According to the courts majority opinion, " the prosecution may not use statements stemming from interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self incrimination" how has this impacted the rights of accused persons? under what circumstances would a self incriminating statement be admissible in court?

This question is based on the following paragraph. tomas tiptoed across the room. he made sure not to walk on the spot that always creaked. he opened the squeaky door as slowly as possible. he took one last look in the crib and smiled. was anything more beautiful than a sleeping baby? softly he closed the nursery door and headed down the hall. it had been a long night. what can you infer from this paragraph? a. tomas was ready to start a new day. b. tomas's house needed some repairs. c. tomas had spent a long time getting his child to sleep. d. tomas did not enjoy being a father.

Charles schenck was a u.s. citizen and private in the army. while in military training during world war i, schenck printed and passed out leaflets explaining why he was against the draft (required military service). he was charged with violating the espionage act of 1917, a federal law outlawing any action interfering with military operations. schenck believed the espionage act violated his right to free speech. in which court would this case ultimately be decided, and why? a state criminal court, because schenck was accused of violating a criminal law a military tribunal, because the matter involved members of the military a county civil court, because it involved violation of a civil liberty the u.s. supreme court, because schenck challenged whether the law was constitutional

Which type of learning occurs when you observe how other people act?