Escobedo+v.+Illinois


 * Year:** 1964 1/1


 * Summary:** On January 16th, Danny Escobedo was taken into custody without a warrent, for the fatal shooting of his brother-in-law. Danny was liberated later that day on the courts APOSTROPHE agreement on habeas corpus attained by his lawyer. Another suspect taken into custody later on that month, named Escobedo the killer. Shortly after, Escobedo was taken back into custody. The petitioner requested an audience with his lawyer but he was denied every requisition. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? EXPLAIN Moreover, the "right to remain silent" was never stated to Escobedo, not to mention the fact that this interrogation took place before he was formally accused. Later on he was sent into court and convicted of murder. He appealed to the State Supreme Court and his accusation was attested. 4/5

4/5
 * Constitutional Issue:** The actions taken in this court case were in direct violation of the constitution. He was denied council with his lawyer, uninformed of his right to remain silent, and interrogated before formal accusation. This was in violation of both the fifth and sixth amendments. By interrogating before prosecution and and failing to inform the petitioner his right to remain silent, he was forced into self incrimination. Deprival of council is just a concrete violation of sixth amendment. YOUR ARE GIVING THE RULING WHEN YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SIMPLY POSING THE QUESTION - WERE ESCOBEDO'S FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED? SAVE ANSWER FOR NEXT SECTION


 * Decision:** Basically, Escobedo admitted to something he shouldn't have and it was brought up in the court. This was a big thing leading to his conviction. He was convicted with a 5-4 vote. NO - THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED THE CONVICTION 2/5


 * Significance:** I really makes it seem as though the court system needs an overhaul on its monitoring. It worries me how many people might have been falsely prosecuted.

YOU ARE BEING WAY TO VAGUE - YOU NEED TO BE SPECIFIC. THIS CASE LED TO MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, AND MADE IT SO THAT SUSPECTS HAD TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO A LAWYER MADE CLEAR TO THEM. ALSO, THIS CASE LED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SOMETHING CALLED THE MIRANDA RULE

3/5


 * Bibliography:**

2/2

(n.d.). //Escobedo v. illinois//. Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=378&invol=478 (n.d.). //Escobedo v. illinois//. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0378_0478_ZS.html

2/2

YOU ARE MIXED UP ON THE DECISION AND REALLY DON'T GIVE A CLEAR PICTURE OF WHY THIS CASE WAS IMPORTANT

18/25 = 72% (D)