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: He fought to destroy it
Explanation:
The National Bank was the main issue in 1832. In his second term, Jackson set out to destroy the bank before its charter ended in 1836. He had government funds deposited in state banks, which opponents called Jackson's "pet banks." Biddle fought back by making it harder for people to borrow money.
Indonesia and Philippines ;)
The power of recognition - gradpoint . Have a good day
