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.
<span>Because he believed that if our nation would survive then we would need a strong government and the government needed rules to go by or they would basically monarch us. On September 14, 1786 Alexander Hamilton wrote the call for the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia to be held in May of 1787. George Washington was unanimously chosen to preside over the convention. Although he rarely spoke during the four month convention, his prestige gave it legitimacy. Also, after hours at the local taverns (visit City Tavern), Washington was very active in developing strategy behind the scenes. He had a major impact on the success of the Convention.</span>
The right to be left alone is protected by the Supreme Court decisions in Griswold v Connecticut and Roe v Wade.
the right to be left alone
<u>Explanation:</u>
The judgment of the Supreme Court in Griswold v Connecticut case slackened the law that prohibited birth control. Birth control was considered illegal under the law in the state of Connecticut from the 1800s. The issue didn’t make it to the court till 1965.
The court decided that the prohibition of birth control wouldn’t remain valid anymore its 1965 judgment. The verdict ensured a person’s right to privacy by finding out that the birth control prohibition law violated a person’s right to marital privacy.
In the Roe v Wade case of 1973 the court ruled that a pregnant woman had the liberty to choose to have an abortion and there wouldn’t be excessive government restriction on that liberty. The decisions of the Supreme Court safeguarded the right to privacy of the people.
