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)

Question

Responses

Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.
Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.

Miranda was not warned of his right to the takings clause.
Miranda was not warned of his right to the takings clause.

Miranda was not warned of his right to a phone call.
Miranda was not warned of his right to a phone call.

Miranda was not warned of his right to cross-examine witnesses.

Answer 1

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.

In the landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination and that individuals subjected to custodial interrogation must be informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. This requirement, known as "Miranda rights," is intended to ensure that suspects are aware of their rights before being interrogated by law enforcement. The other options regarding the takings clause, the right to a phone call, and the right to cross-examine witnesses are not relevant to the specific ruling of this case.