Escobedo v. Illinois

Facts of the Case

Danny Escobedo, a 22-year-old Mexican American laborer, was arrested on the night of January 19, 1960, for the murder of his brother-in-law, but was released several hours later when his attorney filed a writ of habeas corpus (a legal instrument alleging that Escobedo's detention was unlawful because there was insufficient evidence to hold him). Upon his release, Escobedo was advised by his attorney that he should not answer any questions if the police arrested him again.

Eleven days later, Escobedo was rearrested after another suspect in the case, Benedict DiGerlando, told police that Escobedo fired the shots that killed his brother-in-law. En route to the police station, and without advising him that he had a right to remain silent, the police told Escobedo that DiGerlando had identified him as the shooter, and urged him to admit to the crime. Escobedo requested that he be permitted to talk with his attorney. The police denied this request. During questioning at the stationhouse, Escobedo repeated this request several times. His attorney, who had been informed of Escobedo's arrest by another family member, arrived at the police station and asked to see his client. The police denied this request. The attorney sought permission to see his client from at least three other higher-ranking officials but was informed that he would not be permitted to talk to his client until the police interrogations were complete. When Escobedo noticed his attorney in an adjoining room, the police told him that the attorney did not want to see him. An officer who knew the Escobedo family and who spoke Spanish came into the room and asked Escobedo if he would like to confront DiGerlando. Escobedo said that he would. He claimed that the police told him that he could go home if he identified DiGerlando as the culprit and that he would only be called as a witness in the case. When the two were brought face-to-face, Escobedo said, “I didn't shoot Manuel. You did it.” He was unaware that his statement implicated him in the crime and made him an accomplice under Illinois law, the same as if he had fired the fatal shots. He was subsequently convicted of murder and appealed the verdict.

...