The anaconda plan made sure that it blocked any supply routes that the confederates would use as a advantage
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:
all citizens may be able to vote regardless of colour or social status and the government does not have the authority to change this (shall not be denied or abridged by the United States), but this does not include women as they do not strictly mention gender. Previous condition of servitude likely refers to how slavery was abolished and that former slaves shall also have the voting right.
Explanation:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or <em>previous condition of servitude</em>."
