Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) was a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court that helped ensure that American citizens enjoyed the rights granted in the Bill of Rights. The importance of this Court case does not lie in its use as a long-standing precedent since it was only used as a precedent for a few years before being eclipsed. The true status of the case comes from its ability to create a basis from which other cases such as Miranda v. Arizona (1966) could be judged. The case helped define exactly what the Bill of Rights affords to people who have been arrested since, before the case, many states disregarded the constitutional protections citizens were supposed to have. The Sixth Amendment simply states that there is a right to counsel, but the amendment has never been clear when exactly that right comes into play. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) allowed the Supreme Court to finally set the limit that has persisted to the present day in order to prevent citizens from self-incrimination and to prevent egregious police misconduct. The Bill of Rights is meaningless and meaningless without the Supreme Court rulings and the definitions of each word that the framers of the Constitution carefully chose to insert into the document, because states would not be required to obey it unless the Supreme Court has connected it to the States. . The case was 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 or face repercussions from the United States federal government since they are the highest court in all matters. the earth. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) is a landmark case because it established constitutional and judicial precedent that creates... middle of paper... rights granted by the Constitution. The Court's decision demonstrates the activist role that the Warren Court has become. Unlike the Rehnquist Court, which was considered conservative, the Warren Court was much more active and liberal in its interpretation of the Constitution. The Rehnquist Court rejected Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) as precedent since the Court held that the right to counsel during interrogation was granted by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination instead of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, the Rehnquist Court does not dislike the conclusion of Escobedo v. Illinois (1964); they simply believe that the Sixth Amendment has been misinterpreted as providing the right to counsel during interrogation when it is actually the Fifth Amendment which provides the right to counsel during interrogation. the interrogation..