|
Abstract
| Argument: |
Wednesday, April 29, 1964
|
| Decision: |
Monday, June 22, 1964 |
| Issues: |
Criminal Procedure, Right to Counsel |
| Categories: |
criminal, right to counsel, sixth amendment |
|
Advocates
|
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's lawyer sought unsuccessfully to consult with his client. Escobedo subsequently confessed to murder.
Question
Was Escobedo denied the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment?
Conclusion
Yes. Justice Goldberg, in his majority opinion, spoke for the first time of "an absolute right to remain silent." Escobedo had not been adequately informed of his consitutitonal right to remain silent rather than to be forced to incriminate himself. The case has lost authority as precedent as the arguments in police interrogation and confession cases have shifted from the Sixth Amendment to the Fifth Amendment, emphasizing whether the appropriate warnings have been given and given correctly, and whether the right to remain silent has been waived.