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:
A. the french is the correct answer.
Explanation:
Government powers and back country regions of VA and NC.
Answer:
The Senate gained increased prestige, greater wealth, and more influence in Roman government
Explanation:
The Senate gained increased prestige, greater wealth, and more influence in Roman government
Answer:
Because 12 table system had every sort of law and that was effective a long time
Explanation:
He used 12 table systems of Roman laws because that sort of law had every law in those 12 tables and that included family laws, marriage laws, debt and trial laws, punishment laws, relationships with citizens. People were familiar already with those laws.
Justinian used this system as the foundation and changed it a bit, and also he simplified it in one document and it was called Justinian's code.
