Apus Court Cases: Escobedo V Illinois

V o lu m e 1 , I s s u e 1

Lange

U NTOLD S TORIES ESCOBEDO By Nicole Sueda In this case Escobedo argued that the way he was convicted of murder was not legal. His lawyer argued that the police failed to inform him of his constitutional rights and that they went against the sixth and fourteenth amendments while interrogating him. They wanted the courts to dismiss the information that the police learned about while interrogating him. Escobedo is a 22-year-old man of Mexican extraction. He was arrested on January 20, 1960 and taken to police headquarters to be interrogated about the fatal shooting of his brother-in-law. The police obtained no warrant to arrest him. While at the police station Mr. Cooper the Assistant State’s Attorney did not inform Escobedo of his constitutional rights. Also when Escobedo wanted to speak to his lawyer he was told that he did not want to speak to him, this information was false. In actuality his lawyer tried many times to get in contact with Escobedo. This lawyer actually saw Esco-

WHAT

V.

ILLINOIS

Escobedo taken on January 30, 1960 charged with the murder of brotherin-law- Manuel Escobedo. http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine

bedo for a few moments before he was escorted to another room, but he was unable to talk to him or sit in the room adjacent to that in which Escobedo was being interrogated. While being interrogated Escobedo confronted DiGerlando (the man who accused Escobedo of killing his brother-in-law) of lying he said, “I didn’t shoot Manuel, you did it.” This and

other statements made by Escobedo were incriminating statements, which were later used against him in court. Escobedo was found guilty of Manuel’s death because, under Illinois law an admission of complicity in the murder plot was legally as damaging as an admission of firing of the fatal shots.

WERE THE VOTES?

By Jacque Anderson With the vote of 5 to 4, the majority of the votes and 4 to the dissent votes, the rule was found guilty. Hugo Black , an Associate justice, voted with the majority. William O. Douglas also voted with the majority, an Associate justice. Other majority voters were Earl Warren, the

Chief Justice, William J. Brennan, Jr., another Associate justice, and finally Arthur J. Goldberg, Associate justice and he wrote an opinion. The dissenting vote all came from the Associate justices. These justices are Tom C. Clark, John M. Harlen, Potter Stewart, and Byron R. White. Some advocates are

Barry L. Kroll, James R. Thompson, Bernard Weisberg . Kroll argued the cause for the petitioner. Thompson argued the cause for the respondent. Weisberg argued the cause for the American Civil Liberties Union, as amicus curiae, urging reversal .

Page 2

V o lu m e 1 , I s s u e 1

INSIDE

ON

ESCOBEDO

By Rukka Suzuki Before the Supreme Court , Daniel Escobedo, a felon who lived in Chicago and was of Mexican heritage, was convicted for first degree murder as an accomplice of the death of his Brother-in-law, Manuel. Before his case, Escobedo was arrested at least twenty-five times with charges ranging from drugs to murder. Escobedo was brought to the police station for questioning at 2:30 am on the morning of January 20,

“To catch the r eader's atte ntion, place an inter estingse ntence or quote from the stor y her e.”

1960, after his brother-in-law was shot and killed the night before. This questioning was without a warrant and he was not released until 5 pm when his attorney Warren Wolfson obtained a writ of habeas corpus. Ten days later Escobedo and his sister were arrested after a man by the name of Benedict DiGerlando told the police that Escobedo was the one that shot and killed Manuel. During this period of time, the police denied him his right to speak to his lawyer repeatedly. Escobedo was thereby deceived into admitting that he was aware that DiGerlando was the one who murdered his brother-in-law. Because he had knowledge of the crime he was sentenced to twenty years in prison. Escobedo, however, knew his sixth and fourteenth amendment rights were violated and appealed to the United http://digital-lifestyles.info The seal of States Supreme

Court. This case lasted from April 29 to June 22, 1964, and during this time Barry Kroll and Donald Haskell with additional help from Bernard Weisberg and Walter Fisher got the case to go in Escobedo’s favor. Since the ruling, he has been on and off jobs and has been arrested most recently in Mexico City in 2001. And was on the U.S. Marshall’s 15 Most Wanted List before he was arrested.

supreme court of the United States.

“Public wonders if the Warren Court is too easy on suspected criminals. “

SOFT

AND CRIME?

By Lindy Shields With the Escobedo v. Illinois decision made, many people are now questioning the propriety of the Supreme Court’s verdict. They are starting to wonder whether the Warren Court is going too far in handing out the right to the accused. They feel that the justices are becoming “soft on crime” and giving an undeserved advantage to the defendant. Some even feel the Court is now preventing the police from doing their job. On the other hand, others feel this will make the police act in a more professional manner. Republicans are making an issue out of the belief that the Court is soft on criminals and that the police are demoralized and are not able to effectively do their job. Bumper stickers are once again materializing, calling for the impeachment of Earl Warren.

http://www.americanfamilytraditions.com/ The Bill of Rights, with a timer.

U n t o ld S to ri e s

W H AT

Page 3

ARE

By Francie On the night of January 30, 1960, Danny Escobedo was arrested and interrogated. Despite Danny’s pleas to talk with his lawyer, Warren Wolfson, police would not allow it. Also in the interrogation room, Escobedo was tricked into incriminating himself. Recently Escobedo took case to the Illinois Supreme Court, then to the U.S Supreme Court, arguing that he was not given his constitutional rights. He is specifically arguing that his Fifth and Sixth amendments were ignored. The 5th amendment states that “no person shall be held to an-

HIS RIGHTS? swer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. Escobedo was not informed that he had a right to remain silent to questions that could incriminate himself. The police also neglected to tell Escobedo of his 6th amendment rights, matrix.ogaming.com/…/FPScreen122204 which is “the right to a speedy and public trial, Sample interrogation room, very secluded and intimidating. mtrix.ogaming.com/ by an impartial jury of the State, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense”.

V O LU N ATA RY G I V E N it was understood that he ble? By Lauren Kaper knew his rights. There was no When Danny Escobedo was physical violence to obtain the arrested on January 30 and statement. The officers that taken into questioning, his picked Escobedo up from his lawyer claims that Escobedo home inform him that they had been forced into a conhave evidence against him. A fession of the murder of his great question has been brother-in-law. However, the raised to the Supreme Court: confession was obtained volIf a suspect has been read his untarily. The police remained rights, yet still makes a statetheir persistent efforts to gain ment to the police, why this information. A statement should that not be admissiwas given by Escobedo while he was in police custody, while many believe that the statement was not given voluntarily. Escobedo did not have an attorney present; however, he had knowledge that his John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice that served attorney was from 1955-1971. Marshall served to find justice present in the for Escobedo. http://www. building, and americanfamilytraditions.com/

“Efforts to gain this information. A statement was given by Escobedo “

La n g e

Untold Stories

APUSH

Escobedo—-http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/esco.gif

CONSTITUTIONAL By Simone Ibbotson ment of a Grand Jury." Danny Escobedo was In the case of Escobedo not permitted to conv. Illinois, the question of sult with a lawyer upon whether Escobedo was his arrest for murder on denied the right to counJanuary 20. He was sel as guaranteed by the then convicted on the Sixth Amendment was basis of his interrogafinally answered. Yes. tion by police without a Justice Goldberg spoke lawyer present. Escoof "an absolute right to bedo appealed to the remain silent." Escobedo Supreme Court, which had not been sufficiently ruled that his confesinformed of his constitusion was not legitimate tional right to remain The constitution gives Americans their rights and then reversed the silent and therefore was http://lincolnstore.com/images/Constitution.jpg conviction. forced to incriminate The Escobedo v. Illihimself. Recently, the nois case has impacted the cause of the accusation; to be focus has shifted from the nation by creating a new rule. confronted with the witnesses Sixth Amendment to the Fifth The Court extended the against him; to have compulAmendment, emphasizing "exclusionary rule" to illegal sory process for obtaining whether the right warnings confessions and also defined witnesses in his favor, and to were given and given corthe "Escobedo Rule" which have the Assistance of Counrectly, and whether the right holds that individuals have sel for his defense." According to remain silent has been disthe right to an attorney when to the Fifth Amendment, "No missed. an "investigation is no longer person shall be held to anThe Sixth Amendment to a general inquiry...but has swer for a capital, or otherthe Constitution states that begun to focus on a particular wise infamous crime, unless the accused shall "be insuspect..." on a presentment or indictformed of the nature and