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 (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Escobedo v. Illinois canonical | 8 |
| Escobedo decision | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T371060 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Escobedo v. Illinois Context triple: [Miranda v. Arizona, relatedCase, Escobedo v. Illinois]
-
A.
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.
-
B.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
-
C.
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the requirement for police to inform criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during custodial interrogations.
-
D.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
E.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Escobedo v. Illinois Target entity description: 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.
-
A.
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.
-
B.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
-
C.
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the requirement for police to inform criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during custodial interrogations.
-
D.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
E.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
- F. None of above. chosen
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
ⓘ
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
linked to:
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment
|
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| 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 ⓘ |
| 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
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| languageOfRecord | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
admissibility of confessions
ⓘ
right to counsel during police interrogation ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Arthur J. Goldberg
ⓘ
Justice Arthur Goldberg ⓘ |
| originatingCourt |
Supreme Court of Illinois
ⓘ
linked to:
Illinois Supreme Court
|
| pageInUnitedStatesReports | 478 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Danny Escobedo ⓘ |
| precedentFor |
Miranda warnings doctrine
ⓘ
linked to:
Miranda v. Arizona
expansion of right to counsel during custodial interrogation ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Gideon v. Wainwright
ⓘ
Massiah v. United States ⓘ Miranda v. Arizona ⓘ |
| respondent |
State of Illinois
ⓘ
linked to:
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 (9)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.