Question

Medal and fan!
Which of the following best explains the outcome and significance of the case described?

Answer 1

In Miranda v. Arizona the Supreme Court rule 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 afford one.

Answer 2

It is not the first one, the Miranda case resulted in a law that states the police, not the attorney, must tell the suspect their rights.
"In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with serious offenses who cannot afford lawyers themselves. The case began with the 1961 arrest of Clarence Earl Gideon."
So, with this piece of information, we can conclude that your answer is D. Hope this helps :)

Answer 3

Thank you ill let you know c: