Respuesta :
As a result of Miranda v. Arizona [1966], nothing suspects say can be used against them in court unless they have been advised of their rights. During the case of Miranda versus Arizona, it was established that statements made during interogation by defendants in the police station will be acceptable in courts duriing trials only if the prosecution can show evidence that the defendant was informed of the right to talk to his or her lawyer before and during questioning and of the right against self incrimination before police questioning. And the prosecution should also be able to demonstrate that the defendant understand these rights but voluntarily waived them.
As a result of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), nothing suspects say can be used against them in court unless they are informed about their rights.
Further Explanation:
The decision of the “Miranda versus Arizona” stated that the individuals who are arrested must be notified about their “constitutional rights”, being arrested or questioned. As per the decision, the 5th Amendment act prohibits prosecutors from using suspect speech made at the time of custody and questioning. It is individuals’ legal right to consult an attorney before being interrogated.
The case was considered a drastic change in the “American Criminal law” as it altered the extended the importance of the 5th Amendment. Earlier, it was considered that the act will protect the citizens against the obligation to contempt and confess in the court and after the decision; it became mandatory to inform individuals about their rights. This procedure also referred to as Miranda warning and oral notifications given to the arrestee during custody.
Learn More:
1. in Furman v. Georgia (1972), the supreme court ruled in William Furman’s favor, saying that Georgia had
https://brainly.com/question/2816742
2. Though the outcomes of the Schenck and New York Times differed, what did these decisions have in common? The government has a heavy burden to prove harm. The government can limit speech that causes harm. The government has unlimited power to limit speech. The government must follow the first amendment.
https://brainly.com/question/1804110
Answer Details:
Grade: High School
Chapter: Miranda versus Arizona
Subject: History
Keywords: Miranda versus Arizona, constitutional rights, amendment, custody, legal right, attorney, criminal law, court
