Question and answer
In the case ___________________, the Supreme Court created objective standards for questioning by police after a defendant has been taken into custody.
This question has not been answered. Can you answer it? Please add your answer below ...
Get an answer
Original conversation
User: In the case ___________________, the Supreme Court created objective standards for questioning by police after a defendant has been taken into custody.

User: In the case ___________________, the Supreme Court created objective standards for questioning by police after a defendant has been taken into custody.

Question
Asked 8/10/2013 12:21:46 PM
Updated 8/10/2013 12:27:15 PM
1 Answer/Comment
Flagged by alfred123
New answers
Rating
3
In the case MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, the Supreme Court created objective standards for questioning by police after a defendant has been taken into custody.



Added 8/10/2013 12:27:15 PM
This answer has been confirmed as correct, not copied, and helpful.
Confirmed by Andrew. [2/27/2015 1:37:32 AM], Rated good by Andrew.
Comments

There are no comments.

Add an answer or comment
Log in or sign up first.
Questions asked by the same visitor
Describe the criteria for admissibility of scientific evidence as laid out in Frye v. United States.
Weegy: The criteria for admissibility of scientific evidence as laid out in Frye v. united states was the systolic blood pressure deception test also known today as the polygraph or lie detector test. User: What document offers an alternative to the Frye standard that some courts believe espouses a more flexible standard for admitting scientific evidence Weegy: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, which held that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not incorporate the Frye "general acceptance" test as a basis for assessing the admissibility of scientific expert testimony; General Electric Co. [ v. Joiner,[1] which held that an abuse-of-discretion standard of review was the proper standard for appellate courts to use in reviewing a trial court's decision of whether expert testimony should be admitted; Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,[2] which held that the judge s gatekeeping function identified in Daubert applies to all expert testimony, including that which is non-scientific. Two of the most important appellate level opinions that clarify the standard include Judge Kozinski's opinion in Daubert on remand (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995)), and Judge Becker's opinion in In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994). Weisgram v Marley Co, 528 US 440 (2000) is also considered a significant case.[3] ] User: Two of the most important appellate level opinions that clarify the standard include Judge Kozinski's opinion in Daubert on remand (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995)), and Judge Becker's opinion in In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994). Weisgram v Marley Co, 528 US 440 (2000) is also considered a significant case. Weegy: What is your question? Thank you. (More)
Question
Expert Answered
Asked 8/10/2013 12:01:35 PM
0 Answers/Comments
23,899,114 questions answered
Popular Conversations
Weegy Stuff
S
Points 301 [Total 698] Ratings 0 Comments 301 Invitations 0 Offline
S
P
P
L
Points 196 [Total 1003] Ratings 0 Comments 196 Invitations 0 Online
S
1
L
L
P
R
P
L
P
Points 120 [Total 11293] Ratings 0 Comments 120 Invitations 0 Offline
S
L
P
Points 46 [Total 2114] Ratings 0 Comments 46 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 17 [Total 301] Ratings 0 Comments 17 Invitations 0 Offline
S
R
Points 11 [Total 447] Ratings 0 Comments 11 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 4 [Total 904] Ratings 0 Comments 4 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 2 [Total 2] Ratings 0 Comments 2 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 1 [Total 2] Ratings 0 Comments 1 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 1 [Total 2] Ratings 0 Comments 1 Invitations 0 Offline
* Excludes moderators and previous
winners (Include)