The relationship between the Escobedo and Miranda laws is as follows: The Escobedo law came into effect because he was denied an attorney, thus his confession to his crime of murder was thrown out. In the Miranda case, his confession was also inadmissible because he was not aware of his rights to self-incrimination. The impact of both decisions made the law seem to protect the innocent and the guilty, that is why you are “innocent” until proven guilty. No one was allowed to talk to police without a lawyer present due to the possibility of police changing the words around, or the suspect not understating their rights to remain silent. Two years after the Miranda ruling, Congress passed Title 18 Statue 3501, which appeared to override Miranda and return to the voluntariness standard. This new statue affected the Miranda ruling because as long as the criminal’s confession was deemed voluntary under the due process voluntariness test, the confession is admissible even if it was obtained before the person was read his or her Miranda warnings. These laws do both to protect individual rights and at the same time, provide loop holes for criminals. Everyone taken into custody needs to know their Constitutional rights to protect themselves from self incrimination. However, criminals can use this as a means to get away with a crime. For example the U.S. v. Dickerson case. Mr. Dickerson confessed to robbing a bank, but then later stated he was not read his rights, making the confession inadmissible in a court of law.