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 a phone call. Miranda was not warned of his right to a phone call. 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.

Question

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 a phone call. Miranda was not warned of his right to a phone call. 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.

Answer 1

The most likely reason the justices ruled as they did in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is: Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent.

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

In the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court of the United States considered the issue of the Fifth Amendment and the rights of criminal suspects during police interrogations. Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the police and interrogated without being informed of his rights. The Court's ruling in this case had significant implications for the rights of individuals in police custody.

To determine the most likely reason for the justices' ruling, we need to examine the facts of the case and the legal principles involved. The correct response here is "Miranda was not warned of his right to remain silent."

The Court found that the interrogation methods used by the police violated Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The Court held that suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present during questioning. This requirement was later codified and became known as the Miranda warning.

The Court's ruling was based on the principle that coerced confessions should not be allowed as evidence in criminal trials. By not informing Miranda of his rights, the police had placed him in a situation where he may have felt pressured to confess.

Therefore, 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.