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)ResponsesMiranda 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 cross-examine witnesses.Miranda was not warned of his right to cross-examine witnesses.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 a phone call.Miranda was not warned of his right to a phone call.

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)ResponsesMiranda 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 cross-examine witnesses.Miranda was not warned of his right to cross-examine witnesses.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 a phone call.Miranda was not warned of his right to a phone call.

Answer 1

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

To verify this answer, you can familiarize yourself with the details of the case:

Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the Miranda rights. The case involved Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested and interrogated by police officers in Phoenix, Arizona, and confessed to the charges during the interrogation. However, Miranda was never informed of his right to remain silent, and he was also not told that anything he said could be used against him in court. This raised concerns about the admissibility of his confession as evidence in court.

In the Supreme Court ruling, the justices held that the police must inform criminal suspects of their constitutional rights before questioning them while in police custody. These rights include the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. The Court ruled that failure to inform suspects of these rights violated their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. As a result, Miranda's conviction was overturned, and the case set a precedent for protecting the rights of suspects in police custody.

Considering the context of the case and the main issue at hand, the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did is that Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent. This failure to inform him of his right to remain silent violated his Fifth Amendment rights, which played a crucial role in the Court's decision.