1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
trapecia [35]
3 years ago
11

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled to protect an individual's right against self-incrimination. Which

History
1 answer:
sweet-ann [11.9K]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents prosecutors from using a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.

Miranda was viewed by many as a radical change in American criminal law, since the Fifth Amendment was traditionally understood only to protect Americans against formal types of compulsion to confess, such as threats of contempt of court.[1] It has had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known as the Miranda warning part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights. The Supreme Court decided Miranda with three other consolidated cases: Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart.

The Miranda warning (often shortened to "Miranda", or "Mirandizing" a suspect) is the name of the formal warning that is required to be given by law enforcement in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated, in accordance with the Miranda ruling. The purpose of such is to ensure the accused are aware of, and reminded of, these rights before questioning or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.

Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court decision Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), criminal suspects who are aware of their right to silence and to an attorney, but choose not to "unambiguously" invoke them, may find any subsequent voluntary statements treated as an implied waiver of their rights, and used as or as part of evidence. At least one scholar has argued that Thompkins effectively gutted Miranda.[2]

You might be interested in
what became a major issue in congress following Missouri's request to join the united states in 1820?
Ghella [55]

Answer:

D

Explanation:

Before Missouri joined the Union, the free and slave states were equally balanced in congress.Missouri wanted to join as a slave state, so the balance would be upset.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
C
Serhud [2]

Answer:

to protect France's claim to the lower Mississippi River

to continue to explore the region

Explanation:

Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne, Sieur de Bienville was the younger brother of Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville, during their expedition formed the French settlement in Louisiana. However, following the Iberville’s final return to France, Bienville chooses to stay behind because of the following:

1. to protect France's claim to the lower Mississippi River

2. to continue to explore the region

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why are education and training considerd a kind of capital ?
frozen [14]
They are used by workers to produce goods and services similar to the way physical capital is used.
3 0
2 years ago
What effect did the shift in population have on American politics?
Dvinal [7]

As the population grew, southern power grew in Congress. - (Apex)

4 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Scientists have shown that a person's race is determined by a set of biological traits found in their DNA. Please select the bes
valentinak56 [21]

The answer is: false.

Race is an outdated concept that saw its most prominent day at the end of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century and its was the scientific justification for many racist practices. Nowadays it is a debunked concept that current science has shown flawed: it is proven that humanity is one single race with phenotypic differences that do not make up different races. What used to be considered different races are now considered merely different ethnic groups or populations (the first focuses on cultural traits and the latter on geographical coordinates).  

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How did slave labor during to the punic wars affect small farmers.
    12·1 answer
  • Saddam Hussein was a real life example of a/an
    8·2 answers
  • Answer this Right and It Is 100 points!! :) 1. Several of the works you read in this unit are public documents. Choose a documen
    5·2 answers
  • What was the role of the senate in the Roman Republic?
    12·2 answers
  • In a paragraph, explain how Raphael's School of Athens reflects principles of the Renaissance.
    15·2 answers
  • How was WWI fought? How was it different from past wars? How were the armies different?
    9·1 answer
  • 2. With six points elaborate why it was difficult to stop slave trade in East Africa 19th Century? during 19th
    10·1 answer
  • Help pls u*guvjgvjgvgjvugvguvguvugvug
    7·2 answers
  • What is the benefit of civic virtue and philanthropy? A. free publicity B. tax write off C. uplifting the community​
    10·1 answer
  • Please fill in this form in able to help me<br> https://forms.gle/KqFShi7Cg5axKCPA8
    12·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!