Based on the given options, the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did in the case of Miranda v. Arizona is that Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.
In the Miranda case, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals must be informed of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during police interrogation. This ruling came as a result of Miranda's confession, which was obtained during police interrogation without him being informed of these rights.
The case focused primarily on the issue of self-incrimination and the Fifth Amendment protections against forced confessions. The court emphasized the need to protect a suspect's right against self-incrimination by ensuring that they are aware that they have the choice to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning.
The other options mentioned, such as the right to a phone call or the right to cross-examine, are not directly related to the issue at hand in the Miranda case, which primarily dealt with the requirement of informing suspects of their right to remain silent.
Analyze the case of Mirandav. Arizona which of the following is the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did
miranda wasn't warned of his right to a phone call
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 cross examine
1 answer
1 answer