history help?

Electronic surveillance is ery hard to judge becasue our founding fathers did not conceive of such devices. The dendant gave incrimminating evidence to an informant who was wired, It was upheld because it was felt that talking to the informant was the sae as talking to the informant was the same as talking to the police.

A. rochin v. california

B. chimel v. california

C. on lee v. the united states

D. escobedo v. illinois

6 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    These sites should help you narrow down which case fits the parameters presented in the statement. Good luck (see below)

    Rochin v. California

    http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/rochin%20v%20...

    On Lee v. United States

    http://helix-web.stanford.edu/people/alain/frash/3...

    Chimel v. California

    http://www.answers.com/topic/chimel-v-california

    Escobedo v. Illinois

    http://www.netwalk.com/~thevenue/escobedo.html

  • 1 decade ago

    It is definitely not D. escobedo v. Illinois. Danny Escobedo was being held in the Cook County jail when his lawyer arrive to meet with him. The lawyer was not allowed to consult with Escobedo until just before his scheduled trial. Escobedo claimed that he did not receive a fair trial because he was denied the right to consult with his lawyer in order to help him prepare an adequate defense. The US Supreme Court agreed with Escobedo. I believe that chimel v. california is your answer.

  • 1 decade ago

    Escobedo vs. Illinois

  • 1 decade ago

    D. Is this "YOU" again? I'll figure it out soon enough and will not do your homework for you. Your typing shows you're obviously in a hurry.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • John B
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    You'll need to look up each of these cases ... wish I could help

  • 1 decade ago

    a

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.