Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478; 84 S. Ct. 1758; 12 L. Ed. 2d 977 (1964)

Facts—Danny Escobedo was convicted of fatally shooting his brother-in- law in Chicago. During the police questioning following his arrest, he was not permitted to consult with the attorney he had retained and who was at police headquarters. In the course of this questioning the police did not advise Escobedo of his constitutional right to remain silent, and he made some incriminating statements.

Question—Was the refusal by the police under the circumstances to honor the request of the accused to consult with his lawyer a violation of the Sixth Amendment?

Decision—Yes.

Reasons—J. Goldberg (5–4). When an investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who has been taken into custody, is being interrogated, has requested and been denied counsel, and has not been advised of his constitutional rights, as was the case here, the accused has been denied “the assistance of counsel” guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. This guarantee was held to be obligatory on the states under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). When the investigatory process becomes accusatory then our adversary system begins to operate and the accused must be permitted to consult with his attorney.

J. Harlan, J. Stewart, and J. White authored dissents advocating adherence to earlier precedents and expressing concern over the effect of this decision on law enforcement.