RosettaNewham
Answered

Westonci.ca is the ultimate Q&A platform, offering detailed and reliable answers from a knowledgeable community. Discover solutions to your questions from experienced professionals across multiple fields on our comprehensive Q&A platform. Get quick and reliable solutions to your questions from a community of experienced experts on our 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,

We appreciate your visit. Our platform is always here to offer accurate and reliable answers. Return anytime. Thank you for visiting. Our goal is to provide the most accurate answers for all your informational needs. Come back soon. Get the answers you need at Westonci.ca. Stay informed by returning for our latest expert advice.