What did the Supreme Court establish in Miranda v. Arizona?

• A. Defendants must be informed of their right to a speedy trial
• B. Criminal suspects must be informed of their rights before questioning
• C. All suspects must have a lawyer present during interrogations
• D. Individuals are entitled to a public trial

Answer: (B)

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court established that criminal suspects must be informed of their rights before being subjected to interrogation by law enforcement. This decision was a significant development in the understanding of the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination, and the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel.

The ruling emphasized the necessity of informing suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. This ensures that individuals are aware of their rights and can make informed decisions about whether to speak to authorities. The case arose from Ernesto Miranda's confession during police interrogation without being informed of these rights, which ultimately led to the Supreme Court's ruling that such confessions may be inadmissible in court if the suspect was not properly informed.

This ruling has had a lasting impact on the American legal system, reaffirming the principle that protecting individual rights is essential in the criminal justice process.