Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial.
United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp. 350 U.S. 332 (1956) contracts under the Natural Gas Act of 1938: Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co. 350 U.S. 348 (1956) contracts under the Federal Power Act: Griffin v. Illinois: 351 U.S. 12 (1956) access to court transcript for indigent appeals Communist Party v.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Police must advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Constitution to remain silent, to consult with a lawyer, and to have one appointed to them if they are indigent. A police interrogation must stop if the suspect states that he or she wishes to remain silent.
Ernesto Arturo Miranda (March 9, 1941 – January 31, 1976) was an American laborer whose criminal conviction was set aside in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona , which ruled that criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials.
An Arizona Supreme Court ruling that allows enforcement of a ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy was part of a flurry of recent activity on the issue that has been in flux since the U.S ...
On Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled to ban abortions except in the case where it would save a mother’s life, creating a path to prison for providers. Critics call the ruling, which ...