Question

Which of the following Supreme Court cases held that under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no conviction tainted by a confession that is the product of gross coercion can be allowed to stand?

Answer 1

The Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona established that under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, convictions cannot stand if based on coerced confessions. This case resulted in the requirement for police to inform individuals of their rights, known as Miranda rights.

Step-by-step explanation:

Supreme Court Decision: Due Process and Confessions

The Supreme Court case that held that no conviction tainted by a confession that is the product of gross coercion can be allowed to stand, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, is Miranda v. Arizona. In this landmark decision, the court ruled that because the police had violated Ernesto Miranda's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney, the confession he made could not be used as evidence. This case established the precedent requiring that individuals in police custody must be informed of their rights, now known as Miranda rights, to ensure that any confession or statements made are voluntarily given.