◆ SpookStack

| . J d) Briefs of Counsel, edited in the five Post-Escobedo Cases (30 pages). e) Oral arguments of counsel before the Court,also edited, in the Post-Escobedo Cases {1 09 p ges). PR i ad Bal et a a a ee ee a y= ww + The Post-Escobedo Cases shared the following salient features which formed the main basis for their appeal and on which the Court's opinion in Miranda turned: a) Incommunicado, in-custody interrogation by © law enforcement officers of prisoners in a so-called ' 'nolice-domina ed atmosphere''. D atatenteieattiond ah bo inat prea b) Failure of the officers to give effective warnings to the prisoners on their constitutional rights. The arguments of counsel for the criminal defendants in their briefs and oral remarks before the Court boil down to this: tind Ata cte pr ricnnarta re essential to procvect isoner s right to silence, based on the 5th Amendment; and to protect his right to counsel, based on the th "Amendment: and, therefore, these warnings must be effectively given by the officers and knowingly and intelligently waived by the prisoner before any confession obtained may be deemed to be admissible. The arguments of counsel forthe prosecution boil down or a Sy - tf That the warnings are not essential; and the failure of law enforcement officers to give them is only one factor to be considered in the "totality of circumstances" surrounding the making of the confession by the prisoner in a judicial determination of whether the confession was made voluntarily and is the product of the prisoner's free will and choice. In Miranda, of course, the Court held that the giving of the warnings is an absolute prerequisite to the admissibility of a confession obtained from a prisoner by law enforcement officers during in-custody interrogation.