Lange

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 po-lice learned about while inter-rogating 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 interro-gated about the fatal shooting of his brother-in-law. The po-lice obtained no warrant to arrest him. While at the po-lice 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-

bedo for a few moments be-fore he was escorted to an-other room, but he was un-able to talk to him or sit in the room adjacent to that in which Escobedo was being interrogated. While being interrogated Escobedo con-fronted 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, un-der Illinois law an admission of complicity in the murder plot was legally as damaging as an admission of firing of the fatal shots.

Volume 1 , Issue 1

ES CO B E D O V. IL L I N O IS

UNTOLD STORIES

W H A T W E R E T H E V O T E S ? By Jacque Anderson With the vote of 5 to 4, the ma-jority of the votes and 4 to the dissent votes, the rule was found guilty. Hugo Black , an Associ-ate justice, voted with the major-ity. William O. Douglas also voted with the majority, an As-sociate justice. Other majority voters were Earl Warren, the

Chief Justice, William J. Bren-nan, Jr., another Associate jus-tice, and finally Arthur J. Gold-berg, Associate justice and he wrote an opinion. The dissent-ing vote all came from the Asso-ciate 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 .

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

By Rukka Suzuki Be-fore the Supreme Court , Daniel Escobedo, a felon who lived in Chicago and was of Mexican heritage, was con-victed 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,

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 War-ren Wolfson obtained a writ of habeas corpus. Ten days later Escobedo and his sister were ar-rested after a man by the name of Benedict DiGerlando told the police that Escobedo was the one that shot and killed Manuel. Dur-ing this period of time, the police denied him his right to speak to his lawyer repeatedly. Escobedo was thereby deceived into admit-

ting 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, how-ever, knew his sixth and fourteenth amendment rights were violated and appealed to the United 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 Esco-bedo’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.

Page 2

S O F T A N D C R I M E ?

I N S I D E O N E S C O B E D O

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 start-ing to wonder whether the Warren Court is go-ing too far in handing out the right to the ac-cused. They feel that the justices are becoming “soft on crime” and giving an undeserved ad-vantage 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.

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

http://digital-lifestyles.info The seal of supreme court of the United States.

Volume 1 , Issue 1

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

“Public wonders if the Warren Court is too

easy on suspected criminals. “

Untold S tories

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 Wolf-son, police would not allow it. Also in the interrogation room, Escobedo was tricked into incriminating himself. Re-cently 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 amend-ments were ignored. The 5th amendment states that “no person shall be held to an-

swer for a capital, or other-wise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…nor shall be com-pelled 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 in-criminate himself. The police also neglected to tell Escobedo of his 6th amendment rights, which is “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense”.

it was understood that he knew his rights. There was no physical violence to obtain the statement. The officers that picked Escobedo up from his home inform him that they have evidence against him. A great question has been raised to the Supreme Court: If a suspect has been read his rights, yet still makes a state-ment to the police, why should that not be admissi-

By Lauren Kaper

When Danny Escobedo was arrested on January 30 and taken into questioning, his lawyer claims that Escobedo had been forced into a con-fession of the murder of his brother-in-law. However, the confession was obtained vol-untarily. The police remained their persistent efforts to gain this information. A statement was given by Escobedo while he was in police cus-tody, while many believe that the state-ment was not given volun-tarily. Esco-bedo did not have an attor-ney present; however, he had knowl-edge that his attorney was present in the building, and

ble?

Page 3

WHAT A R E HI S RI G H T S?

V O L U N A T A RY G I V E N

“Efforts to gain this information. A

statement was given by Escobedo “

matrix.ogaming.com/…/FPScreen122204 Sample interrogation room, very secluded and intimidating. mtrix.ogaming.com/

John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice that served from 1955-1971. Marshall served to find justice for Escobedo. http://www.americanfamilytraditions.com/

Lange

cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compul-sory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Coun-sel for his defense." According to the Fifth Amendment, "No person shall be held to an-swer for a capital, or other-wise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indict-

By Simone Ibbotson

In the case of Escobedo v. Illinois, the question of whether Escobedo was denied the right to coun-sel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment was finally answered. Yes. Justice Goldberg spoke of "an absolute right to remain silent." Escobedo had not been sufficiently informed of his constitu-tional right to remain silent and therefore was forced to incriminate himself. Recently, the focus has shifted from the Sixth Amendment to the Fifth Amendment, emphasizing whether the right warnings were given and given cor-rectly, and whether the right to remain silent has been dis-missed. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution states that the accused shall "be in-formed of the nature and

ment of a Grand Jury." Danny Escobedo was not permitted to con-sult with a lawyer upon his arrest for murder on January 20. He was then convicted on the basis of his interroga-tion by police without a lawyer present. Esco-bedo appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that his confes-sion was not legitimate and then reversed the conviction. The Escobedo v. Illi-

nois case has impacted the nation by creating a new rule. The Court extended the "exclusionary rule" to illegal confessions and also defined the "Escobedo Rule" which holds that individuals have the right to an attorney when an "investigation is no longer a general inquiry...but has begun to focus on a particular suspect..."

CO N S TI T U TI O N A L

Untold Stories

The constitution gives Americans their rights http://lincolnstore.com/images/Constitution.jpg

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