RosettaNewham
Answered

Explore Westonci.ca, the premier Q&A site that helps you find precise answers to your questions, no matter the topic. Find reliable answers to your questions from a wide community of knowledgeable experts on our user-friendly Q&A platform. Connect with a community of professionals ready to help you find accurate solutions to your questions quickly and efficiently.

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 hope you found what you were looking for. Feel free to revisit us for more answers and updated information. Thank you for your visit. We're committed to providing you with the best information available. Return anytime for more. Westonci.ca is your go-to source for reliable answers. Return soon for more expert insights.