The most likely reason the justices ruled as they did in the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is:
- Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.
The case of Miranda v. Arizona involved the issue of self-incrimination and the right against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the police must inform suspects of their rights, including the right to remain silent, before questioning them.
The ruling established the famous Miranda warning, which is now required to be given to suspects before any custodial interrogation. It includes the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present, and the warning that anything the suspect says can be used against them in court.
This ruling was based on the justices' interpretation of the Fifth Amendment and their belief that suspects need to be informed of their rights to ensure that their statements are voluntary and not coerced. It aimed to protect individuals from self-incrimination and guarantee their right to remain silent during police questioning.
Therefore, the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did is that Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.
Analyze the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Which of the following is the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did?(1 point)%0D%0AResponses%0D%0A%0D%0AMiranda was not warned of his right to a phone call.%0D%0AMiranda was not warned of his right to a phone call.%0D%0A%0D%0AMiranda was not warned of his right to the takings clause.%0D%0AMiranda was not warned of his right to the takings clause.%0D%0A%0D%0AMiranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.%0D%0AMiranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.%0D%0A%0D%0AMiranda was not warned of his right to cross-examine witnesses.%0D%0AMiranda was not warned of his right to cross-examine witnesses.
1 answer
1 answer