Escobedo v. Illinois (1963)
- Docket
- 615
- Decided
- 1963-01-01
Summary
Question: Was Escobedo denied the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment? Conclusion: As soon as someone is in the custody of law enforcement, he or she has a Sixth Amendment right to speak to an attorney. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Goldberg, the Court ruled that Escobedo’s Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The Court reasoned that the period between arrest and indictment was a critical stage at which an accused needed the advice of counsel perhaps more than at any other. A suspect who was being interrogated by police while in custody, who had not been warned of his right to remain silent, and who had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer, had been denied the assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Any statement elicited under such circumstances could not be used against him at a criminal trial. The Court therefore reversed Escobedo’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Justice Harlan dissented, opining that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois should be affirmed because the majority's conclusion would unjustifiably fetter legitimate methods of criminal law enforcement. Justice Stewart dissented on the grounds that the right to assistance of counsel should not attach until the formal institution of proceedings by indictment, information, or arraignment, and that the majority's holding would have an unfortunate impact on the fair administration of criminal justice. Justice White, joined by Clark and Stewart, dissented on the grounds that the majority's decision will be applicable whenever the accused becomes a suspect, rendering admissions to the police inadmissible unless the accused waives his right to counsel and rendering the task of law enforcement more difficult.