Escobedo V. Illinois Case Study

In the case of Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), the suspect was also not told of his right to remain silent but he was aware of his right to have a lawyer present during interrogation, which he repeatedly requested but was repeatedly denied. Even though Escobedo's lawyer was in the police station, the police would not allow Escobedo to speak to his lawyer since he had not been formally charged with a crime but was in police custody. After several hours of interrogation, Escobedo confessed to the crime without having his lawyer present. Justice Goldberg states that “Escobedo was denied the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment” (Escobedo v. Illionois, 1964). Being denied the right to speak or consult with a lawyer during an interrogation while in police custody makes all statements made by the suspect inadmissible in court. …show more content…
The police officers are in clear violation of the suspected drug trafficker's rights as afforded to him by the Miranda Rights. Once the suspected drug trafficker was placed in police custody, his Miranda Rights should have been read to him. While in police custody, the suspected drug trafficker was interrogated without being given his Miranda Warning and, any statements that he made would be inadmissible in a court of law. During the suspected drug trafficker's interrogation, he had the right to have a lawyer present and if he could not afford a lawyer, one would be appointed for him (Miranda Warnings and Police Questioning – FindLaw, n.d.). Since the suspected drug trafficker was not given his Miranda Rights until two hours from when the police officers began their raid and subsequent search of the apartment, all statements made by the suspect, and all evidence found in the apartment during the search, are not admissible in a court of

Show More

Related Documents: Escobedo V. Illinois Case Study

Argumentative Essay: Warren Court And The 4th Amendment