Miranda v. arizona if we are all charged with knowing the law, how could the court find that miranda needed to be informed of his rights by the state? could miranda be tried again for the same crime? what justification would the court have in imposing such a burden on the police? would they not be practicing law by giving such legal advice? was excluding the evidence (the confession) the only sanction available to the u.s. supreme court? can you think of some other sanctions that would still allow such evidence to be used but protect the innocent person who might be subjected to such treatment.

Respuesta :

Miranda vs . Arizona occurred in 1996. the In this the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects before  police questioning, must be properly informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.

Explain Miranda vs Arizona case.

In this case it was established that the  Police need to make you aware about your  Miranda Rights after an arrest and before questioning. It was established under 5 and 6 amendments of the US constitution.

  • It has provided detainees with the right to not to self incriminate along with the right to humanise their life.
  • In the case of Miranda, he was tried and convicted again, without using the confession against him.
  • In the final Outcome his  conviction was overturned.

This was the final result of the Miranda vs Arizona case.

To know more about Miranda vs Arizona from the given link

https://brainly.com/question/13483624

#SPJ4

Otras preguntas