Based on the miranda warning that is evolved from the supreme court case miranda v. arizona, what rights is a person entitled to when she is arrested? give examples of what must happen when a person is accused of a crime and why these rights are necessary

The Miranda warning used by law enforcement lists several different things that citizens are entitled to including:

1) The right to remain silent- Individuals are warned that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law.

2) Right to an attorney- Individuals can have legal counsel with them throughout the process.

Individuals who are being arrested for a crime are made aware of these rights. This warning allows individuals to understand what the procedures are after the arrest and what rights they have throughout the process. These rights are used as a means to ensure that the suspect understands what is happening and it prevents law enforcement officials from violating a citizens rights.

The Miranda warning gives an accused person these rights:

The right to remain silent and not answer questions, knowing that anything said could be used as evidence against you.

The right to be represented by an attorney, who can be present during any questioning by police and defend you in court.

The right to have an attorney appointed for you if you cannot afford to hire an attorney on your own.

If you've ever watched a television crime drama, you've heard the "Miranda warning" -- or at least the beginning of it:  "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney "  There's a couple more sentences to the warning, but TV shows often cut to the next scene before hearing the arresting officer finish their recitation of the full warning.

Miranda v. Arizona was a Supreme Court case decided in 1966.  Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman.  He confessed to the crime when interrogated by police, but attorneys argued that he did not fully understand his 6th Amendment rights.  After the decision in Miranda v. Arizona, it has become standard procedure in all arrests that the arresting officers must clearly state the accused person's rights -- their "Miranda rights," as they have become known.

both are true, the congress does have the power to create banks, even if this power is not specifically described in the constitution, since there is nothing restricting it and there is power given to the congress to make "all laws which shall be necessary and proper". maryland was not allowed to tax a branch of the national bank operating there, and the supreme court decided that no state could. both of these topics were discussed in a decision of the mcculloch v. maryland case in 1819.

the correct option is a

explanation:

the movement mainly consisted of white farmers from the south who sought the relieve of farmers from their hardship. hope this !

by kd