Final answer:
The Fifth Amendment protects suspects from self-incrimination and guarantees the right to an attorney. The Miranda ruling specifies that police must inform suspects of these rights before interrogation. Confessions made without these advisements may be ruled inadmissible.
Step-by-step explanation:
The original question assesses if a private investigator working for the defense can interview represented plaintiffs without plaintiffs' attorney consent in a litigation. This specific question wasn't directly addressed. However, we have considered the broader context of Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and the right to counsel during police interrogations.
In landmark cases like Miranda v. Arizona, it was established that police must advise suspects of their rights, such as the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, under the Constitution. This is known as the Miranda warning. If police interrogation occurs without the suspect being informed of these rights, any evidence obtained may be inadmissible in court, as it is considered a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The right to an attorney, upheld in cases like Gideon v. Wainwright, ensures that even those who cannot afford legal representation will be provided with an attorney. This has been extended over time to include all defendants facing jail time. Furthermore, if a defendant asserts their right to counsel, according to Michigan v. Jackson, any waiver of that right during a police-initiated interrogation is invalid, although this was later overruled by Montejo v. Louisiana.