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 the takings clause.
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 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 a phone call.
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 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is that Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.
In the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did is that Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.
To understand this, let's look at the background of the case. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and , and during his police interrogation, he confessed to the crimes. However, Miranda claimed that his confession was coerced and that he was not aware of his rights during the interrogation.
The key issue in this case was whether Miranda's confession could be considered voluntary under the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court held that the police must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present during questioning, in what is now commonly known as the "Miranda rights" or the "Miranda warning."
The Court's decision was based on the rationale that without being properly informed of their rights, suspects may not understand that they have the option to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination. Therefore, the justices ruled in favor of Miranda and determined that his confession was inadmissible as evidence in court because he had not been properly informed of his right to remain silent.
So, out of the given responses, the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did in Miranda v. Arizona is that Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.