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 plantation bosses who kept enslaved Africans working hard were called overseers.
Explanation:
Answer:
The Tea Act, passed by Parliament on May 10, 1773, granted the British East India Company Tea a monopoly on tea sales in the American colonies. The passing of the Tea Act imposed no new taxes on the American colonies.
Explanation:
The Tea Act 1773 (13 Geo 3 c 44) was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain. The principal ... The markups imposed by these merchants, combined with tea tax imposed by the Townshend Acts of 1767 ... Rights of Englishmen · Writ of assistance · Admiralty courts · Parson's Cause (1763); Taxation without representation ..
Answer:
Her Sahri
Explanation:
It is an Bengali garment worn on the head much like the hijab of a muslim woman.
Charles Babbage was the inventor
