3/30/2019 Escobedo v.

Illinois | Oyez

Escobedo v. Illinois
PETITIONER RESPONDENT

Danny Escobedo Illinois

LOCATION

Chicago Police Department

DOCKET NO. DECIDED BY

615 Warren Court (/courts?court=Warren Court )

CITATION

378 US 478 (1964)
(https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/378/478)

ARGUED

Apr 29, 1964

DECIDED

Jun 22, 1964

Facts of the case

Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police
station for questioning. Over several hours, the police
refused his repeated requests to see his lawyer. Escobedo
subsequently confessed to murder. Escobedo appealed
the a rmation of his conviction of murder by the
Supreme Court of Illinois, which held that petitioner's
confession had been admissible even though it was
obtained after he had requested and been denied the
assistance of counsel.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/615 1/3
3/30/2019 Escobedo v. Illinois | Oyez

Question
Was Escobedo denied the right to counsel as guaranteed
by the Sixth Amendment?

Conclusion
Sort:  by seniority by ideology
5–4 DECISION FOR ESCOBEDO

MAJORITY OPINION BY ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG

Hugo L. Black
Tom C. ClarkWilliam J. Brennan,
Byron R.Jr.White

rl Warren William O. Douglas

John M. Harlan
Potter
II Stewart
Arthur J. G

As soon as someone is in the custody of law enforcement,

he or she has a Sixth Amendment right to speak to an
attorney. 
In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Goldberg, the Court
ruled that Escobedo’s Sixth Amendment rights had been
violated. The Court reasoned that the period between
arrest and indictment was a critical stage at which an
accused needed the advice of counsel perhaps more than
at any other. A suspect who was being interrogated by
police while in custody, who had not been warned of his
right to remain silent, and who had requested and been
denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer, had
been denied the assistance of counsel in violation of the
Sixth Amendment. Any statement elicited under such
circumstances could not be used against him at a
criminal trial. The Court therefore reversed Escobedo’s
judgment and remanded for further proceedings. 
Justice Harlan dissented, opining that the judgment of
the Supreme Court of Illinois should be a rmed because
the majority's conclusion would unjusti ably fetter
legitimate methods of criminal law enforcement.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/615 2/3
3/30/2019 Escobedo v. Illinois | Oyez
Justice Stewart dissented on the grounds that the right to
assistance of counsel should not attach until the formal
institution of proceedings by indictment, information, or
arraignment, and that the majority's holding would have
an unfortunate impact on the fair administration of
criminal justice.
Justice White, joined by Clark and Stewart, dissented on
the grounds that the majority's decision will be
applicable whenever the accused becomes a suspect,
rendering admissions to the police inadmissible unless
the accused waives his right to counsel and rendering the
task of law enforcement more di cult.

Cite this page

APA Bluebook Chicago MLA
"Escobedo v. Illinois." Oyez, 30 Mar. 2019, www.oyez.org/cases/1963/615.

Report an error (/feedback?referer=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/615)

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/615 3/3