Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Escobedo v. Illinois

Supreme Court of the United States · 1964 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureRight to CounselPolice InterrogationConfessionsSixth AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentright to counselcustodial interrogation

Facts

After petitioner was arrested and taken to police headquarters in connection with a murder, police told him that a codefendant had accused him of firing the fatal shots. Petitioner repeatedly asked to speak with his retained lawyer, and the lawyer separately came to the station and repeatedly asked to see petitioner, but police refused access until questioning was finished. Petitioner was in custody, was not free to leave, and was interrogated without being effectively warned of his absolute right to remain silent. During the interrogation he made incriminating statements that were later introduced against him at trial.

Issue

Whether the Sixth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, bars the use of incriminating statements obtained during police interrogation when the investigation had focused on a particular suspect in custody, the suspect requested counsel and was denied access to counsel, and the police did not effectively warn him of his right to remain silent.

Rule

Where the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police custody, the police conduct interrogations that lend themselves to eliciting incriminating statements, the suspect has requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer, and the police have not effectively warned him of his absolute constitutional right to remain silent, the accused has been denied the Assistance of Counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment as applied to the States, and no statement elicited during that interrogation may be used against him at trial.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, police arrested Omar Vega after a warehouse guard identified him as the driver in an armed robbery. At headquarters, detectives told Omar they already knew he planned the robbery, questioned him for two hours to get his side of the story, refused his repeated requests to call his retained lawyer, and never told him he had an absolute right to remain silent. Omar then admitted he supplied the vehicle.

At Omar's robbery trial, is his statement most likely admissible?

Explanation. The majority held that formal indictment is not required where the process has shifted from a general investigation to an accusatory one focused on a particular suspect. When the suspect is in custody, interrogation is conducted to elicit incriminating statements, the suspect requests and is denied counsel, and police do not effectively warn him of his absolute right to remain silent, statements elicited during that interrogation may not be used at trial. It does not matter that Omar admitted only complicity; the opinion emphasized that such admissions can be legally damaging and that counsel is critical at that stage.