answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

A person accused of a crime must be offered a lawyer. If the person can't afford a lawyer, the courts will appoint one for free.

User Avatar

Wiki User

βˆ™ 9y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

βˆ™ 6y ago

The person (innocent until proven guilty) is entitled to a fair trial, and to be judged by a jury of the accused peers.

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What must a person accused of a crime be offered?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

A person accused of a crime in Illinois must stand trial in?

Illinois


Every person is accused of a crime must be represented by an attorney?

No. They must be afforded the OPPORTUNITY to be represented by counsel.


Whats it called when Each person accused of a crime must be read his right to remain silent?

Miranda rights


Which decision by the Warren court determined that the state must provide a lawyer to a person accused of a crime who cannot?

Gideon v. wainwright


Which decisions by the warren court determined that the state must provide a lawyer to a person accused of a crime who cannot afford one?

Gideon v. wainwright


When a citizen is accused of a crime the government must follow what?

Due Process of Law.


If you are ever accused of a crime you must receive a blank trial by jury?

"fair and impartial" (???)


Will A person charged with a felony crime appear in a lower court?

In the US, yes. To even be charged, the accused must be arraigned and appear (or waive appearance) in a preliminary hearing.


What is the right of the accused?

Officers must tell the suspect that they have the right to remain silent and that they do not have to confuse to their crime.


What decision by warren court determined that the state must provide a lawyer to a person accused of a crime who cannot afford one?

Gideon v. Wainwright


What Means that the proof must be such that a reasonable person could not conclude that an element of the crime was not true?

It means, "The proof offered must be beyond a REASONABLE doubt." Not ALL doubt, just reasonable doubt.


what did the supreme court decide in Miranda VS ArizonaΒ ?

people accused of a crime must be informed of their rights