Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) was a landmark case ruled by the Supreme Court that helped ensure that American citizens received the rights afforded in the Bill of Rights. The importance of this Court case is not its use as a long-standing precedent as it was only used as precedent for a few years before being eclipsed. The true validity of the case comes from its ability to create a basis on which other cases such as Miranda v. Arizona (1966). The case helped define exactly what the Bill of Rights guarantees to people who have been arrested since before the case many states ignored the constitutional protections citizens should have. The Sixth Amendment simply states that there is a right to an attorney, but the amendment has never been clear when exactly the right comes into play. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) allowed the Supreme Court to finally set the bar that has persisted to the present day in order to prevent self-incrimination of citizens and inhibit blatant police misconduct. The Bill of Rights is meaningless and empty without the Supreme Court rulings and definitions of every word that the framers of the Constitution carefully selected to place in the document since the states would not be required to obey it unless the Supreme Court 'has connected to the states. The case represented one of those moments where the Supreme Court was able to recognize a flaw in the American justice system and set a precedent that states must obey otherwise they will suffer repercussions from the US federal government since they are the Supreme Court in everything the world. the earth. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) is an emblematic case because it establishes a constitutional and judicial precedent that creates... middle of paper... rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court's decision highlights the role of the activist Court that the Warren Court has transformed into. Unlike the Rehnquist Court, which was considered conservative, the Warren Court was much more active and liberal with its interpretation of the Constitution. The Rehnquist Court rejected Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) as precedent because the Court held that the right to counsel during interrogation was afforded by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination instead of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, the Rehnquist Court does not dislike Escobedo v. Illinois (1964); they simply believe that the Sixth Amendment has been misinterpreted to demonstrate the right to counsel during questioning when in reality it is the Fifth Amendment that guarantees the right to counsel during questioning.