Analyze the case of Mirandav. Arizona which of the following is the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did
miranda wasn't warned of his right to a phone call
miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent
miranda was not warned of his right to the takings clause
miranda was not warned of his right to cross examine
Based on the given options, 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 the Miranda case, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals must be informed of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during police interrogation. This ruling came as a result of Miranda's confession, which was obtained during police interrogation without him being informed of these rights.
The case focused primarily on the issue of self-incrimination and the Fifth Amendment protections against forced confessions. The court emphasized the need to protect a suspect's right against self-incrimination by ensuring that they are aware that they have the choice to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning.
The other options mentioned, such as the right to a phone call or the right to cross-examine, are not directly related to the issue at hand in the Miranda case, which primarily dealt with the requirement of informing suspects of their 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 the Miranda case, the Supreme Court ruled that when a person is taken into custody and before being interrogated, they must be informed of their right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment. This warning, now known as the "Miranda warning," must be given to ensure that any statements made by the defendant are voluntary and not coerced.
The Court held that the failure to inform Miranda of his right to remain silent violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Therefore, the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did 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. This ruling was significant because it established the now famous "Miranda rights" that every person must be informed of when they are taken into custody and before they are interrogated by law enforcement.
To understand this reasoning, let's briefly explore the facts and background of the case. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona on suspicion of kidnapping and . During the interrogation by the police, Miranda confessed to the crimes. However, he was not informed of his right to remain silent, nor was he aware that he had the right to have an attorney present during the questioning.
Miranda's defense argued that his confession was not voluntary and should be excluded from the trial since he was not aware of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court in 1966, where the justices ruled in favor of Miranda.
The Supreme Court's ruling was primarily based on the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. The Court held that the prosecution could not use a confession obtained during custodial interrogation unless the suspect was informed of their right to remain silent and the consequences of waiving that right.
In summary, the justices ruled in favor of Miranda because he was not warned of his right to remain silent, thereby violating his constitutional protections against self-incrimination.