answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 US 478 (1964)

In Escobedo, the Supreme Court held the accused has a right to counsel during questioning, while in police custody. Escobedo preceded Miranda v. Arizona, in which the Court held police must advise suspects of certain Fifth and Sixth Amendment constitutional rights, including the right to counsel, at the time they're taken into custody.

These rights have been modified by subsequent cases, including two important Supreme Court decisions released during the 2009 Term.

Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 US ___ (2010)

The Court held police may reopen questioning after the suspect has been released from custody for 14 or more days. They must deliver the Miranda warning, but the right to counsel invoked during earlier questioning expires after 14 days and must be reinvoked after the break in custody. Statements made after 14 days release, but before the suspect requests an attorney, are admissible in court. This created an exception to the decision in Edwards v Arizona, (1981), which held statements made outside the presence of an attorney at any time after the suspect had invoked the right to counsel were considered involuntary and inadmissible. Shatzer imposed a time limitation on the original request.

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 US ___ (2010)

Modified the Miranda ruling such that a suspect must now proactively invoke his right to remain silent, rather than waive them. This means any statement made prior to the suspect declaring he wished to remain silent is admissible in court. Under Miranda, no statement could be used unless the suspect had signed documents formally waiving his right to remain silent. Anything said prior to this act was considered inadmissible.

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

Answer

No Supreme Court case provided 'the right.' You are probably referring to the Miranda v Arizona decision, but your question is misleading.

The right always existed, Miranda simply required that the accused be informed of this pre-existing right.

Answer

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963)

While it's true the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution has always provided for the right to counsel in criminal trials ("and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense"), this right originally applied only to cases heard in federal court.

Gideon address two substantial problems in the criminal justice system: 1) The Supreme Court had not yet incorporated the Right to Counsel Clause to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, so each State made its own rules about who was entitled to court-appointed legal representation; 2) the State of Florida, where Gideon was tried, only provided court-appointed counsel to indigent defendants accused of capital (death penalty) crimes.

Those who could afford to hire a lawyer to represent them in court were permitted to do so, but those who were too poor to hire a lawyer had to represent themselves (pro se). Requiring an indigent defendant to argue his case against an educated and experienced prosecutor, while allowing a person with money to be represented by a paid attorney, is a serious breach of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) later required police to advise detainees of relevant Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections, but Gideon established the defendant's right to court-appointed legal counsel before and during police interrogation (not investigation), at trial, and at other critical points in the criminal justice process.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

10y ago

California Supreme Court held that defendants have the right to court appointed counsel during the custodial interrogations. Due to the Miranda stating that all are given the right to counsel.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago

I believe it was Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Which supreme court case granted the accused the right to have a lawyer present during police investigations?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

What did the Supreme Court's decision in the case of marbury v. Madison for the Supreme Court?

It gave the Supreme Court powers not granted by the Constitution


Where powers are granted to Congress?

Supreme Court


What did the supreme court's decision in the case of marbury v Madison do for the supreme court?

It gave the Supreme Court powers not granted by the Constitution


What statement best completes the diagram of the ways the different branches of government can limit each bother's power?

can purpose amendments to the constitution to overturn a supreme court decision


Who decides whether an official accused should be removed from office or not?

The Supreme court.


Congress is granted power to establish courts inferior to what?

Supreme court


What is a right is granted by a supreme court it is usually referred to?

landmark decision


How many writs of certiorari have been granted?

There have been tens of thousands of writs of certiorari granted in the history of the US Supreme Court.


Which court would someone accused wilful murder be tried?

supreme/county court


When a right is granted in a case by the supreme court it is usually referred to as?

Writ of certiorari


When a right is granted in a case by the supreme court it is usually referred to as a?

Writ of certiorari


what did the supreme court decide in Miranda VS Arizona ?

people accused of a crime must be informed of their rights