Escobedo v. Illinois

***Escobedo v. Illinois***, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided in 1964.  The Court ruled that suspects in crimes have the right to have a lawyer with them while they are being questioned by the police.  This case was decided just a year after the Court ruled in *Gideon v. Wainwright*, , that indigent (poor) criminal defendants had a right to be assigned free lawyers at trial.

## Background
### Crime and arrests
Danny Escobedo's brother-in-law, Manuel Valtierra, was shot and killed on the night of January 19, 1960. Escobedo was arrested without a warrant early the next morning and interrogated.  However, Escobedo did not admit anything to the police, and was let go that afternoon.  

Another man named Benedict DiGerlando had also arrested, and the police thought he was another suspect.  DiGerlando told the police that Escobedo's brother-in-law, Valtierra, treated Escobedo's sister badly.  Because of this, Escobedo had shot and killed Valtierra, said DiGerlando.  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.

Finally, Kroll and Escobedo appealed to the United States Supreme Court.  The Court agreed to hear the case. 

## Supreme Court
### Legal questions
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that "In all criminal , 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,"  They argued that the police violated not only Escobedo's Sixth Amendment rights, but also his Fourteenth Amendment rights.  Escobedo's team argued that the police took away his freedom without due process or equal protection of the laws by:

Justice Arthur J. Goldberg wrote the Court's majority opinion.  He  the state of Illinois' argument that having lawyers around would be terrible for law enforcement.  He wrote:

## Importance
The *Escobedo* decision affected every police department, prosecutor, and court in the country:
* Police departments had to change their rules and their ways of getting confessions.  Now they have to make sure that if a suspect asks for a lawyer, he gets one
* Before using confessions in court, prosecutors now have to make sure that the suspect had a lawyer with him when he gave the confession
* Courts now had different rules about how to decide whether a confession is admissible (whether it can be used as evidence in court).  If police refuse to let a suspect talk to a lawyer, anything the suspect says after that is inadmissible.  It cannot be used as evidence that the suspect is guilty.

*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.

## Notes
## Related pages
**Gideon v. Wainwright*
**Miranda v. Arizona* (requires police to tell suspects about their rights before questioning them)
* Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
* Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
** Due process

## References