THE 1970S 1969 1979
SUPREME COURT CASE ROE V WADE
Question
[CLICK ON ANY CHOICE TO KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWER]
|
|
Miranda v. Arizona
|
|
Escobedo v. Illinois
|
|
Gideon v. Wainwright
|
|
Munn v. Illinois
|
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: -In the landmark supreme court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Court held that if police do not inform people they arrest about certain constitutional rights, including their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, then their confessions may not be used as evidence at trial.
Detailed explanation-3: -The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.
Detailed explanation-4: -The ‘right to remain silent’ warning has become a familiar phrase in today’s popular culture, but it did not become part of the police vocabulary until two landmark Supreme Court decisions, Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966), established this important right.