Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Escobedo Vs. Illinois

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 22, 1964

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

59 entries 4 linked 55 unlinked
Show
  1. Gideon Vs. Wainwright US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  2. Watts Vs. Indiana US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1949
  3. Haynes Vs. Washington US Supreme Court · May 27, 1963
  4. Cicenia Vs. Lagay US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1958
  5. U.S. 478 (1964) U.S. Supreme Court Escobedo v. Illinois
    Search
  6. U.S. 478 (1964) Escobedo v. Illinois
    Search
  7. and no statement extracted by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a trial. Crooker v. California
    Search
  8. U. S. 433 , and Cicenia v. Lagay
    Search
  9. Compare Lynumn v. Illinois
    Search
  10. Ill.2d 41, 45-46, 190 N.E.2d 825, 827. The court also held, on the authority of this Court's decisions in Crooker v. California
    Search
  11. for the reasons stated below, that it was not and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction. In Massiah v. United
    Search
  12. Id. at 377 U. S. 204 , quoting DOUGLAS, J., concurring in Spano v. New
    Search
  13. Spano v. New
    Search
  14. Bram v. United
    Search
  15. complicity in the murder plot was legally as damaging as an admission of firing of the fatal shots. Illinois v. Escobedo
    Search
  16. was essential to advise petitioner of his rights in this delicate situation. Powell v. Alabama
    Search
  17. were most critical to petitioner. Massiah v. United
    Search
  18. States, supra, at 377 U. S. 204 . It was a stage surely as critical as was the arraignment in Hamilton v. Alabama
    Search
  19. U. S. 52 , and the preliminary hearing in White v. Maryland
    Search
  20. meaningful distinction can be drawn between interrogation of an accused before and after formal indictment. In People v. Donovan
    Search
  21. In Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  22. are surely needed. Massiah v. United
    Search
  23. White v. Maryland
    Search
  24. no statement elicited by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a criminal trial. Crooker v. California
    Search
  25. a well educated man who had studied criminal law while attending law school for a year. The Court's opinion in Cicenia v. Lagay
    Search
  26. contention that petitioner had a constitutional right to confer with counsel is disposed of by Crooker v. California
    Search
  27. Compare Haynes v. Washington
    Search
  28. into evidence of a coerced confession be the subject of an independent determination here, see, e.g., Ashcraft v. Tennessee
    Search
  29. we cannot escape the responsibility of making our own examination of the record,' Spano v. New
    Search
  30. See Broeder, Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  31. February 25, 1956, exposing the false confessions obtained during the Stalin purges of the 1930's. See also Miller v. United
    Search
  32. privilege against self-incrimination and his right to counsel either at a pretrial stage or at the trial. See Johnson v. Zerbst
    Search
  33. The authority of Cicenia v. Lagay
    Search
  34. U. S. 504 , and Crooker v. California
    Search
  35. U. S. 433 , was weakened by the subsequent decisions of this Court in Hamilton v. Alabama
    Search
  36. U. S. 52 , White v. Maryland
    Search
  37. U. S. 59 , and Massiah v. United
    Search
  38. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting. I would affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois on the basis of Cicenia v. Lagay
    Search
  39. criminal law enforcement. MR. JUSTICE STEWART, dissenting. I think this case is directly controlled by Cicenia v. Lagay
    Search
  40. U. S. 504 , and I would therefore affirm the judgment. Massiah v. United
    Search
  41. right of confrontation, and the right to trial by jury. Another is the guarantee of the assistance of counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  42. MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE STEWART join, dissenting. In Massiah v. United
    Search
  43. the new constitutional right announced will depend upon whether the accused has retained his own counsel, cf. Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court Escobedo v. Illinois
    Search
  45. Crooker v. California
    Search
  46. and Cicenia v. Lagay
    Search
  47. In Massiah v. United
    Search
  48. Illinois v. Escobedo
    Search
  49. Powell v. Alabama
    Search
  50. Massiah v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial