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 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 call.
Miranda was not warned of his right to a phone call.
Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.
The most likely reason the justices ruled as they did in the case of Miranda v. Arizona is that Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.
The most likely reason the justices ruled as they did in the case of Miranda v. Arizona is that Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that statements made by a suspect during custodial interrogation are only admissible as evidence if the suspect has been informed of their right to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present during questioning. The Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona aimed to protect individuals from self-incrimination and ensure that their constitutional rights are upheld during police interrogations.
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.
To understand why this is the most likely reason, let's first explain the background of the case. Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of self-incrimination. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and and was interrogated by the police without being informed of his right to remain silent or his right to have an attorney present.
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals from self-incrimination. This means that the government cannot force someone to make statements that could be used as evidence against them in a criminal case. In the case of Miranda, he made incriminating statements during the police interrogation, which were later used against him in his trial.
The Supreme Court justices ruled in favor of Miranda and established what is now known as the Miranda Rights. These rights include the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the warning that anything said can and will be used against them in a court of law.
The reason the justices ruled as they did is that the police failed to inform Miranda of his right to remain silent. This is a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. By not warning him, the police obtained statements that should not have been admissible as evidence.
Therefore, out of the given responses, "Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent" is the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did in Miranda v. Arizona.