Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Escobedo v. Illinois Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States1964Docket #2472190
12 L. Ed. 2d 977 84 S. Ct. 1758 378 U.S. 478 1964 U.S. LEXIS 827 4 Ohio Misc. 197 32 Ohio Op. 2d 31 Criminal Procedure Constitutional Law Evidence

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: A suspect repeatedly requested his lawyer during a police interrogation but was denied access. The Supreme Court held that his resulting confession was inadmissible because his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated.

Legal Significance: This landmark case established a suspect’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel during pre-indictment custodial interrogation once the investigation focuses on them. It was a crucial step toward the Court’s later decision in Miranda v. Arizona.

Escobedo v. Illinois Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to police headquarters for interrogation regarding a murder. He was not advised of his right to remain silent. While Escobedo was in custody, his retained lawyer arrived at the station and repeatedly asked to see him, but police officials consistently denied the attorney access. Concurrently, Escobedo repeatedly requested to speak with his lawyer. The police not only denied his requests but also told him his lawyer did not want to see him. The interrogation continued for several hours while Escobedo was handcuffed and distressed. After police told Escobedo that an alleged accomplice had named him as the shooter, he made incriminating statements that were instrumental in his subsequent murder conviction. The trial court denied his motion to suppress these statements.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, require the exclusion of a confession obtained from a suspect during a custodial interrogation when the police have denied the suspect’s request to consult with his attorney and have not advised him of his right to remain silent?

Yes. A statement elicited from a suspect under these circumstances is inadmissible Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, require the exclusion of a confession obtained from a suspect during a custodial interrogation when the police have denied the suspect’s request to consult with his attorney and have not advised him of his right to remain silent?

Conclusion

This decision significantly expanded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis n

Legal Rule

Where a police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et

Legal Analysis

The Court determined that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is not Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excep

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Holding: The Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies during pre-indictment custodial
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui o

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

I feel like I'm in a constant state of 'motion to compel' more sleep.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+