Opinion ID: 2224284
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alteration of Wisconsin Interpretation of Escobedo.

Text: Holloway also argues that if the circumstances of this case, with or without the evidence supplied by the post-trial affidavits, do not compel the application of Escobedo, then this court should modify its interpretation of Escobedo so as to include the facts of this case. Holloway contends that this is required by the holding in Miranda v. Arizona. [7] Miranda articulates certain procedural safeguards which must be employed before statements made during interrogation and prior to trial will be admissible in court. That decision was made prospective only and applicable to statements offered at trials commencing after June 13, 1966. [8] Although Escobedo was in effect at the time of this trial and Miranda was not, we see no good reason for altering our interpretation of Escobedo in the light of Miranda or otherwise.