In miranda v. arizona (1966), why did ernesto miranda say his fifth amendment rights had been violated? he had been stopped and searched without a judge issuing a proper warrant. he had been tried for serious crimes without a grand jury issuing an indictment. he had confessed to crimes without being reminded of his right to avoid self-incrimination. he had been jailed without being informed of the charges against him.

C is the correct answer.

Miranda was interrogated without being informed of his right to an attorney and his right to not incriminate himself.

The answer is option 3: He had confessed to crimes without being reminded of his right to avoid self-incrimination.

The 5th Amendment states that no one will be deprived of life, liberty, or property, or be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself (self-incrimination), without due process of law.

On March 13, 1963, a Phoenix resident, Ernesto Miranda, was arrested for being suspect of r.pe and kidnapping. In the police station, he was questioned by police officers and within two hours, he confessed to committing the crimes. However, in the Court, Miranda alleged that he hadn't been informed of his rights prior to the interrogation, as stated in the 5th and 6th Amendment.

According to these laws, the police should've complied with several procedural safeguards to secure the accused's right. Before giving any confession, the defendant should've been informed that he had the right to have a lawyer present to advise him or that he had the right to remain silent and that anything he said can be used against him in a court of law.

i disagree that there is little difference between adult female development and adult male development. sociological studies comparing female and male pathways to adulthood, revelead that there are sustancial differences between them. particularly, female and male differ from timing of marriage, when they began to live with children and the likelihood of combining wife/husband and parent roles.