Legal Assignment 2

Business Law Legal Assignment 2

Chad A. Jenkins

Gateway Community College

Legal Assignment 2

Escobedo v. Illinois

United States Supreme Court

378 U.S. 478 (1964)

FACTS Danny Escobedo was arrested without warrant and interrogated for the murder of his

brother-in-law. Petitioner testified that, during the course of the interrogation, Mr. Escobedo

repeatedly ask to speak to his lawyer, and that the police said that his lawyer “didn’t want to see”

him. The testimony of the police officers confirmed these accounts in substantial detail.

Notwithstanding repeated requests by the Mr. Escobedo and his attorney, they were each

afforded no opportunity to consult doing the course of the entire interrogation. Another arrest

was made on January 30 of Benedict DiGerlando, who later was indicted along with the

petitioner, told the police that the petitioner had fired the fatal shots. Danny Escobedo was

charged and convicted of murder. The police department stated due process did not need to be

applied because Danny Escobedo was not formally arrested for the crime and the interrogation

took place in route to the police station. He petitioned to the State Supreme Court of Illinois that

he was violated his rights by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

ISSUE Was the accused during the investigation being denied his opportunity to counsel and

who not been warned of his constitutional right to keep silent a violation of the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments, therefore could not be convicted of this crime. Also as a result of

being denied his right could a confession be used in trial since he was denied his right?

DECISION The State Supreme Court overruled the decision stating he was not given his

rights to consult with his attorney which violated the 5th and 6th amendments.

Legal Assignment 2

REASON In this particular case the suspect Danny was focused on as being accused without a

proper investigation. Not allowing Mr. to speak with his attorney prior to him making

incriminating statements cannot be admissible as evidence in this trial. By a five to four margin

the court deemed Escobedo’s confession inadmissible and overturned his conviction.  Justice

Arthur Goldberg stated that when Escobedo asked to speak with his attorney and was denied, the

investigation should have ceased to be a general investigation of an unsolved crime.