Talk:Escobedo v. Illinois

U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Danny was my father's friend. On the night Danny shot his brother in law, Danny asked my father to accompany him. But my father declined when he found out Danny had a gun. Danny promised he was only bringing the gun to intimidate his brother in law. He assured my dad that the gun wasn't loaded. But my dad didn't buy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.88.7 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does Escobedo's brother-in-law "Manuel" have a surname? john k 16:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that the "holding" section of the right-side bar is incorrect? The section mentions a suspect who had not yet been "Mirandized" - but the Court's ruling in this case could not have had anything to do with whether a suspect was "Mirandized," because Miranda v. Arizona was not decided until 1966, while Escobedo v. Illinois was decided two years earlier in 1964.

Yes, I think you're correct. It should be changed. I guess it was an attempt to reconcile Escobedo with subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudence, but it doesn't make much sense, especially since Escobedo is no longer really good law in some sense. K8lj (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time Period?[edit]

This article states that Danny Escobedo was interrogated for 12 1/2 hours, but it does not cite a source. Is this figure accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.202.69 (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]