Pleas help!!Which of the following best describes the Miranda v. Arizona case and its significance?

a) Miranda v. Arizona was about being wrongly identified by an accuser. The case helped create a rule that more than an accuser's identification was needed for an arrest.

b) Miranda v. Arizona was about confessing without an attorney present. The case helped create a rule that an attorney must be present for suspects being questioned by police.

c) Miranda v. Arizona was about protecting a person's 5th and 6th Amendment rights. The ruling gave police the burden of reminding citizens of their rights when arrested.

D)Miranda v. Arizona was about a signed confession obtained by conspiracy between police and Miranda's attorney. The judge ruled that attorneys must be self or court appointed.

The correct answer is C.

Explanation:

Miranda was trialed for kidnapping and r#pe, but his case was thrown out because he wasn't given his 5th amendment rights when interrogated. He was forced to self-incriminate (even though we was obviously guilty) ultimately meaning his case was a mistrial. This ruling has now provided a law in which law-enforcement must remind suspects of their 5th amendment rights before interrogation.

consider an orange peel: if you want to try and lay it flat, you have to stretch it, we know exactly how things are being stretched or squashed at any given point. we have many different map projections because each has different patterns of some projections can even preserve certain features of the earth without

c. more people could read and interpret the bible for themselves