THE 1970S 1969 1979
SUPREME COURT CASE ROE V WADE
|
Question
[CLICK ON ANY CHOICE TO KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWER]
|
|
|
Gideon v. Wainwright
|
|
|
In Re Gault
|
|
|
Mapp v. Ohio
|
|
|
Miranda v. 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: -These warnings stem from the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
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.