Escobedo v Illinois Flashcards

Facts of Escobedo v. Illinois

• The petitioner was arrested as a suspect in his brother-in-law's murder.
• He requested to speak with his attorney, who arrived shortly after his arrest.
• Police denied the attorney access, claiming the questioning was incomplete.
• The petitioner was not informed of his right to remain silent prior to interrogation.
• He was convicted of murder, and the Supreme Court of Illinois upheld the conviction.
• Certiorari was granted to review the case.

Legal Issue

• The case questioned whether a suspect is denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment when:
  • They are in police custody.
  • Their request to see an attorney is not fulfilled.
  • They are not informed of their right to remain silent during interrogation.

Outcome and Significance

• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, reversing the conviction and remanding the case.
• The ruling emphasized the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective counsel.
• The interrogation practices were deemed inappropriate as they focused on the petitioner as a suspect without allowing legal counsel.
• Incriminating statements made during the interrogation could not be used as evidence due to this violation of rights.

Explore the key facts and legal principles of the case Escobedo v Illinois. This quiz will help you understand the implications of the right to counsel and the Miranda rights during police interrogations. Perfect for law students and anyone interested in criminal justice.