The Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)<span> required (for the first time) that someone accused of a crime be </span>informed<span> of his or her constitutional rights prior to interrogation. This protected the rights of the accused, or the defendant, in two new ways: 1) It educated the person about relevant constitutional rights; and 2) It inhibited law enforcement officials from infringing those rights by applying the Exclusionary Rule to any testimony/incriminating statements the defendant made unless he intentionally waived his rights. </span>
<span>The Exclusionary Rule prohibits evidence or testimony obtained illegally or in violation of the constitution from being used against the defendant in court. </span>
<span>The </span>Miranda<span> ruling has been revised somewhat by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. On June 1, 2010, the Roberts' Court released the opinion for </span>Berghuis v. Thompkins,<span> 08-1470 (2010), which held a defendant must </span>invoke<span> his right to remain silent (by stating he wants to remain silent), rather than </span>waive<span>it (by explicitly agreeing to answer questions before interrogation). </span>
Answer: I think the answer is Republican
Explanation:
Answer:
A. (y/2) - 5, B. 3
Explanation:
Lets assume that the total number of pencils is y.
Katie gives Maggie half, i.e. = 
Hence Maggie has pencils
If Maggie keeps 5 pencils and give the rest to Jamil, the expression for the number of pencils Maggie gives to Jamil therefore is;
Expression of pencil given to Jamil = (y/2) - 5
B.
To get the number of pencils Maggie gave to Jamil if Katie had 16 pencils, simply substitute y as 16.
(16/2) - 5
No of pencil given to Jamil = 8 - 5
= 3
Answer:
Your answer is most likely C, if not then D. (I hope this helps!!)
Explanation:
Answer:
the people holds the ultimate authority in the United states
