Lesson 3: Due Process Rights

 At what step, in the criminal justice process should a defendant have the right to an attorney?

 One of the most important due process rights is the right to counsel. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution explicitly states that in all criminal cases, a person accused of a federal crime must "have assistance of counsel for his defense." However, the Amendment did not specify the step in the criminal justice process that the right to an attorney becomes effective. In the case of Escobedo v. Illinois, the accused was arrested in the fatal shooting of his brother-in-law. From the moment the police interrogation began, Escobedo repeatedly asked to speak his attorney. The police refused. After considerable questioning without the assistance of counsel, Escobedo made incriminating statements that became the basis for his conviction.

Eventually, the case reached the Supreme Court. In a landmark decision, the Court held for Escobedo. It decided that by failing to advise Escobedo of his right to remain silent and refusing to honor his request to see his attorney during interrogation, the police violated Escobedo’s Sixth Amendment rights (made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment).

 Students will be able to:

• Discuss the key facts of the Escobedo case.
• Decide how they would have ruled in Escobedo, if they were serving on the Supreme Court at the time.
• Analyze the significance of the Escobedo case.

Handout 3A "Escobedo v. Illinois - Analysis of the Facts"

Handout 3B "Decision: Escobedo v. Illinois"

Handout 3C "Escobedo v. Illinois"

1 class period

 Distribute Handout 3A, "Escobedo v. Illinois - Analysis of the Facts." Have students complete the exercise on the handout.

Then, as part of the whole class discussion, have them explain/answer the following:

• In your own words, describe what happened in the Escobedo case?
• Which did you identify as the most important actions taken by Escobedo?
• Which did you identify as the most important actions taken by the police?
• If you were sitting on the Supreme Court, how would you have decided this case? Explain.

Distribute Handout 3B. Have students complete the exercise. Then, as part of the whole-class discussion, have them discuss/explain the following:

• In your own words what did the Supreme Court hold in Escobedo?
• Which did you find to be the most important ideas in explaining the decision in Escobedo?
• Explain, why you agree or disagree with the Escobedo decision?
• How can you explain why so many people believe that Escobedo is one of the Supreme Court’s most important decisions? How would things be different if the Supreme Court found for Illinois rather than Escobedo in this case?

 Divide the class in half, assigning one group the task of preparing a legal brief for Escobedo and the other half the task of writing a brief on behalf of the State of Illinois.

Have students pretend it is 1964. They are commentators for a local television station. Have them write and deliver to the class a two minute editorial expressing their views of the Escobedo case.

Based on multiple intelligence theory.

Have students write and perform a one-act play showing an interview with Escobedo, after he learned of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Ask students to examine and report on the various public reactions to Gideon by looking at microfilm of newspaper accounts (e.g. The New York Times) or the stacks of popular periodicals of the day (e.g. Time, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Reports etc.).

Linguistic: Have a student role-play Escobedo and hold a press conference with other students acting as members of the press.

Kinesthetic: Students should role-play the police interrogation of Escobedo showing Escobedo being denied his right to speak with an attorney.

Spatial: Students should draw a cartoon depicting the Escobedo case and use the cartoon to demonstrate whether they agree or disagree with an accused's right to have a lawyer present during police questioning.

Intrapersonal: Tell students to visualize Escobedo being interrogated by the police and to express their feelings about this in a letter to a friend.

Interpersonal: The class should be divided into groups of two students each. One student should take the position that an accused has a right to have an attorney present during police questioning. The other student should take the position that an accused does not have a right to have an attorney present during police questioning. Students should argue the question with their partner.

In reading legal cases, you will notice that they can go on for many pages. One of the most important skills to develop, is the ability to separate the essential facts necessary in reaching a decision, from the unessential facts. To help you learn this skill, read the summary of the facts in the case of Escobedo vs. Illinois below and complete the chart that follows.

Escobedo v. Illinois: Danny Escobedo was arrested in the fatal shooting of his brother-in-law. Once in the police station interrogation room, Escobedo repeatedly asked to speak to the attorney he had just hired. The police refused. Shortly thereafter, Escobedo’s attorney arrived at the police station demanding to see his client. Again the police denied this request, claiming that Escobedo did not have a right to see his attorney since he hadn’t been charged with any crime yet. During questioning by the police, Escobedo, who was not warned of his right to remain silent, made some incriminating statements and eventually confessed to the crime. At his trial, the judge ruled that Escobedo’s confession was not obtained illegally, since it was made voluntarily. Claiming that some of his due process rights had been denied, Escobedo appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court.

Instructions: In the chart below, identify three facts describing Escobedo’s actions, and three facts describing the police’s actions, that you learned from the reading. For purposes of this exercise, a fact is statement that must be written in only one sentence, containing no more than ten words. Then, indicate, by placing a check in the appropriate box, which two facts are essential in determining whether Escobedo’s due process rights had been violated.

The following summarizes the decision in Escobedo:

"We hold ... that where, as here, the investigation is no longer a general (search) into to an unsolved crime, but has begun to focus on a particular suspect (Escobedo), the suspect has been taken into police custody, the police carry out a process of (questioning) that lends itself to a (defendant making statements that could be used to prove his or her guilt in a trial, and where) the suspect has requested and not been given the opportunity to consult with his lawyer, and the police have not ...warned him of his ...constitutional rights to remain silent ...the accused has been denied the assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution."

Instructions: Using the skills you learned on Handout 2, identify three important ideas from the Supreme Court’s decision in Escobedo v. Illinois. Then, indicate, by placing a check in the appropriate box, which two ideas are most important in explaining why the Court believed that Escobedo’s rights were violated.