Analyze the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Which of the following is the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did?(1 point)

Question

Analyze the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Which of the following is the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did?(1 point)

Responses

Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.
Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.

Miranda was not warned of his right to cross-examine witnesses.
Miranda was not warned of his right to cross-examine witnesses.

Miranda was not warned of his right to the takings clause.
Miranda was not warned of his right to the takings clause.

Miranda was not warned of his right to a phone c

Answer 1

Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.

Answer 2

The most likely reason the justices ruled as they did in the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is because Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.

Answer 3

The most likely reason the justices ruled as they did in the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is that Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that suspects must be informed of their rights before being interrogated, which includes the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. This ruling, now known as the Miranda warning, is intended to protect suspects from self-incrimination and ensure that their rights are upheld during police interrogations.