ccusation and said, "I didn't shoot Manuel, you did it," they handcuffed him and took him to an interrogation room. There, while handcuffed and standing, he was questioned for four hours until he confessed. During this interrogation, the police denied his request to speak to his attorney, and the prevented him from seeing his attorney, who had come to the station, and of consulting with him. At his trial, the State, over his objection, introduced the confession against him. The court held that the statements thus made were constitutionally inadmissible. (Escobedo v. Illinois)
             In Gideon v. Wainwright the petitioner was charged in a Florida state court with having broken and entered a pool room with intent to commit a misdemeanor. This offense is a felony under Florida law. Appearing in court without funds and without a lawyer, petitioner asked the court to appoint counsel for him, whereupon he was not granted his wish. Gideon stated that denial of counsel was against his constitutional rights. The courts later ruled that in order to have a fair trial, counsel must be provided. It became an obligation of the state under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Gideon v. Wainwright)
             Both of these cases led to much legal debate and both state and federal courts have arrived at varying conclusions. Escobedo v. Illinois was an explication of basic rights that are enshrined in our Constitution– that "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," and that "the accused shall have the Assistance of Counsel"– rights which were in jeopardy in that case through overbearing officials. These precious rights were fixed in our Constitution only after centuries of persecution and struggle. They were to become secured "for ages to come." (Escobedo v. Illinois)
             The Constitutional issue the Court considered in both of these cases was the admissibility of st...