Question

please help

Answer 1

A homeless man is accused of robbing a liquor store.

Which of the following should happen, and which cases(s) established this process?

The man should be allowed one phone call (in re Gault) and allowed to face his accuser in court (Gideon v. Wainwright).

The man should be informed of his rights (Miranda v. Arizona) and told his accuser's name (in re Gault).

The man should be informed of his rights (Miranda v. Arizona) and provided an attorney (Gideon v. Wainwright).

The man should receive official notice of charges (in re Gault) and questioned with an attorney present (Miranda v. Arizona).

Answer 2

when you're arrested, you need to be read your rights, thanks to Miranda v. Arizona (hence the expression "Mirandizing a suspect"). If you aren't, that can make any questions you answer during questioning possibly inadmissible in court, ruining the prosecutor's day. You also need to be provided with an attorney if you request one and cannot afford to hire one (one of the rights typically mentioned in a Miranda warning, I believe). I don't know the case that determined that.

Answer 3

(;.;)