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

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

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

Answer 1

In the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did was that Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent. This case established the requirement that individuals in police custody must be informed of their rights, specifically the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, before being subjected to interrogation. The Supreme Court's ruling was based on the need to protect Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, ensuring that defendants are fully aware of their rights in order to make informed decisions regarding their cooperation with law enforcement.