The Supreme Court case that upheld the right to counsel for defendants in criminal cases was Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Hence, the correct statement is option C.
<h3>What happened in the case of Wainwright and Arizona?</h3>
In this case, the Supreme Court declared that the Fourteenth Amendment creates a right for criminal defendants who cannot pay for their own lawyers to have state-appointed attorneys on their behalf.
The missing information is given below:
A. Baker v. Carr (1962) and Engel v. Vitale (1962)
B. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) and Roe v. Wade (1973)
C. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
D. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)
Hence, The Supreme Court case that upheld the right to counsel for defendants in criminal cases was Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966). the correct statement is option C.
learn more about case of Wainwright and Arizona:
brainly.com/question/10320938
#SPJ1
I am thinking the answer is most likely C, but correct me if I am wrong.
Answer: B
Explanation:
B is correct because many people didn’t know how to cure these sicknesses, therefore, the experience taught them many things about them and how to cure them in the future. Hope this helps!
The correct answer is:
C) Supply goods to consumers.
The law of supply is a microeconomic principle about the production level that suppliers can manufacture at different selling prices. It states that keeping other factors constant, as the price of a product or service rises, the production will rise, and vice versa. This means that suppliers will produce more of a product if the profit is known to be higher.
