Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
The following transcript comes from the monumental 1966 case of Miranda vs. the State of Arizona. The result of this case required police officers to inform anyone being arrested of his or her rights to an attorney. Read the statement and then answer the question that follows:
Now, may I just state what the thrust of our position is, very briefly, before indicating likewise its limits and why we are taking this position? Our contention is that insofar as these cases present a constitutional claim that a valid confession cannot be taken unless counsel is present or has been waived, that that claim in constitutional terms in the constitutional dimension is not sound. In other words, Justice Black's question we would answer in the negative. The Fifth Amendment cannot, and should not, be read as requiring counsel to be present at the time the confession is taken. I will come to my reasons for that very presently. […]
In the Miranda case that's just been argued, there is obviously division of opinion about the characteristics of the defendant about whether the warning which Mr. Justice Fortas' questions were directed to was given at a meaningful stage—what the significance of that warning is, in legal terms. […]
Secondly, may I make it quite clear that we are not saying that new rules about requiring counsel to be present when an investigation is taken—when an interrogation is made or a confesÂ¬sion taken—we are not saying that such rules are necessarily unwise, without merit. We say that these are not matters of constitutional dimension. But we do not say that they might not be very wise rules to adopt. In fact, we are saying that this whole problem of the assistance of counsel at the pre-arraignment stage can, we think, be more appropriately and perhaps better dealt with in the legislative dimension and in the area of judicial policy, rather than on purely constitutional terms.