V o lu m e 1 , I s s u e 1
Lange
U NTOLD S TORIES
ESCOBEDO
By Nicole Sueda
In this case Escobedo argued
that the way he was convicted
of murder was not legal. His
lawyer argued that the police
failed to inform him of his
constitutional rights and that
they went against the sixth
and fourteenth amendments
while interrogating him. They
wanted the courts to dismiss
the information that the po-
lice learned about while inter-
rogating him.
Escobedo is a 22-year-old
man of Mexican extraction.
He was arrested on January
20, 1960 and taken to police
headquarters to be interro-
gated about the fatal shooting
of his brother-in-law. The po-
lice obtained no warrant to
arrest him. While at the po-
lice station Mr. Cooper the
Assistant State’s Attorney did
not inform Escobedo of his
constitutional rights. Also
when Escobedo wanted to
speak to his lawyer he was
told that he did not want to
speak to him, this information
was false. In actuality his
lawyer tried many times to get
in contact with Escobedo.
This lawyer actually saw Esco-
WHAT WERE THE VOTES?
By Jacque Anderson
With the vote of 5 to 4, the ma-
jority of the votes and 4 to the
dissent votes, the rule was found
guilty. Hugo Black , an Associ-
ate justice, voted with the major-
ity. William O. Douglas also
voted with the majority, an As-
sociate justice. Other majority
voters were Earl Warren, the
V. ILLINOIS
Escobedo taken on January 30, 1960 charged with the murder of brother-
in-law- Manuel Escobedo. http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine
bedo for a few moments be-
other statements made by
fore he was escorted to an-
Escobedo were incriminating
other room, but he was un-
statements, which were later
able to talk to him or sit in the
used against him in court.
room adjacent to that in Escobedo was found guilty of
which Escobedo was being
Manuel’s death because, un-
interrogated. While being
der Illinois law an admission of
interrogated Escobedo con-
complicity in the murder plot
fronted DiGerlando (the man
was legally as damaging as an
who accused Escobedo of
admission of firing of the fatal
killing his brother-in-law) of
shots.
lying he said, “I didn’t shoot
Manuel, you did it.” This and
Chief Justice, William J. Bren- Barry L. Kroll, James R.
nan, Jr., another Associate jus- Thompson, Bernard Weisberg .
tice, and finally Arthur J. Gold- Kroll argued the cause for the
berg, Associate justice and he petitioner. Thompson argued
wrote an opinion. The dissent- the cause for the respondent.
ing vote all came from the Asso- Weisberg argued the cause for
ciate justices. These justices are the American Civil Liberties
Tom C. Clark, John M. Harlen, Union, as amicus curiae, urging
Potter Stewart, and Byron R. reversal .
White. Some advocates are
Page 2 V o lu m e 1 , I s s u e 1

INSIDE ON ESCOBEDO
By Rukka Suzuki Be-
fore the Supreme Court ,
Daniel Escobedo, a felon who
lived in Chicago and was of
Mexican heritage, was con-
victed for first degree murder
as an accomplice of the death
of his Brother-in-law,
Manuel. Before his case,
Escobedo was arrested at
least twenty-five times with
charges ranging from drugs to
murder. Escobedo was
brought to the police station
for questioning at 2:30 am on
the morning of January 20,
“To catch the r eader's atte ntion, place an inter estingse ntence or quote from the stor y her e.”
http://digital-lifestyles.info The seal of
supreme court of the United States.
1960, after his brother-in-law was Court. This case lasted from
shot and killed the night before. April 29 to June 22, 1964,
This questioning was without a and during this time Barry
warrant and he was not released Kroll and Donald Haskell with
until 5 pm when his attorney War- additional help from Bernard
ren Wolfson obtained a writ of Weisberg and Walter Fisher
habeas corpus. Ten days later got the case to go in Esco-
Escobedo and his sister were ar- bedo’s favor. Since the ruling,
rested after a man by the name he has been on and off jobs
of Benedict DiGerlando told the and has been arrested most
police that Escobedo was the one recently in Mexico City in
that shot and killed Manuel. Dur- 2001. And was on the U.S.
ing this period of time, the police Marshall’s 15 Most Wanted
denied him his right to speak to List before he was arrested.
his lawyer repeatedly. Escobedo
was thereby deceived into admit-
ting that he was aware
that DiGerlando was the
one who murdered his
brother-in-law. Because
he had knowledge of the
crime he was sentenced
to twenty years in
prison. Escobedo, how-
ever, knew his sixth and
fourteenth amendment
rights were violated and
appealed to the United
States Supreme

“Public wonders if the

Warren Court is too SOFT AND CRIME?
easy on suspected
criminals. “
By Lindy Shields
With the Escobedo v. Illinois decision made,
many people are now questioning the propriety
of the Supreme Court’s verdict. They are start-
ing to wonder whether the Warren Court is go-
ing too far in handing out the right to the ac-
cused. They feel that the justices are becoming
“soft on crime” and giving an undeserved ad-
vantage to the defendant. Some even feel the
Court is now preventing the police from doing
their job. On the other hand, others feel this
will make the police act in a more professional
manner. Republicans are making an issue out
of the belief that the Court is soft on criminals
and that the police are demoralized and are
http://www.americanfamilytraditions.com/ The
not able to effectively do their job. Bumper Bill of Rights, with a timer.
stickers are once again materializing, calling
for the impeachment of Earl Warren.
U n t o ld S to ri e s Page 3

W H AT ARE HIS RIGHTS?

By Francie swer for a capital, or other-

On the night of January 30,
1960, Danny Escobedo was
arrested and interrogated.
Despite Danny’s pleas to talk
with his lawyer, Warren Wolf-
son, police would not allow it.
Also in the interrogation room,
Escobedo was tricked into
incriminating himself. Re-
cently Escobedo took case to
the Illinois Supreme Court,
then to the U.S Supreme
Court, arguing that he was not
given his constitutional rights.
He is specifically arguing that
his Fifth and Sixth amend-
ments were ignored. The 5th
amendment states that “no
person shall be held to an-
wise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment
or indictment of a Grand
Jury…nor shall be com-
pelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against
himself”. Escobedo was
not informed that he had a
right to remain silent to
questions that could in-
criminate himself. The
police also neglected to tell
Escobedo of his 6th
amendment rights,
which is “the right to a matrix.ogaming.com/…/FPScreen122204
speedy and public trial, Sample interrogation room, very secluded and
by an impartial jury of intimidating. mtrix.ogaming.com/
the State, and to have
the Assistance of Counsel for
his defense”.

V O LU N ATA RY G I V E N
it was understood that he ble?
By Lauren Kaper
knew his rights. There was no
“Efforts to gain this
When Danny Escobedo was
arrested on January 30 and
physical violence to obtain the
statement. The officers that
information. A
taken into questioning, his
lawyer claims that Escobedo
picked Escobedo up from his statement was given by
home inform him that they
had been forced into a con-
fession of the murder of his
have evidence against him. A Escobedo “
great question has been
brother-in-law. However, the raised to the Supreme Court:
confession was obtained vol- If a suspect has been read his
untarily. The police remained rights, yet still makes a state-
their persistent efforts to gain ment to the police, why
this information. A statement should that not be admissi-
was given by
Escobedo
while he was
in police cus-
tody, while
many believe
that the state-
ment was not
given volun-
tarily. Esco-
bedo did not
have an attor-
ney present;
however, he
had knowl-
edge that his John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice that served
attorney was from 1955-1971. Marshall served to find justice
present in the for Escobedo. http://www.
building, and americanfamilytraditions.com/
La n g e
Untold Stories
APUSH Escobedo—-http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/esco.gif
CONSTITUTIONAL
By Simone Ibbotson
In the case of Escobedo
v. Illinois, the question of
whether Escobedo was
denied the right to coun-
sel as guaranteed by the
Sixth Amendment was
finally answered. Yes.
Justice Goldberg spoke
of "an absolute right to
remain silent." Escobedo
had not been sufficiently
informed of his constitu-
tional right to remain
The constitution gives Americans their rights
silent and therefore was http://lincolnstore.com/images/Constitution.jpg
forced to incriminate
himself. Recently, the
focus has shifted from the
Sixth Amendment to the Fifth
Amendment, emphasizing
whether the right warnings
were given and given cor-
rectly, and whether the right
to remain silent has been dis-
missed.
The Sixth Amendment to
the Constitution states that
the accused shall "be in-
formed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compul-
sory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to
have the Assistance of Coun-
sel for his defense." According
to the Fifth Amendment, "No
person shall be held to an-
swer for a capital, or other-
wise infamous crime, unless
on a presentment or indict-
ment of a Grand Jury."
Danny Escobedo was
not permitted to con-
sult with a lawyer upon
his arrest for murder on
January 20. He was
then convicted on the
basis of his interroga-
tion by police without a
lawyer present. Esco-
bedo appealed to the
Supreme Court, which
ruled that his confes-
sion was not legitimate
and then reversed the
conviction.
The Escobedo v. Illi-
nois case has impacted the
nation by creating a new rule.
The Court extended the
"exclusionary rule" to illegal
confessions and also defined
the "Escobedo Rule" which
holds that individuals have
the right to an attorney when
an "investigation is no longer
a general inquiry...but has
begun to focus on a particular
suspect..."