Which supreme court case granted the accused the right to have a lawyer present during police investigations?

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 US 478 (1964)

In Escobedo, the Supreme Court held the accused has a right to counsel during questioning, while in police custody. Escobedo preceded Miranda v. Arizona, in which the Court held police must advise suspects of certain Fifth and Sixth Amendment constitutional rights, including the right to counsel, at the time they're taken into custody.

These rights have been modified by subsequent cases, including two important Supreme Court decisions released during the 2009 Term.

Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 US ___ (2010)

The Court held police may reopen questioning after the suspect has been released from custody for 14 or more days. They must deliver the Miranda warning, but the right to counsel invoked during earlier questioning expires after 14 days and must be reinvoked after the break in custody. Statements made after 14 days release, but before the suspect requests an attorney, are admissible in court. This created an exception to the decision in Edwards v Arizona, (1981), which held statements made outside the presence of an attorney at any time after the suspect had invoked the right to counsel were considered involuntary and inadmissible. Shatzer imposed a time limitation on the original request.

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 US ___ (2010)

Modified the Miranda ruling such that a suspect must now proactively invoke his right to remain silent, rather than waive them. This means any statement made prior to the suspect declaring he wished to remain silent is admissible in court. Under Miranda, no statement could be used unless the suspect had signed documents formally waiving his right to remain silent. Anything said prior to this act was considered inadmissible.