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 call.
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 is that Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent and his right to have an attorney present during police questioning. This violation of Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination led the Supreme Court to establish the now-famous Miranda warnings, which require law enforcement officers to inform individuals in custody of their rights before questioning.
In the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that the statements made by the defendant, Ernesto Miranda, during the interrogation were inadmissible in court because he was not informed of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent. This is the correct reason why the justices ruled as they did. The Court held that individuals must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present during police interrogations. This is known as the Miranda warning, which is now a standard procedure followed by law enforcement agencies when arresting someone.
Miranda was not warned of his right to cross-examine witnesses. While the right to cross-examine witnesses is an integral part of the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause, it was not the primary concern in the Miranda v. Arizona case. The ruling primarily focused on the defendant's rights during custodial interrogations.
Miranda was not warned of his right to the takings clause. The takings clause refers to the Fifth Amendment's provision that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. However, this clause does not have any direct relevance to the Miranda case, so it is not a likely reason for the justices' ruling.
Miranda was not warned of his right to a phone call. While the right to a phone call after arrest is a common practice, it was not a central issue in the Miranda v. Arizona case. The primary concern in the case was the defendant's rights during the interrogation process, not the specific right to make a phone call.
Therefore, the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did in the Miranda v. Arizona case was because Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.