PROTESTS ACTIVISM AND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE 1954 1973
PRESIDENT LYNDON B JOHNSON
|
Question
[CLICK ON ANY CHOICE TO KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWER]
|
|
|
Gideon vs. Wainwright
|
|
|
Brown vs. The Board of Education
|
|
|
Plessy vs. Ferguson
|
|
|
Miranda vs. Arizona
|
Detailed explanation-1: -In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ruled that an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-discrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Detailed explanation-2: -The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world.
Detailed explanation-3: -In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.
Detailed explanation-4: -Arizona ignored both the Escobedo rule (evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court) and the Gideon rule (all felony defendants have the right to an attorney) in prosecuting Miranda. His confession was illegally obtained and should be thrown out.