RosettaNewham
Answered

Westonci.ca offers fast, accurate answers to your questions. Join our community and get the insights you need now. Discover comprehensive solutions to your questions from a wide network of experts on our user-friendly platform. Join our Q&A platform to connect with experts dedicated to providing accurate answers to your questions in various fields.

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. Your visit means a lot to us. Don't hesitate to return for more reliable answers to any questions you may have. Get the answers you need at Westonci.ca. Stay informed by returning for our latest expert advice.