Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start 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

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Escobedo v. Illinois

The Supreme Court case where a man killed his brother in law and claimed that upon arrest his own rights were violated.

Gabrielle Folino

on 29 November 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Escobedo v. Illinois

Escobedo v. Illinois Background of Case Background (cont.) Background (cont.) Majority Opinion Dissenting Opinion The Cases Danny Escobedo shot and killed his convict brother-in-law on January 19, 1960.
He was arrested without a warrant early the next morning.
He was interrogated for 18-hours without an attorney.
Escobedo was released, and had made no self incriminating statement. Escobedo's friend, Benedict DiGerlando, was later arrested and told police that Escobedo did, in fact, fire the deadly shots.
Escobedo was arrested, again, on January 30.
While Escobedo was not formally charged he was disallowed to leave because he was in custody. Escobedo was convicted for the murder and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
He appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court after serving 4 years.
The court found his confession inadmissible and reversed his conviction. (now not guilty)
Illinois wanted a rehearing, and after the second case with the Illinois Supreme Court, Escobado was found guilty again. Justice Goldberg was speaker for the Majority opinion.
He believed that Escobedo was not adequately given his constitutional rights.
He also believed that Escobedo was not told he had the right to remain silent, and was forced to incriminate himself. Justice Harlan was the speaker who was part of the Dissenting opinion.
He stated the belief that the majority rule was "ill conceived" and that the methods used from the beginning of Escobedo's case were legitimate methods of criminal law enforcement. After his second arrest, Escobedo's attorney arrived but was repeatedly denied permission to speak to him.
Escobedo was interrogated for several hours. Unaware of his right to remain silent.
During this time he made statements about his connection to the murder, which were later used to convict him of the murder. The Cases (cont.) After being found guilty again Escobedo brought the case to the United States Supreme Court on April 29, 1964.
On June 22, 1964 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Escobedo's conviction by a 5 - 4 vote, and recognized that his 6th Amendment rights were violated. Appealable Technicality 6th Amendment
U.S. Supreme Court appealed his conviction claiming his confession was obtained without his lawyer being present in violation of his right to counsel.
The vote overturned Escobedo's conviction and recognized a suspect's right to an attorney during a police interrogation.
Full transcript