Answer:
The decisions in Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Mapp v. Ohio are very important to defendants in criminal proceedings today because they enlarged defendants' rights in criminal trials and investigations.
Thus, Miranda v. Arizona refers to the fact that those accused of a crime must know their rights prior to being questioned by the police, that is, that everything they say can be used against them and that they have the right to consult a lawyer.
For its part, Gideon v. Wainwright guaranteed the defendants the right to have a lawyer, even when they could not afford it on their own financial means. In this way, a defendant is not left legally unprotected for not being able to afford a lawyer, since it is the state that grants him one for free.
Finally, Mapp v. Ohio prohibits the use of illegitimately obtained evidence in criminal proceedings. Thus, non-compliance with the Fourth Amendment (and the consequent search without a warrant) renders the evidence obtained in this way not admissible in court.
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
I am a teenager who is addicted to screens
The answer is prohibited strikes
Answer:The abolitionist movement was an organized effort to end the practice of slavery in the United States. The first leaders of the campaign, which took place from about 1830 to 1870, mimicked some of the same tactics British abolitionists had used to end slavery in Great Britain in the 1830s. Though it started as a movement with religious underpinnings, abolitionism became a controversial political issue that divided much of the country. Supporters and critics often engaged in heated debates and violent — even deadly — confrontations. The divisiveness and animosity fueled by the movement, along with other factors, led to the Civil War and ultimately the end of slavery in America.
Explanation:
