Court Opinion

ID: 9453580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:17:56.983133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:43.207005
License: Public Domain

FREEDMAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
To me the record in this case shows that the government agents spoke the formal words of the defendant’s right to counsel and to remain silent but in effect took advantage of him. They knew that he wished to consult counsel and that he seemed to believe that there was a difference between the effect of a written and an oral statement. Instead of explaining to him the similar effect of either form of statement they pressed him for the oral statement when they must have realized that if they obtained it from him his right to the advice of counsel regarding a statement would be lost. I believe it was the duty of the government agents, knowing that defendant wished to consult with counsel before he would give them a written statement, to make abundantly clear to him the absence of any substantial difference in incriminating effect between a written and an oral statement.
This case is governed by Escobedo v. State of Illinois1 and' the protection which it gives to a defendant requires observance of its spirit and not mere lip service. The rights which Escobedo and now Miranda 2 confer on defendants may appear at times to police officers as an impediment and we should not encourage their circumvention of these protections *139by ritual or formula which disregards their substance.
As I view the record the government did not comply with the spirit of the requirements of Escobedo and the oral statement therefore was not admissible against defendant. I would therefore reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.

. 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964).

. Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).