Ebsco Vs. Illinois

On the night of January 30, 1964, the petitioner in the case of Escobedo v. Illinois was arrested for the murder of his brother-in-law. The petitioner was arrested without a warrant. He was being held at the police station where he was being interrogated and was told that he was not under arrest but could not leave the building. Officer questioned the petitioner for hours, and all the while being denied access to his attorney.

Mr. Escobedo's Attorney was denied access right from the start. According to the court records Mr. Escobedo's attorney identified himself to a number of officers while being told by all of them that he could not see his client. Escobedo's attorney also quoted to one of the police officers the section of the criminal code that allows an attorney the right to see his client. Even after that code was read to the officers, Escobedo's attorney was still denied that right to see his attorney.

Officer questioned the petitioner for hours and told Escobedo that he was fingered by another man of being the one that shot his brother-in-law. After hearing that he had ask to speak with his attorney, which detectives knew was there, still denied Escobedo and his attorney from speaking to each other. Escobedo ultimately confessed to the murder of his brother-in-law, only after being denied the right to see and speak with his attorney. Escobedo's was indicted and charged with murder.

Escobedo's attorney appealed the charges and the court over turned the ruling, because officers had not obtained an indictment, and officer denied him access to his attorney. The confession could not be used against Escobedo in a criminal trial.

Miranda v. Arizona

In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the petitioner, Mr. Miranda was taken into custody for rape and kidnapping of a young lady. Officer took him down to the police station for questioning. Miranda had not been told that he had the right to remain quite or the right to have an attorney present while he was being questioned. Miranda was not aware of his constitutional right not to incriminate ones self. After two hours of questioning Miranda, the officers obtained the confession they were looking for. According to the case, Miranda signed the confession with out the knowledge of his constitutional rights. Miranda was charged with the crime of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years for each count.

When Miranda's attorney appealed the case, saying his constitutional rights were denied, the court over turned the confession and because of the testimony given by police officers, it was determined that Miranda was denied his constitutional rights.

Comparison Synopsis of Both Cases

While both cases are different they are similar in more was then one. While both of the men were arrested and not given their chance to have their constitutional rights up help by the law officials. Escobedo's was denied the right to see or even speak with his attorney after he had asked to speak with his attorney and when his attorney, was at the police station shortly after he was brought in for questioning. In the case of Miranda, he was never informed that he had a constitutional right to have an attorney present while being questioned or the right to remain silent until