Answer:
Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) is a historical case examined by the Supreme Court. By a decision in this case, the court established that any evidence, whether confessing or exculpatory, can be used in court only if the prosecution can prove that the suspect was informed before the interrogation about the right to a lawyer and about the right not to testify against himself. At the same time, in case of refusal of the suspect from his rights, it is necessary to prove its voluntariness. The Miranda case set a precedent requiring all police departments to inform detainees of their rights to a lawyer and silence. These warnings are called the Miranda rule. The Supreme Court equated the Miranda Rule with constitutional acts.
Explanation:
Answer:
Veteran :)
Explanation:
A veteran is a person not actively involved in a nations armed forces. :)
Have an amazing day!! :)
Please rate and mark brainliest!!
Some cons about wetlands is you aren't allowed by law to build on wetlands. As for animals and humans, wetlands have many diseases in them so it's a big risk for animals and people. If i were to plan a wetland regeneration project id monitor its success by seeing if it is helping stop over-flooding, if our natural products have increased and as well as to see if animals are increasing or decreasing
Answer: A Grant advanced relentlessly despite multiple defeats and heavy losses.
Explanation:
The General Grant's final campaign was initiated at Cold Harbor. In this Lee's army was exhausted and the massive assault of the soldiers took place. This grand campaign had a duration of six weeks. The number of dead, missing and wounded soldiers was sum up with 55,000. This overall Grant's campaign lead to the heavy casualties of Union.
