RosettaNewham
Answered

Looking for answers? Westonci.ca is your go-to Q&A platform, offering quick, trustworthy responses from a community of experts. Discover in-depth answers to your questions from a wide network of professionals on our user-friendly Q&A platform. Experience the ease of finding precise answers to your questions from a knowledgeable community of experts.

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,

Thank you for your visit. We're committed to providing you with the best information available. Return anytime for more. We hope our answers were useful. Return anytime for more information and answers to any other questions you have. Thank you for visiting Westonci.ca, your go-to source for reliable answers. Come back soon for more expert insights.