Court Opinion

ID: 9884450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:57:42.182684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:38.624968
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Schaefer dissenting: In my opinion the joint statement that was taken in question and answer form by an assistant State’s Attorney was inadmissible under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, whether the opinion in that case is read broadly or narrowly. For many reasons one who is being interrogated concerning a crime may prefer not to consult with counsel, and so it is not always implausible to hold that a mature defendant waives his right to counsel when he fails to assert it. It may well be that interrogation by a prosecuting attorney ordinarily has advantages over police interrogation, but in this case the attorney for the prosecution was not called in until the police officers had concluded their interrogation and had secured admissions. This defendant was fifteen years old and in eighth grade. Whatever may have been the situation during his interrogation by police officers, this defendant’s right to counsel certainly attached when the prosecution found it necessary to use an attorney in questioning him. At least at that point he was entitled to be told that he need not answer questions, and to be advised of his right to counsel.