Question

Read Chief Justice Warren’s decision from the Miranda case.

The entire thrust of police interrogation . . . was to put the defendant in such an emotional state as to impair his capacity for rational judgment. . . . [T]he choice on his part to speak to the police—was not made knowingly.

What did Chief Justice Warren say about how Miranda’s confession was made?


A. Miranda was aware of his rights when he made his confession.

B. Miranda incriminated himself intentionally and knowingly.

C. Miranda was unaware of his rights but his confession could be used.

D. Miranda incriminated himself without knowing that he could refuse to do so.

Answer 1

Chief Justice Warren's decision in the Miranda case stated Ernesto Miranda incriminated himself without being aware of his constitutional rights, making his confession inadmissible in court.

Step-by-step explanation:

Chief Justice Warren, in his decision regarding the Miranda case, indicated that Ernesto Miranda's confession was made without him being fully aware of his constitutional rights, specifically the right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The decision stated that due to the coercive nature of police interrogations, suspects must be informed of their rights to ensure any confession is truly voluntary. Hence, Miranda's confession, made without such knowledge, was deemed inadmissible.

Therefore, the correct answer to the provided question about Chief Justice Warren's statement on how Miranda’s confession was made is:

D. Miranda incriminated himself without knowing that he could refuse to do so.

Answer 2

D

Step-by-step explanation: