Free Essays on Escobedo

ESCOBEDO VS. ILLINOIS History: The Supreme Court case, Escobedo v. Illinois in 1964, involved the violations of a person’s right to counsel and of a person’s right to remain silent after being arrested for a crime. Facts: Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken into police headquarters for interrogation in connection with the murder of his brother-in-law. While being held, Escobedo made several attempts to see his lawyer, who was present in the building, but he was denied the right to access him. During this interrogation, the police also failed to advise him of his right to remain silent, and after persistent questioning by the police, he made a self-incriminating statement which was admitted during the trial and helped to convict him of murder. Issues: 1.Does this case violate the 5th Amendment, which gives the suspect the right not to self-incriminate oneself. 2.Does the case violate the 6th Amendment, which prohibits the accused from being denied the right to counsel? 3.Does this case violate the 14th Amendment, which gives the accused the right to due process? Decisions: 1.Yes, the Court ruled that, under the 5th Amendment right of Escobedo had been violated. 2. Yes, the Court ruled that no system worth preserving should have to fear a person’s right to use counsel. 3. Yes, the court ruled that Escobedo had not received his due process. Reasoning: The majority opinion, written by Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, struck down Escobedo’s conviction by a narrow vote of 5 to 4. Justice Byron R. White wrote the minority opinion which said that the right to counsel â€Å"now not only entitles the accused to counsel’s advice and aid in preparing for trial, but stands as an impenetrable barrier to any interrogation once the accused has become a suspect.†... Free Essays on Escobedo Free Essays on Escobedo ESCOBEDO VS. ILLINOIS History: The Supreme Court case, Escobedo v. Illinois in 1964, involved the violations of a person’s right to counsel and of a person’s right to remain silent after being arrested for a crime. Facts: Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken into police headquarters for interrogation in connection with the murder of his brother-in-law. While being held, Escobedo made several attempts to see his lawyer, who was present in the building, but he was denied the right to access him. During this interrogation, the police also failed to advise him of his right to remain silent, and after persistent questioning by the police, he made a self-incriminating statement which was admitted during the trial and helped to convict him of murder. Issues: 1.Does this case violate the 5th Amendment, which gives the suspect the right not to self-incriminate oneself. 2.Does the case violate the 6th Amendment, which prohibits the accused from being denied the right to counsel? 3.Does this case violate the 14th Amendment, which gives the accused the right to due process? Decisions: 1.Yes, the Court ruled that, under the 5th Amendment right of Escobedo had been violated. 2. Yes, the Court ruled that no system worth preserving should have to fear a person’s right to use counsel. 3. Yes, the court ruled that Escobedo had not received his due process. Reasoning: The majority opinion, written by Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, struck down Escobedo’s conviction by a narrow vote of 5 to 4. Justice Byron R. White wrote the minority opinion which said that the right to counsel â€Å"now not only entitles the accused to counsel’s advice and aid in preparing for trial, but stands as an impenetrable barrier to any interrogation once the accused has become a suspect.†...