History Now. Interactive History

	Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

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.


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



		US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg


		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 constitutional right to remain silent, and was forced to incriminate himself. The case has lost authority as a precedent since recent arguments in police interrogation and confession cases have shifted from the Sixth Amendment to the Fifth Amendment, emphasizing appropriate warnings and the waiver of the right to remain silent.



		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 from the moment that someone becomes a primary suspect. For a full summary of this case, go to: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_615/