THE 1970S 1969 1979
SUPREME COURT CASE ROE V WADE
|
Question
[CLICK ON ANY CHOICE TO KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWER]
|
|
|
There was not a lawyer present
|
|
|
He did not commit the crime
|
|
|
It was not voluntary
|
|
|
He was forced to confess
|
Detailed explanation-1: -If a suspect is questioned when in custody without first being given the Miranda warning, the statements of the confession are automatically presumed to be involuntary, and cannot be used against the suspect in a self-incriminating nature in any criminal case.
Detailed explanation-2: -Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.
Detailed explanation-3: -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-4: -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.