Danny Escobedo was taken into custody by the Chicago police at approximately 2:30 A.M on January 20 in connection with the shooting of one of his relatives, who was murdered the night before. Escobedo was released that same day, one hour later having made no incriminatory statement. The Chicago police later arrested Benedict DiGerlando, a so called “friend” of Escobedo, DiGerlando said that Escobedo had fired the fatal shot. Since DiGerlando said this, Escobedo was consequently arrested once again. After being arrested and taken into police custody as a suspect in the murder of his brother-in-law, the petitioner asked to speak to his attorney. His attorney arrived at police headquarters soon after the petitioner did and was not allowed to speak to his client as the officers said they had not completed questioning. …show more content…
His confession had been coerced and was inadmissible. His conviction was faulty, and the resulting verdict should be overturned. Escobedo should therefore have a new trial. The second argument which was made in favor of Illinois was that the criminal procedures used in the courts of the state of Illinois rest upon the sovereignty of that state, and are part of the powers reserved to Illinois by the 10th Amendment. The authority to specify the criminal procedures to be used in state courts is clearly not rested in the Supreme Court. A decision in favor of Escobedo would therefore violate the basic plan of