asked 50.6k views
3 votes
Miranda v arizona case brief

asked
User Nsquires
by
8.1k points

2 Answers

4 votes

Final answer:

The Miranda v. Arizona case established that suspects must be informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, during police interrogation. Failure to inform the suspect of their rights can lead to the exclusion of any statements they provide.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and confessed to the crime during police interrogation. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda's confession was inadmissible because the police failed to inform him of his Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate.

Thus, Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case. It established the Miranda rights, ensuring suspects are informed of their right to remain silent and have an attorney present during police interrogation. The Court held that suspects must be informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, in order for any statements they provide to be considered voluntary.

answered
User Hacksoi
by
8.7k points
4 votes
Was about how an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self discrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th amendments
answered
User Carfield
by
8.1k points

No related questions found

Welcome to Qamnty — a place to ask, share, and grow together. Join our community and get real answers from real people.