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

History

Aaron Freeman

29 August, 11:46

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

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Raelynn Wu · 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.