Explain the fundamentals of Miranda v. Arizona, what happens if the Miranda warning is not given, and the requirements needed if suspects waive this right
What will be an ideal response?
In 1966, the Supreme Court, in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, created objective standards for questioning by police after a defendant has been taken into custody; police must inform the individual of the Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination. If the defendant is not given the Miranda warning before the investigation, the evidence obtained from the interrogation cannot be admitted at trial. The accused can waive his or her Miranda rights at any time. However, for the waiver to be effective, the state must first show that the defendant was aware of all the Miranda rights and must then prove that the waiver was made with the full knowledge of constitutional rights.
You might also like to view...
One criterion for identifying a high-risk offender is that the suspect initiated _________ or more instances of violence in the preceding year
Fill in the blank(s) with the appropriate word(s).
Argersinger v. Hamlin was significant because it meant that those charged with misdemeanor offenses where imprisonment was a possible punishment were entitled to counsel if they were indigent
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
The somatotype theory was formulated by Cesare Lombroso.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
Aggravated and mitigating circumstances are looked at during the sentencing phase of a bifurcated trial.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)