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:
The image shown is not a reliable source. It is not a photograph taken of the event, and it is not a painting created by someone who witnessed the event. The image can be considered yellow journalism because it is sensational and exaggerated. The explosion did not likely cause bodies to fly in the air or create a large fireball, as shown here. The image was created to make the American public angry about the explosion, not to show what actually happened.
Explanation:
Answer:
yes
Explanation:
we have police forces that arrest citizens for crimes against the law
Fact, because after war world one their economic was going down
