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)%0D%0AResponses%0D%0A%0D%0AMiranda was not warned of his right to a phone call.%0D%0AMiranda was not warned of his right to a phone call.%0D%0A%0D%0AMiranda was not warned of his right to the takings clause.%0D%0AMiranda was not warned of his right to the takings clause.%0D%0A%0D%0AMiranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.%0D%0AMiranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.%0D%0A%0D%0AMiranda was not warned of his right to cross-examine witnesses.%0D%0AMiranda was not warned of his right to cross-examine witnesses.
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 ruling in this case established the famous "Miranda rights" which include the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during police questioning. The justices ruled that Miranda's confession was obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because he was not informed of these rights before being interrogated by the police.
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 case of Miranda v. Arizona involved the issue of self-incrimination and the right against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the police must inform suspects of their rights, including the right to remain silent, before questioning them.
The ruling established the famous Miranda warning, which is now required to be given to suspects before any custodial interrogation. It includes the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present, and the warning that anything the suspect says can be used against them in court.
This ruling was based on the justices' interpretation of the Fifth Amendment and their belief that suspects need to be informed of their rights to ensure that their statements are voluntary and not coerced. It aimed to protect individuals from self-incrimination and guarantee their right to remain silent during police questioning.
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 (1966) was that Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.
To analyze this case and understand the reasoning behind the Court's decision, it is important to review the facts of the case.
Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and in 1963 and was subsequently interrogated by the police. During the interrogation, he confessed to the crimes without being informed of his right to remain silent or his right to an attorney. These confessions were used against him during his trial, and he was ultimately convicted.
Miranda appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, arguing that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and in a landmark decision, they ruled in favor of Miranda.
The Court majority, in a 5-4 decision, held that the prosecution could not use Miranda's confession as evidence because it was obtained without properly informing him of his rights. They established that before questioning a suspect in custody, the police must inform them of their right to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. This requirement came to be known as the Miranda warning.
The Court's ruling was based on the idea that individuals have a constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination. By not informing Miranda of his right to remain silent, his statements during the interrogation were considered coerced and involuntary.
Therefore, the most likely reason the justices ruled as they did in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was that Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent, which violated his Fifth Amendment rights.