws.com › Find Laws › Kids Laws
http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar23.html
Implications for US Society
According to federal law Miranda rights must be read for the rights of the victim. Because he wasn’t aware of his right to remain silent he subsequently confessed to murder during the interrogation, for future cases Police officers must obey your rights by reading the Miranda Rights.
Lower Court Findings
: A decision of a 5-4 ruling, the juvenile court ordered he shall receive another trial. After Escobedo went to the Supreme Court they ruled in favor of him because it was in violation of his rights.
By: Austin&Gabby
Constitutional Amendments in Question
Sixth amendment- States in the constitution that you have the right to counsel, and making sure you have the right to speak to an attorney.
Fifth Amendment- States in the constitution that the rights of a victim must be provided their rights for due process of law, no one person can testify against one’s self as a witness.
Similar Cases
Mapp v. Ohio, 1961, Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963, Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
-All of these cases reflect back on whether of not the fifth and sixth amendments were follower and if the Miranda rights were used in the victims favor.