0
What might happen if people did not have the rights established in Miranda versus Arizona?
Wiki User
∙ 9y agoWant this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Which warren court decision determined that people hat to be informed of their rights before being questioned by the police?
Miranda v. Arizona
What Warren Court decision determined that people had to be informed of their rights before being questioned by police?
Miranda v. Arizona.
Which Warren Court decision determined that people had to be informed of their rights before being questioned by police?
Miranda v. Arizona
what did the supreme court decide in Miranda VS Arizona ?
people accused of a crime must be informed of their rights
What warren court decision determined that people had to be informed of their rights being questioned by police?
Miranda v. Arizona.
How were the Miranda v. Arizona and Gideon v wainwright cases similar?
Both cases resulted in expanded protections for people accused of crimes.
What did Supreme Court decide in Miranda v. Arizona?
In the landmark supreme court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Court held that if police do not inform people they arrest about certain constitutional rights, including their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, then their confessions may not be used as evidence at trial.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Miranda v. Arizona?
People accused of a crime must be informed of their rights : Apex
Are the Miranda rights a state law?
The supreme court case Miranda v. Arizona set the precedent for Miranda rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona The case of MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was based on infringement of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The government (read police) were not reminding people that they had certain protections under the Constitution, including the right not to incriminate themselves in criminal activity. The Supreme Court found that information gathered from a suspect in a custodial environment without the reminder was a violation of Fifth Amendment rights.
What precedent was set in Miranda v Arizona?
Miranda v. Arizona established that a suspect's waiver of rights must be informed and intentional. In order to ensure this, the Court established a precedent requiring police to inform people in police custody of their constitutional rights prior to questioning.
Is the government one of the parties in criminal law?
Yes, in criminal cases, the government is represented by the prosecutor. When a defendant is being charged with a crime, they are being accused of violating a rule that the government has issued, thus a "criminal trial" is essentially the government "suing" a defendant. On paper, when citing a case, the plaintiff (or prosecution) is always listed first, so you can infer that Arizona v. Johnson is a criminal trial because the state is listed first. The state of Arizona is seeking retribution from the a defendant: Johnson. However, cases like Miranda v. Arizona, a person, Miranda, is listed first. Because Miranda is listed first, you can infer that Miranda is seeking retribution from the state of Arizona. Any case where a person is listed before a state (or two people are listed, without a state) is a civil case.In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, Miranda sued the state of Arizona because he did not understand his rights (which consequently became the Miranda Rights). In a case like Gideon v. Wainwright, you can also infer that this is a civil case because a person is, again, listed first (and a state is not listed at all). So, Gideon sued Wainwright.
What is about Miranda that scares so many people?
what is it about miranda scares
