Final answer:
The outcome in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) affects the rights of the accused by protecting against self-incrimination and ensuring the right to legal counsel.
Step-by-step explanation:
The outcome in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) has a significant impact on the rights of the accused. It protects against self-incrimination, which means that a person cannot be forced to testify against themselves in a criminal case. This protection is known as the Miranda warning and requires law enforcement to inform individuals of their right to remain silent. By doing so, it ensures that individuals are aware of their rights and can exercise them during police interrogations.
Furthermore, Miranda v. Arizona also protects the right to legal counsel. It established that if an individual cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them, ensuring they receive proper legal representation during criminal proceedings.
It is important to note that Miranda v. Arizona does not directly protect the right to a jury trial, protect against double jeopardy, or protect the right to a speedy trial. These rights are guaranteed by other provisions in the U.S. Constitution, such as the Sixth Amendment.
Learn more about Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and its impact on the rights of the accused