Escobedo asked to speak to his lawyer, but the police refused. They said that although he was not formally charged with a crime yet, he was in police custody and could not leave. Escobedo's lawyer went to the police station and asked many times to see Escobedo, but was not allowed to.
Police and prosecutors interrogated Escobedo for fifteen hours. They made Escobedo stand, handcuffed, for the entire time. Escobedo continued to ask to speak with his lawyer, and they continued to refuse. Escobedo later said that the police promised him he could go free, and would not be charged with murder, if he just confessed to the crime. Finally, after "becoming more emotional," Escobedo said something about being connected with the crime. The police took this as an indirect confession.
At his murder trial, the prosecution used Escobedo's 'confession' as its most important evidence against him. A jury convicted Escobedo of murder and sentenced him to 20 years in prison.
Escobedo appealed his conviction to the Illinois Supreme Court. His trial lawyer refused to help him, so Escobedo wrote the appeal himself. However, after the Supreme Court got his appeal, he did receive a volunteer lawyer named Barry Kroll. Together, they argued that Escobedo's right to a lawyer had been violated and that his confession had been coerced (made because of pressure, lies, and threats).
At first, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed, and decided to give Escobedo a whole new trial. But later, it reversed its decision. The members of the court had changed their minds and decided Escobedo was guilty after all. They refused to reverse or change the original trial court's sentence.
Finally, Kroll and Escobedo appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear the case.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ... the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
The Court had already decided that people had the right to a lawyer during "trials". However, the Court had always thought that the Sixth Amendment's right to a lawyer applied to people only "after" they were "accused," once they were already "in... criminal prosecutions," as the Amendment itself says.
Now the Court had to decide:
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) helped Kroll argue before the Court. They argued that the police violated not only Escobedo's Sixth Amendment rights, but also his Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment says that no state can take away any person's "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws." Escobedo's team argued that the police took away his freedom without due process or equal protection of the laws by:
Lawyers for Illinois argued that the police officers did the right thing when they refused to let Escobedo have a lawyer. According to the law and past Supreme Court cases, the right to a lawyer was not guaranteed until a person had actually been charged with a crime.
Illinois also argued that if the Court ruled in favor of Escobedo, the results for law enforcement could be terrible. If lawyers had to be at every interrogation, it would be almost impossible to get confessions.
The "Escobedo" case divided the Supreme Court. By a vote of 5-4, the Court ruled in favor of Escobedo. They threw out his conviction, and he went free.
The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment does apply to police interrogations. In other words, people have the right to a lawyer when they are being questioned by the police.
Specifically, the Court ruled that the right to a lawyer begins before a person is charged with a crime. It begins when the police start treating a person like a suspect.
Justice Arthur J. Goldberg wrote the Court's majority opinion. He rejected the state of Illinois' argument that having lawyers around would be terrible for law enforcement. He wrote:
The "Escobedo" decision affected every police department, prosecutor, and court in the country:
"Escobedo" also added extra protections for suspects. It allows them to use their Sixth Amendment right to a lawyer as soon as they become a suspect, not just after they are charged with a crime.
Caldwell catalogue
The Caldwell catalogue is an astronomical catalogue of 109 objects. It includes star clusters, nebulae, and galaxies for observation by amateur astronomers. The list was compiled by English astronomer Patrick Moore as a complement to the Messier catalogue.
The Messier catalogue is used by amateur astronomers as a list of deep-sky objects for observation. However, it was not compiled for that purpose. It does not include many of the sky's brightest deep-sky objects, such as the Hyades, the Double Cluster (NGC 869 and NGC 884), and the Sculptor Galaxy (NGC 253). The Messier catalogue was compiled as a list of known objects that might be confused with comets. As Messier got his list from observations in Paris, it did not include bright deep-sky objects visible in the Southern Hemisphere, such as Omega Centauri, Centaurus A, the Jewel Box, and 47 Tucanae.
So Moore compiled a list of 109 objects – to match the accepted number of Messier objects. The list was published in "Sky & Telescope" in December 1995.
Sunflower galaxy
The Sunflower galaxy (Messier 63 or NGC 5055) is a spiral galaxy in the constellation of Canes Venatici. It is about 37 million light-years away from Earth.
NGC 6334
NGC 6334 is an emission nebula and star-forming region in the constellation of Scorpius. It is about 5,500 light-years away from Earth.
NGC 1291
NGC 1291 is a ring galaxy in the constellation of Eridanus. It is about 33 million light-years away.
Ring galaxy
A ring galaxy is a kind of galaxy that has a ring shape. Hoag's Object and NGC 1291 are two examples. The ring is made up of many massive, young blue stars, which are extremely bright. The middle of the galaxy contains far less luminous matter.
Some astronomers believe that ring galaxies are formed when a smaller galaxy passes through the center of a larger galaxy. Because galaxies are mostly made up of empty space, a collision rarely happens between stars. However, the gravitational disruptions could cause a wave of star formation to move through the larger galaxy. Other astronomers think that rings are formed around some galaxies when an accretion disc is formed. Star formation would then result from the shocks and compressions in the newly formed disc.
United States district court
The United States district courts are the trial courts of the federal court system.
United States district courts hold trials, like state courts do. However, the Constitution only gives federal courts the power to hear certain kinds of cases. For example, federal courts can hear cases about:
Each trial is heard by a judge and decided by a jury.
There are 94 U.S. district courts in the United States. Every district court also includes a bankruptcy court.
Each state (and Washington, D.C.) has at least one district court. So do four U.S. territories: Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
The next-most powerful federal courts are the United States Courts of Appeals. They are also called "appellate courts." There are 13 Courts of Appeals. The 94 district courts are organized into 12 larger areas, called "circuits." Each Court of Appeals deals with appeals filed in their circuit.
For example, the Districts of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico are grouped together into the "First Circuit." If, for example, somebody wanted to appeal a decision made by the District Court of Massachusetts, they would write an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The last choice for appealing a court decision is to file an appeal asking the United States Supreme Court to hear the case.