1 Escobedo v. Illinois The decisions ruled defendants have the right to have legal counsel present during police interrogation. Danny Escobedo a 22-year- male was taken into custody on January 19, 1960, where he was kept and questioned 14 hours over the shooting of his brother-in-law who had mistreated his sister. He repeatedly requests to speak with an attorney before being subsequently denied. More denial ensued when the lawyers repeatedly requested to speak with Escobedo. In response, the police claimed Escobedo had not been charged so he was not allowed to speak with an attorney. Escobedo was never informed of his right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel, known as The Miranda Rights. This is a significant violation of his constitutional rights as laid out in the Sixth Amendment. January 30th Escobedo was arrested for the murder of his brother in law. A friend and suspect gave a statement claiming Escobedo had fired the shot that had left his brother-in-law dead. He could confront the suspect DiGerlando, the statements he made were used against him; one of the officers of the court alleges that he informed Escobedo of what DiGerlando had said, and he claims Escobedo told him that DiGerlando was lying, and said to him “I didn't shoot Manuel, you did it.” This was the first time Escobedo had given any sign he knew anything of the murder, which during this time he ended up confessing to it. Once a person is detained by police for questioning about a crime, that person then becomes a suspect, and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel becomes effective. With the vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court affirmed that because Escobedo's request to consult with his attorney had been denied and he had not been warned of his constitutional right to remain silent, his confession was inadmissible, and his conviction was reversed. Justice Goldburg argued that “Suspects should be advised of their rights before making incriminating statements.” The court said that it "would be highly incongruous if our system of justice permitted the district attorney, the lawyer representing the State, to extract a confession from the accused while his own lawyer, seeking to speak with him, was kept from him by the police." The pivotal verdict was built upon Gideon v. Wainwright, in which the Supreme Court incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney to the states. While Escobedo v. Illinois affirmed an individual's right to an attorney during an interrogation, it did not prove a clear timeline for the moment at which that right comes into play. Justice Goldberg outlined specific factors that needed to be present to show that someone’s right to counsel had been denied. Two years after the ruling in Escobedo, the Supreme Court passed the Miranda v. Arizona. In the Miranda verdict, the Supreme Court used the Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination to require officers to notify suspects of their rights, including the right to an attorney as soon as they are taken into custody known as the “Speedy Trial Clause.” The Sixth Amendment shows the rights of defendants to have a fair chance at a fast and speedy public trial before a jury, to have a lawyer, and to be informed of the charges they face, and to question the witnesses against them.