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

Question

Leyla Compton

History

13 March, 14:46

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

+2

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Mackenzie Velez · Answer 1

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.