Which of the following best explains the outcome and significance of the case described?
In Miranda v. Arizona the Supreme Court ruled that it is the attorney’s duty to inform suspects of their rights.

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court decided that it is the citizens’ responsibility to be aware of their own rights. In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court decided that every person who was convicted at trial and did not have an attorney deserves a new trial. In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled that every state must provide an attorney when the defendant cannot affo

Question

Which of the following best explains the outcome and significance of the case described?
 In Miranda v. Arizona the Supreme Court ruled that it is the attorney’s duty to inform suspects of their rights.

 In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court decided that it is the citizens’ responsibility to be aware of their own rights. In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court decided that every person who was convicted at trial and did not have an attorney deserves a new trial. In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled that every state must provide an attorney when the defendant cannot affo

anonymous · Answer

easy question and it doesn't make sense because of how it's arranged.