Explore the famous civil liberties case, Escobedo v Illinois, from 1964. Read a summary of the case against Escobedo, the ruling and the impact it had in America.
Updated: 11/21/2023
Escobedo v. Illinois | Summary, Ruling & Impact
Table of Contents
Show
Frequently Asked Questions
How did Escobedo v Illinois extend civil liberties?
Escobedo v. Illinois was an important affirmation of due process rights in criminal investigations. It extended the sixth amendment right to counsel further than did Gideon v. Wainwright, the case that led to the expansion of the role of public defender for indigent defendants. Now, defendants not only have the right to legal counsel even if they are unable to afford to retain attorneys, but they have this right from the time of arrest forward. Though the Miranda decision limited this right somewhat by providing for waivers, Escobedo v. Illinois was still an important extension of the right to consult with lawyers in all criminal investigations, helping to guarantee that constitutional rights will be protected.
What was the impact of the ruling Escobedo v Illinois 1964?
The Supreme Court's controversial 5-4 decision in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) interpreted the sixth amendment right to counsel in criminal cases to mean that suspects have the right to attorneys' advice and assistance from the moment of arrest forward. This includes the interrogation phase of criminal investigations. Previously, criminal suspects had only been assured this right at arraignment. But the majority opinion in this ruling emphasized the importance of also having an attorney present during interrogation, since confessions were most likely during this stage. As an extension, incriminating evidence obtained by police without honoring the right to counsel cannot be used by prosecutors in court.
What was the Supreme Court's ruling in Escobedo v Illinois 1964?
In Escobedo v. Illinois (1954), a 5-4 majority of Supreme Court justices ruled that Danny Escobedo's sixth amendent right to counsel had been violated by Chicago police when they interrogated him without granting him access to the attorney he had retained. His Cook County Circuit Court conviction was reversed, since incriminating statements he made without the benefit of legal counsel should not have been admissible evidence at trial.
Table of Contents
ShowOn January 19, 1960, at 2:30 a.m., 22-year-old Danny Escobedo, who had no prior criminal record, was arrested in Cook County and taken to police headquarters in Chicago, Illinois. There was no arrest warrant. Escobedo was accused of fatally shooting his brother-in-law, Manuel, the previous evening. After being interrogated and refusing to make a statement, he was released around 5 P.M. that day after his lawyer, Warren Wolfson, secured a writ of habeas corpus from a state court.
Eleven days later, on January 30, between 8 and 9 p.m., Escobedo was arrested a second time for the shooting. This time, his sister, the widow of the deceased, was also arrested and taken to police headquarters. These arrests followed a statement by Benedict DiGerlando, then in custody, that Escobedo was responsible for the murder. After handcuffing Escobedo and informing him of DiGerlando's accusation, police pressured him to confess. Escobedo was not charged with the crime, but was detained by police and not allowed to leave the ensuing interrogation.
Escobedo repeatedly asked to speak with his lawyer, but each time, his request was denied. Mr. Wolfson later confirmed that, upon his arrival at police headquarters between 9:30 and 10:00 p.m., he asked to see his client but his request was denied. He first spoke with the sergeant on duty at the lockup desk, Sergeant Pidgeon, who told him that Escobedo had been taken to the Homicide Bureau. There, Wolfson was again told by several officers, including Chief Flynn, that, until questioning was completed, he could not see his client. All the while, Escobedo was asking to see his attorney and was being told that Mr. Wolfson did not want to see him.
According to police testimony, Escobedo was challenged by one interrogating officer to confront DiGerlando about his accusation. When Escobedo did so, he stated, "I didn't shoot Manuel, you did it". With no attorney present to advise him to remain silent as allowed by the fifth amendment, Escobedo, for the first time, admitted to having knowledge of the fatal shooting. This made him an accomplice to the crime.
Subsequently, he was not informed of his rights, and gave a statement to Assistant State Attorney Theodore Cooper in which he made more incriminating admissions. Though Escobedo's attorney made several motions to suppress his statement due to the nature of the interrogation, these were denied. Escobedo was indicted by a grand jury. The statement was used against Escobedo at trial, resulting in his conviction for the murder of Manuel, his brother-in-law in the Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court. He was sentenced to serve twenty years in state prison. He appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which upheld the trial court's decision.
Right to Counsel
The Escobedo case underscores the importance of the right to counsel as guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have assistance of counsel (an attorney) for his defense". Right to counsel is also integral to the Constitutional guarantee of due process for criminal defendants as stated in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. The Gideon decision in 1963 had broadened this right to include public defenders for those unable to afford to hire their own attorneys. But even Escobedo, who had retained an attorney, was denied the right to speak with him or to have him present with him during the police interrogation.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
After losing his appeal, Escobedo asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case. His argument was that his sixth amendment right to counsel had been denied during the police interrogation. The state of Illinois countered this claim with the assertion that, under the tenth amendment, states have the authority to decide procedures for criminal investigations within their jurisdictions. Further, defendants maintained, Escobedo's incriminating statement to the Assistant State Attorney had been made voluntarily, even though his attorney was not present. The case was argued before the Court on April 29, 1964.
Two months later, on June 22, the justices ruled 5-4 to reverse Escobedo's conviction, agreeing that his sixth amendment right to counsel, required by the fourteenth amendment in every state, had been violated by the Cook County Circuit Court. This controversial decision moved the marker for criminal suspects' assistance of counsel back from arraignment to interrogation. Further, it specified that a suspect should be considered involuntarily detained, and thus entitled to legal counsel, from the first moment they are not permitted to leave the presence of police.
In Escobedo's case, the Court stated that when Escobedo was denied the right to speak with his attorney, police questioning became much more than just a "general inquiry into an unsolved crime". Rather, when police failed to inform Escobedo of the right to remain silent and refused his request for access to legal counsel, their intent to obtain incriminating evidence was made clear. Writing for the majority, Justice Arthur Goldberg noted that access to legal counsel is imperative during interrogation because of the increased likelihood of confession at this point in the criminal investigation.
With wide media coverage, the Supreme Court decision was criticized by many, particularly police and prosecutors. Dissenting justices Harlan, Stewart, and White agreed with detractors that the ruling would cripple law enforcement's ability to solve crimes. Justices Stewart and White feared that law enforcement investigations would be impeded and that the judicial process would be thwarted. But Justice Goldberg perhaps anticipated this criticism when he wrote, "the refusal of police to honor petitioner's request to consult with his lawyer during the course of an interrogation constitutes denial of the 'Assistance of Counsel' in violation of the sixth amendment to the Constitution as made obligatory by the fourteenth amendment". Thus, the onus is on police to respect, maintain, and uphold citizens' due process rights, including the sixth amendment right to counsel. Further, the Court specified that any incriminating evidence obtained in violation of this essential due process element cannot be used by prosecutors in court.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Escobedo v. Illinois refined protocol for criminal investigations by making a suspect eligible for the assistance of counsel upon arrest, prior to and during interrogation. This marked an important shift in the way police investigations would be conducted going forward. With Escobedo, police were put on notice that fifth and sixth amendment due process rights could not be selectively honored. Rather, the sixth amendment right to counsel was just as important as protection from self incrimination, as specified in the fifth amendment. Both of these protections would later be underscored in the landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. While the "Miranda Rights" would include a provision for suspects to waive these rights, Escobedo was an important expansion of due process rights for criminal defendants.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
While the tenth amendment does grant states the power to pass and enforce criminal statutes as the state of Illinois maintained in Escobedo v. Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in this case put police on notice that they have an obligation under the fourteenth amendment to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of citizens. This is particularly important when it comes to protecting the due process rights as outlined in the fifth and sixth amendments. In Danny Escobedo's case, this did not happen. After being arrested for the murder of his brother-in-law, Escobedo was detained at police headquarters and interrogated for more than fourteen hours without being granted access to the attorney he had retained. His requests to speak with his attorney and those of his attorney to speak with him were repeatedly rebuffed by the officers on duty, denying Escobedo his sixth amendment right to counsel. After police challenged Escobedo to confront another detainee who had accused him of committing the fatal shooting, Escobedo made incriminating statements, having had no access to legal counsel, which were ultimately used by prosecutors to convict him of the murder.
The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the case on Escobedo's appeal, finding in a controversial 5-4 decision that his sixth amendment right to counsel had been denied by the Cook County Circuit Court and wrongly affirmed by the Illinois Supreme Court. Critics' fears that extending the right to counsel to include police interrogations would undermine criminal investigations and the judicial process were overruled. Although the Miranda decision would include a provision for suspects to waive their due process rights, Escobedo marked an important step forward by allowing each criminal defendant the right to consult legal counsel from the moment of arrest.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Additional Info
Introduction
Say you and a friend are driving around on a nice evening. You are stopped by the police and told that a vehicle matching your description was involved in a drive-by shooting earlier. You and your friend are taken into custody and brought to the police station. The police begin to question you, and you ask to speak to an attorney. Whether you committed the crime or not doesn't matter at this point. As a result of Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), the police have to immediately stop asking you questions and let you speak to an attorney.
Case Brief
Danny Escobedo's brother-in-law was killed on January 19, 1960. Escobedo was arrested the next morning and interrogated for several hours. He refused to give a statement to the police and was released. Another suspect in police custody gave a statement to the police indicating that Escobedo killed his brother-in-law because he was mistreating Escobedo's sister.
On January 30, 1960, Escobedo was arrested again. The police told him about the statement that the other suspect made. The police and prosecutors informed Escobedo that though he wasn't formally charged, he was in custody and could not leave. They kept him handcuffed and questioned him for fourteen and a half hours and refused his repeated request to speak with his attorney. Escobedo's attorney went to the police station and asked to speak with Escobedo, and he too was denied.
A Spanish-speaking officer was left alone with Escobedo and allegedly told him that if he blamed the other suspect for the murder, then he would be free to go. Escobedo confronted the suspect at the police department and blamed him for the murder. Though he never confessed, this was the first of several statements that Escobedo made about having knowledge of the crime. Escobedo was charged with murder, and the statements that he made to the police were used against him. Based on those statements, he was convicted. Escobedo appealed based on the fact that he was denied the right to counsel.
Decision
Escobedo initially appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which overturned the conviction, ruling that Escobedo's statements were not admissible. Escobedo understood he would be permitted to go home if he gave the statement and would be granted immunity from prosecution. The state filed a petition for a rehearing, and the Illinois Supreme Court reversed their initial ruling, stating that the officer denied making any promise to Escobedo, and they believed him. They found that his confession was voluntary and reinstated the conviction. Escobedo appealed that ruling to the United States Supreme Court.
After hearing the arguments from both sides, the United States Supreme Court ruled that when a police investigation begins to focus on one person who has requested and been denied counsel, that denial is a violation of the Sixth Amendment, and his statements to police are not admissible. The court reasoned that any system of criminal justice that depends on confessions to establish guilt is a flawed system. The police have an obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens. Once Escobedo asked for and was denied counsel, he was inherently forced to provide evidence against himself, which violates the Constitution.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights. It guarantees, in part, that a person accused of committing a crime shall have a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, shall be informed of the charges against him, shall have the ability to confront witnesses, and shall have the assistance of an attorney for his defense.
Lesson Summary
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) is a famous Supreme Court case on a suspect's right to counsel as outlined in the Sixth Amendment. Danny Escobedo was arrested for the murder of his brother-in-law. While being interrogated, he repeatedly asked to speak with his attorney. His attorney was at the police station and asked to speak with Escobedo. Both requests were denied as the police believed that Escobedo was not entitled to an attorney because, though he was not free to leave, he had not been formally charged.
Escobedo made statements that were later used against him, resulting in him being found guilty. Though the conviction was upheld by the Illinois Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction in part because the police violated Escobedo's rights under the Sixth Amendment.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Register to view this lesson
Are you a student or a teacher?
Unlock Your Education
See for yourself why 30 million people use Study.com
Become a Study.com member and start learning now.
Become a MemberAlready a member? Log In
BackResources created by teachers for teachers
Over 30,000 video lessons
& teaching resources‐all
in one place.
I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. It’s like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. I feel like it’s a lifeline.
Jennifer B.
Teacher
Back
Escobedo v. Illinois | Summary, Ruling & Impact
Related Study Materials
Explore our library of over 88,000 lessons
Browse by subject