Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Transcript of Kaija Barrett
March 14, 2014
Escobedo v. Illinois
Facts of the Case
Arthur J. Goldberg
Hugo L. Black
William O. Douglas
William J. Brennan JR.
Tom C. Clark
John M. Harlan
Byron R. White
This is a true violation of the 6th Amendment. I support the opinion that Escobedo has the right to an attorney and counsel prior to questioning. He also needed to be advised of his right to be silent. If the above had occurred he may not have blatantly admitted to murder.
The constitutional issues rested with the fact that Escobedo was denied his 5th, 6th, and 14th amendment rights.
The state of Illinois received original jurisdiction, and upon appeal of Escobedo's murder conviction, the case was brought to the Supreme Court.
According to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, "No state shall...deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Said case is originally tried at a Superior Court, then the losing party's case has the ability to move to the Appellate Court. Post Appellate Court, if the defendant is still dissatisfied, (which is what happened in this case) the case is asked to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Judge Goldberg gave the collective opinion of the court.
"The Supreme Court of Illinois, in its original opinion of February 1, 1963, held the statement inadmissible and reversed the conviction."
I disagree with the court's decision that Mr. Escobedo was fully aware of what would happen once he admitted to any involvement in the case. I fully believe he should have been granted his 5th, 6th, and 14th amendment rights.
• What role does the evaluation of Gideon v Wainwright play into the final decision of this case?
In Gideon v Wainwright every individual accused of a crime was entitled to have an attorney present for the trial.
• How were the 6th and 14th amendments violated during the interrogation of Escobedo?
The 6th amendment protects the right to effective assistance of counsel, while the 14th was violated in the sense that the sate of Illinois failed to grant Escobedo with equal protection of the law.
• Was the action of speaking to Escobedo and his sister in Spanish appropriate for the police officer to do during the interrogations? If so, why? If not, how was this act a violation of the judicial system?
The act was acceptable because the officer felt it Escobedo and his sister would receive more clarity, as well as comfort, and be more willing to talk if they were being spoken to in their native tongue.
The act should not have been permissible due to the denial of "comfort" or "clarity" when the right to have counsel was denied.
"14th Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv>.
"Escobedo Vs. Illinois." Caselaw. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=378&page=478>.
"Escobedo v. Illinoi." TheFreeDictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Escobedo+v.+Illinoi>.
"Escobedo v. Illinois." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/378/478>.
"Escobedo v. Illinois | Casebriefs." Casebriefs. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/police-interrogation-and-confessions/escobedo-v-illinois/>.
"Supreme Court Cases." Pearson Prentice Hall:. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <http://www.phschool.com/atschool/ss_web_codes/supreme_court_cases/escobedo.html>.