Which U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that a child may waive his or her rights to an attorney and to protections against self-incrimination?Asked by: Melody Wiza | Last update: September 20, 2022
Score: 4.4/5 (66 votes)
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Which U.S. Supreme Court decision found that a child could waive his or her rights to an attorney and to protections against self-incrimination?
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)
What did the In Re Gault 1967 case decided?
8–1 decision for Gault
The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.
What was the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona?
In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ruled that an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-discrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution. Miranda v.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Goss vs Lopez?
Lopez, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1975, ruled that, under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, public-school students facing suspensions are entitled to notice and a hearing.
Impeachment Trial Day 1: Senate proceedings set to begin as rules come into focus
What was the Supreme Court decision in New Jersey v TLO?
The Court held that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not limited solely to the actions of law enforcement personnel. It also applies to the conduct of public school officials. Public school teachers act as agents of the state, and not merely agents of the students' parents.
What happened in the Goss case what rights did the Supreme Court say the students should be given prior to a brief suspension?
In Goss v Lopez, the Supreme Court decided that students who are suspended for 1() days or less are entitled to certain rights before their suspension.
How did the Supreme Court rule in the Miranda decision quizlet?
How did the Supreme Court rule in the Miranda decision? Ernesto Miranda was found guilty on all counts.
What was the significance of Miranda v. Arizona quizlet?
In 1966 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects and there were police questioning and must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.
Why is the Miranda vs Arizona case important?
Miranda v. Arizona was a significant Supreme Court case that ruled that a defendant's statements to authorities are inadmissible in court unless the defendant has been informed of their right to have an attorney present during questioning and an understanding that anything they say will be held against them.
What was the Gault decision?
Gault Case Changed Juvenile Law : NPR. Gault Case Changed Juvenile Law In 1967 a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision gave juveniles accused of crimes the same due process rights as adults. The case involved Jerry Gault, who at 14 was given a seven-year sentence for a prank phone call.
What was the result of the Gault decision quizlet?
The Gault decision established some rights for juveniles: notice of charges, legal representation, confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, and protection against self-incrimination.
Which rights did the Gault decision apply to juveniles?
In re Gault et al. Juveniles tried for crimes in delinquency proceedings should have the right of due process protected by the 5th Amendment, including the right to confront witnesses and the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
Which U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that a child may waive his or her rights to an attorney and to protections against self-incrimination quizlet?
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963).
Which U.S. Supreme Court decision held that juveniles have a right to an attorney if their case is going to be transferred to the adult Court?
In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court (in a case called In re Gault) ruled that minors have the right to an attorney in juvenile proceedings. If a minor cannot afford an attorney, he or she has the right to be represented by a state-appointed attorney.
Which of the following Supreme Court decisions held that juveniles must be afforded due process rights in Court proceedings?
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)
This landmark 8-1 U.S. Supreme Court decision held that juveniles accused of delinquency must be afford many of the same due process rights afforded to adults via the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Which of the following was ruled by the Supreme Court as a result of the Miranda case quizlet?
Which of the following was ruled by the Supreme Court as a result of the Miranda case? Every suspect needs protection from coercion.
What is the Miranda rule established by the Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona quizlet?
The rights concerning self-incrimination announced by the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona must be given to a suspect when: he or she is first subjected to police interrogation while deprived of her freedom of action in any significant way.
What was the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v Wade quizlet?
Court ruled with a 7-2 decision in 1973 for Jane Roe that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from "depriv[ing] any person of liberty without due process of law."
What was the Supreme Court's decision in Barron v Baltimore in 1833?
In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's Bill of Rights restricts only the powers of the federal government and not those of the state governments.
What was the impact of the Griswold v. Connecticut ruling?
The Griswold v. Connecticut case was decided on June 7, 1965. This case was significant because the Supreme Court ruled that married people had the right to use contraception. 1 It essentially paved the road for the reproductive privacy and freedoms that are in place today.
What was the impact of the Griswold vs Connecticut ruling quizlet?
What was the impact of the Griswold v. Connecticut ruling? Couples were allowed to keep their marriage decisions private.
Which Supreme Court case established that people have a property interest in their education therefore giving them a right to procedural due process?
Board of Regents v Roth shows how the Court has defined "property" interests for purposes of the due process clause. The case involved the decision of a public college not to renew the contract of an untenured professor.
In which situation would the Tinker v Des Moines Supreme Court decision apply?
In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that public school officials cannot censor student expression unless they can reasonably forecast that the speech will substantially disrupt school activities or invade the rights of others.
What happened in the Mapp v Ohio case?
Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 vote in favor of Mapp. The high court said evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts.