Summary Of The Ecobedo Vs. Illinois Case

It is because of the decision of the Escobedo v. Illinois court that law enforcement officers are no longer able to rely on forced confessions in order to establish guilt in a criminal case. The Escobedo case enabled the country to take one giant step forward in the honesty and integrity of police investigations. It sent a message to police officers that coercive and unjust police tactics would no longer be tolerated. The Escobedo v. Illinois decision had positive repercussions in changing the climate of police investigations across the country.

On the night of January 19, 1960, Danny Escobedo’s brother-in-law was shot. Eleven days later, Escobedo and his sister were brought to Illinois Police Department headquarters for questioning on this

If you're innocent until a jury reaches a finding of guilt, one should be allowed to an attorney. It goes along with a fundamental theme of the constitution and the criminal justice system. Giving one the right to confer with counsel prior to making an incriminating statement is an inevitable right granted by the constitution and deeply rooted in our bill of rights mainly the sixth and fourteenth amendments. The sixth amendment protects the rights of the accused “to have the assistance of counsel” (Bill of Rights) and the fourteenth amendment says that “all persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens and that states cannot make/enforce any law that denies the privileges of citizenship, or denies life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denies citizens equal protection under the law” (Bill of Rights). The idea of a person being innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental pillar of the legal system. You can’t trust law enforcement to implement and idea; they need framework to actually do it. The constitution creates rights and liberties but they are vague in their implications and applications. Case law is how we determine what the appropriate application of the constitution

Arizona is the largest impact of the Escobedo v. Illinois case. Miranda changed the framework for how the citizen and state, and suspect and police correspond with one another (Crime and Criminal Law 106). According to Crime and Criminal Law, “citizens/suspects now had the right to be told, in a way that they understood, that their rights and person were protected from the abuse of institutional power” (106). Although the public is more familiar with Miranda, Escobedo is the more significant decision. Escobedo established the right for their constitutional rights to be implemented, Miranda created a framework for implying it in that the police must inform the accused of those rights (106). The Crime and Criminal Law said that “Miranda can be considered the icing on Escobedo’s cake. Escobedo did the work, Miranda got the credit.” (106). Due to Escobedo and Miranda, suspects are now advised of their rights and speak less than they did back before these two cases (Crime and Criminal Law 106). The effect of Miranda v. Arizona were the Miranda rights which stated, (1) he/she has the right to remain silent, (2) whatever the accused says can be used against them in a court of law, (3) the accused has a right to an attorney and if one cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them, (4) the accused has the right to counsel (Escobedo and Miranda 231). Miranda said that statements the accused says before being informed of their rights is inadmissible