The case of Escobedo V. Illinois set the precedent for the sixth amendment, which is the right to a counsel. It guaranteed that if a person is arrested then they must be informed of their legal rights, which gives them the right to remain silent. When Danny Escobedo was arrested in connection for the shooting of one of his relatives he received an 18-hour interrogation and was later released for not making any self-incriminating statements. Another suspect was later arrested and told police that Escobedo had committed the murder. He was then once again arrested and this time interrogated through the entire night. His attorney had been repeatedly denied permission to talk to his client. Escobedo as well had repeatedly asked to see his lawyer and was told by police that his attorney did not want to see him. He was also never told that he had the right to remain silent. This was clearly a violation of Escobedo's sixth and fourteenth amendment rights in which to have a counsel present and that it is obligatory. Escobedo ended up subsequently confessing to the murders under interrogation and was convicted.
Once convicted of murder he appealed to the Supreme Court and it overturned the conviction. The court ruled 5-4 to upend the conviction because the police investigation had been a total infringement on Escobedo's sixth amendment rights. Thus the case against him was ruled unconstitutional. The court ruling went into detail to describe any case of this nature where the suspect is not informed of their rights and the right to a counsel is a violation of the Sixth Amendment. This case set the precedent for future cases because it would guarantee any suspect their constitutional rights when arrested. It might have done the most to emphasize that a suspect has the right to remain silent.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document