Answer:
The correct answer is D. The Warren Court dealt with the rights of the accused in Miranda v. Arizona.
Explanation:
Miranda v. Arizona is a United States Supreme Court decision proclaimed between February 28 and March 1, 1966 and rendered June 13, 1966. In it, the Court holded that a suspect must be informed of his rights to consult a lawyer and not to self-incriminate before being questioned by the police.
Ernesto Miranda was born in 1941 in Mesa, Arizona. He was frequently convicted and imprisoned; in 1962 he was in Phoenix (Arizona). According to the Phoenix police, he had repeatedly attacked several girls. In March 1963, one of the victims thought she recognized the car of her attacker. Ernesto Miranda was then arrested by the police. During the interrogation, without being informed of his rights or being assisted by a lawyer, Ernesto Miranda admitted his crimes. At trial, the prosecutor used his confession as evidence against him and Ernesto Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and abuse. His lawyer, Alvin Moore, tried to dismiss his confession, he appealed the decision to the Arizona Supreme Court but it confirmed the decision in April 1965.
Robert J. Cocoran, a former civil party lawyer, was aware of the case after the trial in the Arizona Supreme Court. He knew that confessions could easily be obtained from suspects who did not have a very high level of education and most often ignored their rights. In June 1965, he appealed to John J. Flynn, a defense attorney at Lewis and Roca in Phoenix. He agreed to support the case with the help of John P. Frank and Peter D. Baird.
The Supreme Court considered that, given the coercive nature of the interrogation while in police custody (Chief Justice Earl Warren cites several police manuals), the rights of the respondent must be guaranteed.
It was based on two amendments to the Bill of Rights: the Fifth Amendment, which states that no one may be compelled to testify against himself; and the Sixth Amendment, according to which the accused is entitled to counsel.
It is with the aim of safeguarding these constitutional rights that the Court declared that: "The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he said will be used against him in court; he must be informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him".
As these rights were not respected during the interrogation of Ernesto Miranda, the Court annulled his confession as a means of proof.
