Escobedo v. Illinois (1964): Statements made during interrogations where police denied defendants request to speak to his attorney were constitutionally invalid. If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowlingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel.

Chambers v. Florida (1940): The Court recognized that coercion can be mental as well as physical.

Bram v. U.S. (1897): In criminal trials, in the courts of the United States, wherever a question arises whether a confession is incompetent because not voluntary, the issue is controlled by that portion of the Fifth Amendment... commanding that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

Wan v. U.S. (1924): A confession obtained by compulsion must be excluded whatever may have been the character of the compulsion.

Carnley v. Cochran (1962): Where the assistance of counsel is a constitutional requisite, the right to be furnished counsel does not depend on a request.

Haynes v. Washington (1963): The mere fact that a defendant signed a statement which contained a typed in clause stating that he had full knowledge of his legal rights does not approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish constitutional rights. (And) Custodial interrogation has long been recognized as undoubtedly an essential tool in effective law enforcement.

Malloy v. Hogan (1964): An admissible confession must be made by the suspect in the unfettered exercise of his own will.

Henry v. Mississippi (1965): Waiver of constitutional rights by counsel despite defendant's ignorance are held allowable.