Answer:
criminal investigation and court procedures
Explanation:
The common factor between the Mapp vs Ohio, Miranda vs Arizona and Gideon vs Wainwright was that they were all criminal investigation and court procedures.
In the Miranda vs Arizona case, the court ruled that the incriminating statements made by the accused were only admissible in court if the police informed the suspect of his Miranda rights first.
In the Mapp vs Ohio case, the court ruled that evidence obtained through violation of the Fourth Amendment which has to do with unlawful searches and seizures were not admissible in court.
During the Gideon vs Wainwright case, the court ruled that the states were bound by the Sixth Amendment to produce a lawyer for an accused if he cannot afford one.
