Escobedo v. Illinois
E46482
Escobedo v. Illinois is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that expanded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel during police interrogations and helped lay the groundwork for the later Miranda warnings.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Escobedo v. Illinois canonical | 6 |
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal procedure case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal procedure ⓘ |
| citation | 378 U.S. 478 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInvolved |
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment ⓘ
surface form:
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
|
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1964-06-22 ⓘ |
| decisionType | 5–4 decision ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Byron R. White
ⓘ
John M. Harlan II ⓘ Potter Stewart ⓘ Tom C. Clark ⓘ |
| fullName | Escobedo v. Illinois self-link ⓘ |
| holding |
A criminal suspect has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel during police interrogation once the investigation focuses on the suspect and the suspect requests an attorney.
ⓘ
Statements elicited by police during interrogation after a suspect has requested and been denied counsel are inadmissible at trial. ⓘ |
| impact |
helped lay the groundwork for the Miranda v. Arizona decision
ⓘ
significantly expanded the practical scope of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Arthur J. Goldberg
ⓘ
Earl Warren ⓘ Potter Stewart ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ William O. Douglas ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| languageOfRecord | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
admissibility of confessions
ⓘ
right to counsel during police interrogation ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Arthur J. Goldberg
ⓘ
Justice Arthur Goldberg ⓘ |
| originatingCourt |
Illinois Supreme Court
ⓘ
surface form:
Supreme Court of Illinois
|
| pageInUnitedStatesReports | 478 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Danny Escobedo ⓘ |
| precedentFor |
Miranda v. Arizona
ⓘ
surface form:
Miranda warnings doctrine
expansion of right to counsel during custodial interrogation ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Gideon v. Wainwright
ⓘ
Massiah v. United States ⓘ Miranda v. Arizona ⓘ |
| respondent |
Illinois
ⓘ
surface form:
State of Illinois
|
| result | conviction of Danny Escobedo was reversed ⓘ |
| stateInvolved | Illinois ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
criminal suspects' rights
ⓘ
police interrogation practices ⓘ |
| volumeOfUnitedStatesReports | 378 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1964 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Escobedo v. Illinois Description of subject: Escobedo v. Illinois is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that expanded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel during police interrogations and helped lay the groundwork for the later Miranda warnings.
Referenced by (6)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
subject surface form:
Gideon's Trumpet