Question

“Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.”—Chief Justice Earl Warren in Miranda v. Arizona


Because of the ruling in this case,

questions officers ask during an arrest cannot be used in court

what suspects say when under arrest cannot be used in court

suspects under arrest must demand their rights from officers

officers must inform suspects under arrest of their rights

Answer 1

madal and fan will be awarded for correc answer

Answer 2

I say simply that officers (being very involved with the law enforcement community) get hung out to dry if they don't 'Marandize' their suspects. Miranda law is the ''right to remain silent spiel.' Its a violation of federal law to use material in court that was obtained BEFORE you read off these rights, and any charges inflicted based upon information obtain before the miranda rights are read will instantly be pardoned :) So I'd personally say D.

Answer 3

yeah i asked my teacher and looked on the web they say its d to so heres a medal and a fan

Answer 4

Which of the following would be the best title for this image?

Image of a person who is under arrest. Caption reads, ‘You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you…'
© 2011 AP Images

The Effect of the Fifth Amendment

The Effect of Gideon v. Wainwright

The Effect of Miranda v. Arizona

The Effect of in re Gault

Answer 5

@AloneS. plz help

Answer 6

Okay, one moment.

Answer 7

@Nikki_Skellington

Answer 8

C. Miranda v. Arizona required that police inform suspects, prior to custodial interrogation, of their constitutional rights to silence and appointed counsel. It also required that suspects voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive these rights in order for any resulting confession to be admitted into evidence at trial. The rationale of Miranda as elaborated by the Supreme Court has evolved from encouraging suspects to resist police interrogation to informing suspects that they have a right to resist. Reflecting a fundamental tenet in American culture and law, Miranda today seeks to protect the free choice of a suspect to decide whether to answer police questions during interrogation. Two generations of empirical scholarship on Miranda suggest that the Miranda requirements have exerted a negligible effect on the ability of the police to elicit confessions and on the ability of prosecutors to win convictions. There is no good evidence that Miranda has substantially depressed confession rates or imposed significant costs on the American criminal justice system. The practical benefits of Miranda to custodial suspects may also be negligible. Police have developed multiple strategies to avoid, circumvent, nullify, or simply violate Miranda and its invocation rules.

Answer 9

I've answered this question like a hundred times already. There you go. Anymore questions?

Answer 10

Which of the following would be the best title for this image?

Image of a person meeting with an attorney. The caption reads, ‘Hello, I am Tim Legal. The court assigned me to be your attorney in this case. I am here to help you.’
© 2011 AP Images

The Effect of the Fifth Amendment

The Effect of Gideon v. Wainwright

The Effect of in re Gault

The Effect of Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 11

Oh, I almost forgot. One question per post. Sorry.

Answer 12

? why

Answer 13

It's the rules. I don't know why, I just have to follow them. But one question per post. I'll still help you, don't worry.

Answer 14

ok

Answer 15

im going to help Chazz now