ILLINOISHistory: The Supreme Court case, Escobedo v. Illinois in 1964,involved the violations of a persons right to counsel and of a persons rightto remain silent after being arrested for a crime.Facts: Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken into policeheadquarters for interrogation in connection with the murder of hisbrother-in-law. While being held, Escobedo made several attempts to see hislawyer, who was present in the building, but he was denied the right to accesshim. During this interrogation, the police also failed to advise him of his rightto remain silent, and after persistent questioning by the police, he made aself-incriminating statement which was admitted during the trial and helped toconvict him of murder.Issues: 1.Does this case violate the 5th Amendment, which gives the suspect the right not to self-incriminate oneself. 2.Does the case violate the 6th Amendment, which prohibits the accused from being denied the right to counsel? 3.Does this case violate the 14th Amendment, which gives the accused the right to due process?Decisions: 1.Yes, the Court ruled that, under the 5th Amendment rightof Escobedo had been violated. 2. Yes, the Court ruled that no system worthpreserving should have to fear a persons right to use counsel. 3. Yes, thecourt ruled that Escobedo had not received his due process.Reasoning: The majority opinion, written by Justice Arthur J.Goldberg, struck down Escobedos conviction by a narrow vote of 5 to 4.Justice Byron R. White wrote the minority opinion which said that the right tocounsel now not only entitles the accused to counsels advice and aid inpreparing for trial, but stands as an impenetrable barrier to any interrogationonce the accused has become a suspect....
