## Facts

- Danny Escobedo was arrested without a warrant in connection with the fatal shooting of his brother-in-law and was questioned; he made no statement and was released after his lawyer obtained a writ of habeas corpus.
- After police obtained a statement from another suspect implicating Escobedo, Escobedo and his sister were arrested again and taken to police headquarters in handcuffs.
- During transport, an officer told Escobedo that police had the case against him and suggested he should admit the crime; Escobedo responded that he wanted advice from his lawyer.
- Escobedo’s retained lawyer went to the police station and repeatedly requested to see his client but was denied access.
- Police interrogated Escobedo for hours while he was in custody; Escobedo repeatedly asked to consult counsel and was refused.
- Escobedo was not advised of a right to remain silent.
- After sustained questioning by police and an assistant state’s attorney, Escobedo made incriminating statements that were admitted at trial and used to convict him of murder.

## Issues

1. Whether refusal to allow a suspect in custody to consult with counsel during interrogation, after the investigation has focused on that suspect, violates the Sixth Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether incriminating statements elicited during such interrogation are inadmissible when the suspect requested counsel, was denied access, and was not warned of a right to remain silent.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held that when an investigation has shifted from a general inquiry to a focused interrogation of a particular suspect in custody, and the suspect requests counsel but is denied the opportunity to consult with counsel, the suspect is denied the assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Because Escobedo was not effectively warned of his right to remain silent and statements were elicited during this custodial, accusatory interrogation after denial of counsel, the incriminating statements were inadmissible at trial.
- Prior decisions suggesting a contrary result were treated as not controlling to the extent inconsistent with the Court’s rule.

## Legal Principles

- Custodial interrogation may constitute a critical stage requiring the assistance of counsel when police questioning is accusatory and directed at obtaining incriminating statements from a focused suspect.
- The Sixth Amendment is violated where a suspect in custody requests counsel and police deny the opportunity to consult with counsel during interrogation.
- Failure to warn a focused, in-custody suspect of the right to remain silent, combined with denial of requested counsel, supports exclusion of statements obtained through interrogation.
- Incriminating statements elicited under these conditions are inadmissible in a state criminal trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that once police questioning becomes a focused, custodial effort to obtain admissions from a specific suspect, the Constitution bars use of statements obtained after the suspect’s request to consult counsel is refused and the suspect is not warned of the right to remain silent.


Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964)