Mapp v. Ohio or Miranda v. Arizona, describe the constitutional issue of the case, and explain how the court's ruling protects those accused of a crime.

Miranda v. Arizona questions the extension of the protection of the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination applies to the police questioning of a suspect.

Explanation:

Ernesto Miranda was charged with criminal activities including kidnapping and r*ape. During interrogation, he confessed his crimes and based on his written confession he was declared guilty by Arizona court. However, his attorney challenged this, because of the fact that he was not informed of his right to have an attorney defend him or that his testimony might be used against him. The Court, however, concentrated on the rights provided by the Fifth Amendment including that of self-incrimination immunity.

answer; intentional; outrageous;