RosettaNewham
Answered

Discover answers to your most pressing questions at Westonci.ca, the ultimate Q&A platform that connects you with expert solutions. Get quick and reliable solutions to your questions from knowledgeable professionals on our comprehensive Q&A platform. Get detailed and accurate answers to your questions from a dedicated community of experts on our Q&A platform.

The Supreme Court interpreted the Fifth Amendment in Gideon v. Wainwright to mean that accused people have a right to be informed of their rights Gideon v. Wainwright to mean states must pay for counsel if the defendant cannot afford it Miranda v. Arizona to mean states must pay for counsel if the defendant cannot afford it Miranda v. Arizona to mean that accused people have a right to be informed of their rights

Sagot :

Gibbs
The Supreme Court interpreted the fourteenth amendment to mean that states must pay for counsel if the defendant cannot afford it. In Miranda v. Arizona the Supreme Court ruled that accused individuals have a right to be informed of their rights. 

I believe the answer is: Miranda v. Arizona to mean that accused people have a right to be informed of their rights

The ruling became a landmark decision which required the police to tell the detainees about their 'miranda rights' when they are being arrested. The right include the right to remain silent and wait for lawyers because everything they say can be used against them on the court,

Thanks for using our platform. We're always here to provide accurate and up-to-date answers to all your queries. We hope you found this helpful. Feel free to come back anytime for more accurate answers and updated information. Get the answers you need at Westonci.ca. Stay informed by returning for our latest expert advice.