Which court case is associated with preventing coerced confessions?

• A. Miranda v Arizona
• B. 5th Amendment
• C. Double Jeopardy
• D. 6th Amendment

Answer: (A)

The central idea is protecting people from coerced self-incrimination during police questioning by requiring warnings of rights. Miranda v. Arizona held that suspects must be informed of their rights before custodial interrogation, including the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. If those warnings aren’t given and the suspect’s statements are obtained, they can be excluded from evidence unless the suspect knowingly and voluntarily waives the rights. This established the famous Miranda rights and the procedural safeguard that helps prevent coerced confessions.

The other options point to broader constitutional protections—such as the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination, or the Sixth Amendment and Double Jeopardy clause—which are important but do not establish the specific warning requirement that directly prevents coerced confessions.