Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Social Science
History
What was the Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona State courts cannot retry someone for a crime for which they were acquitted. Confessions are not admissible in court if someone has not been told about their right to an attorney. Individuals do not have to provide testimony if the statements they make will incriminate themselves. Federal courts are prohibited from sentencing convicted persons to cruel or unusual punishments.

What was the Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona State courts cannot retry someone for a crime for which they were acquitted. Confessions are not admissible in court if someone has not been told about their right to an attorney. Individuals do not have to provide testimony if the statements they make will incriminate themselves. Federal courts are prohibited from sentencing convicted persons to cruel or unusual punishments.

icon
Related questions
Question
**Supreme Court Ruling in Miranda v. Arizona** In the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court made a crucial ruling regarding the admissibility of confessions in court. The options considered in relation to the ruling are: 1. **State courts cannot retry someone for a crime for which they were acquitted.** 2. **Confessions are not admissible in court if someone has not been told about their right to an attorney.** *(Correct Answer)* 3. **Individuals do not have to provide testimony if the statements they make will incriminate themselves.** 4. **Federal courts are prohibited from sentencing convicted persons to cruel or unusual punishments.** The correct answer to the question "What was the Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona?" is the second option: "Confessions are not admissible in court if someone has not been told about their right to an attorney." This ruling emphasized the necessity of informing individuals of their rights, now known as "Miranda Rights," which include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. This decision has had a profound impact on law enforcement practices and the handling of suspects in custody across the United States.
Transcribed Image Text:**Supreme Court Ruling in Miranda v. Arizona** In the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court made a crucial ruling regarding the admissibility of confessions in court. The options considered in relation to the ruling are: 1. **State courts cannot retry someone for a crime for which they were acquitted.** 2. **Confessions are not admissible in court if someone has not been told about their right to an attorney.** *(Correct Answer)* 3. **Individuals do not have to provide testimony if the statements they make will incriminate themselves.** 4. **Federal courts are prohibited from sentencing convicted persons to cruel or unusual punishments.** The correct answer to the question "What was the Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona?" is the second option: "Confessions are not admissible in court if someone has not been told about their right to an attorney." This ruling emphasized the necessity of informing individuals of their rights, now known as "Miranda Rights," which include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. This decision has had a profound impact on law enforcement practices and the handling of suspects in custody across the United States.
Expert Solution
steps

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer