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)
Miranda was not warned of his right to the takings clause.
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 a phone call.
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.
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.
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 the reasoning behind the ruling, it is important to gather knowledge about the facts of the case and the legal principles involved. Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the constitutional requirement for law enforcement to inform a suspect of their rights before custodial interrogation.
The case involved Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested and taken into custody by the police. During the interrogation, Miranda confessed to committing a crime without being informed of his rights. This confession was later used against him in court. Miranda's attorney argued that his confession was coerced and violated his Fifth Amendment rights, specifically the right against self-incrimination.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda by a majority of 5-4. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment requires law enforcement to inform individuals of their right to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present during custodial interrogations. This led to the creation of the Miranda warning, also known as the Miranda rights.
Therefore, the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did in Miranda v. Arizona was that Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent, which the Court determined to be a violation of his constitutional rights.