As a result of miranda v. arizona (1966), nothing suspects say can be used against them in court unless

As a result of Miranda v. Arizona [1966], nothing suspects say can be used against them in court unless they have been advised of their rights. During the case of Miranda versus Arizona, it was established that statements made during interogation by defendants in the police station will be acceptable in courts duriing trials only if the prosecution can show evidence that the defendant was informed of the right to talk to his or her lawyer before and during questioning and of the right against self incrimination before police questioning. And the prosecution should also be able to demonstrate that the defendant understand these rights but voluntarily waived them.

The theory is land mass basically what they said.

Are their any multiple answer's ?