The Facts: ???
The constitutional question: ???
The decision: ???
2006-12-04 01:09:22 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Escobedo shot his brother-in-law. The police interregated him and released him. Later a witness told police Escobedo fired the gun. Escobedo was questioned again, and while confronting the witness implicated himself. This all occured without a lawyer.
The Supreme Court overturned Escobedo's conviction and recognized a suspect's right to an attorney during police interrogation. The distinction between pre- and post-indictment to be immaterial, since the police and prosecutor elicited a confession after they'd already gotten the damning statement necessary to indict Escobedo. The court had already recognized a right to counsel after indictment in Gideon v. Wainwright. Extending that precedent, it interpreted the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to counsel as applying to defendants from the time they become primary suspects.
2006-12-06 07:36:21 · answer #1 · answered by Woody 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Escobedo V Illinois Summary
2016-11-07 05:25:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋