Could someone critic this for me?
Escobedo v. Illinois came first when he filed a case against the State of Illinois because they did not allow him access to an attorney after having been arrested previously on the same charge of murdering his brother-in-law. In the Miranda case, they set the new precedent of the Miranda warning the way we know it today just to make the issue an airtight warning that all persons arrested are entitled to invoke their right to an attorney. They could not go back and have a do over with Escobedo because issue had not been determined to the Miranda extent. Now they gave themselves an out with the Miranda case.
Who is he? Full name.
Who are "they" all through this?
Please repost when you have written your assignment. Someone here will be happy to comment on your thoughts.
Escobedo actually asked for an attorney and was refused. His confession was thrown out.
Miranda ruling was that all suspects must be given their rights in a form that they can understand.
Two years later Congress tried to weaken Miranda in Federal cases.
They protect the innocent and the guilty. No one should talk to the police without a lawyer present because their words will be twisted by the police.
Focus on the details here.
1. Who refused to get an attorney for Escobedo? Who threw out the confession?
2. Can you really "give" someone his rights? Or do you mean that "suspects must be told what their rights are..."
3. What did Congress do in attempting to weaken the Miranda process?
4. Who are "they"? Who are "their"?
Use active voice verbs rather than passive.
just to let you know the escobedo v. illinios case "The Supreme Court overturned Escobedo's conviction and recognized a suspect's right to an attorney during police interrogation." and it wasn't so much about the marianda rights it was more about the due process rights
nxgzvc blxrego gdncxktf hecr emudn szvdoubc vrkj