Question: Stromberg v. California and Escobedo v. Illinois are both court cases that appeared before what judicial court?
Context: The abbreviation "DWI" stands for driving while intoxicated, closely related to the "DUI" abbreviation, standing for driving under the influence.  Driving While Intoxicated court cases are extremely serious violations and are thus handled in a strict manner.  A controversy that comes along with trying "DWI" court cases is whether or not the court will rule the incident as a "crime of violence".  If a court rules the incident as a "crime of violence", it then becomes classified as an "aggravated" felony.  If an offender has been sentenced with an aggravated felony, they are now subjected to immigration and possible deportation, depending upon their citizenship.  It is clear that "DWI" court cases have the extremely important responsibility of classifying whether a case is a "crime of violence", in order to determine the severity of the offenders sentence. Danny Escobedo (born c. 1937) was a Chicago petitioner in the Supreme Court case of "Escobedo v. Illinois", which established a criminal suspect's right to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning.  This case was an important precedent to the famous "Miranda v. Arizona" decision. Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs is the name of two cases of the Singapore courts, a High Court decision delivered in 1989 and the 1990 judgment in the appeal from that decision to the Court of Appeal.  The cases were concerned with the constitutionality of amendments made to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and the Internal Security Act ("ISA") in 1989.  The latter statute authorizes detention without trial on security grounds.  These amendments had the effect of changing the law on judicial review of executive discretion under the ISA by re-establishing the subjective test enunciated in the 1971 High Court decision "Lee Mau Seng v. Minister for Home Affairs" which had been overruled in 1988 by "Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs", and limiting the right of judicial review to ensuring compliance with procedures specified in the ISA.  In other words, the amendments were intended to render the exercise of power by the President and the Minister for Home Affairs under the ISA to detain persons without trial not justiciable by the courts.  Both the High Court and Court of Appeal found that these amendments were constitutional because Parliament had done nothing more than enact the rule of law relating to the law applicable to judicial review.  Thus, the amendments validly operated to deprive the applicant Teo Soh Lung of the ability to apply to the courts for judicial review. The Court of Appeals of the Philippines (Filipino: "Hukuman ng Apelasyon ng Pilipinas" ) is the Philippines' second-highest judicial court, just after the Supreme Court.  The court consists of 69 Associate Justices and 1 Presiding Justice.  Under the Constitution, the Court of Appeals (CA) "reviews not only the decisions and orders of the Regional Trial Courts nationwide but also those of the Court of Tax Appeals, as well as the awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of, or authorized by 21 Quasi-Judicial Agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions mentioned in Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, plus the National Amnesty Commission (Pres. Proclamation No. 347 of 1994) and Office of the Ombudsman (Fabian v. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470).  Under RA 9282, which elevated the CTA to the same level of the CA, CTA "en banc" decisions are now subject to review by the Supreme Court instead of the CA (as opposed to what is currently provided in Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court).  Added to the formidable list are the decisions and resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which are now initially reviewable by this court, instead of a direct recourse to the Supreme Court, via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, 295 SCRA 414)". Stephen P. Halbrook is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and an author and lawyer known for his litigation on behalf of the National Rifle Association.  He has written extensively about the original meanings of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment (the latter as applied to Second Amendment rights).  He has argued and won three cases before the US Supreme Court: "Printz v. United States", "United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company", and "Castillo v. United States".  He has also written briefs in many other cases, including the Supreme Court cases "Small v. United States" (pertaining to the Gun Control Act of 1968) and "McDonald v. Chicago".  In "District of Columbia v. Heller", he wrote a brief on behalf of the majority of both houses of Congress.  More broadly, his decades of research on the Second Amendment contributed to the intellectual foundation of the "Heller" decision.  He has written many books and articles on the topic of gun control, some of which have been cited in Supreme Court opinions ("Heller", "McDonald", "Printz v. United States").  He has testified before congress on multiple occasions.  Halbrook’s most important scholarly contribution, however, was the book "That Every Man Be Armed", originally published in 1986.  The book was the most thorough analysis of the legal history and original intent of the Second Amendment. Elizabeth Freeman ( 1744December 28, 1829), also known as Bet or MumBet, was the first black slave to file and win a freedom suit in Massachusetts.  The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling, in Freeman's favor, found slavery to be inconsistent with the 1780 Massachusetts State Constitution.  Her suit, "Brom and Bett v. Ashley" (1781), was cited in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court appellate review of Quock Walker's freedom suit.  When the court upheld Walker's freedom under the state's constitution, the ruling was considered to have implicitly ended slavery in Massachusetts. Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 7–2 that a 1919 California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.  This decision is considered a landmark in the history of First Amendment constitutional law, as it was one of the first cases where the Court extended the Fourteenth Amendment to include a protection of the substance of the First Amendment, in this case symbolic speech or "expressive conduct", from state infringement. Hollingsworth v. Perry refers to a series of United States federal court cases that legalized same-sex marriage in the State of California.  The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law.  This decision overturned ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage.  After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court.  The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively.  As "Hollingsworth v. Perry", it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so. During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (March 4, 1874 through March 23, 1888), the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases.  In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice.  Notable cases include "United States v. Cruikshank" (1875), "United States v. Reese" (1875), "Reynolds v. United States" (1878), "Wilkerson v. Utah" (1879), the "Trade-Mark Cases" (1879), "Strauder v. West Virginia" (1880), "Pace v. Alabama" (1883), "United States v. Harris" (1883), "Ex parte Crow Dog" (1883), "Hurtado v. California" (1884), "Clawson v. United States" (1885), "Yick Wo v. Hopkins" (1886), "United States v. Kagama" (1886), "Ker v. Illinois" (1886), and "Mugler v. Kansas" (1887). Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment.  The case was decided a year after the court held in "Gideon v. Wainwright", 372 U.S. 335 (1963) that indigent criminal defendants had a right to be provided counsel at trial.
Answer: United States Supreme Court