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

Miranda was not warned of his right to the takings clause.

Answer 1

[AI-generated answer — Bot GPT 3.5]

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 ruling in this case established the Miranda rights, which include the right to remain silent and not incriminate oneself during police interrogations. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement to inform individuals of their right to remain silent before questioning them in custodial interrogations. This ruling was based on the belief that the Fifth Amendment protections were necessary to protect individuals from coerced confessions and to ensure a fair trial.