Which case requires suspects to be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning?

• A. Gideon v. Wainwright
• B. Escobedo v. Illinois
• C. Miranda v. Arizona
• D. Brown v. Board of Education

Answer: (C)

Suspects in custody must be told about their rights before questioning, including the right to remain silent and the right to consult with an attorney, with anything said potentially used against them. This warning requirement comes from Miranda v. Arizona, which established that statements made during custodial interrogation are admissible only if the suspect has been informed of these rights. Escobedo v. Illinois emphasized the importance of having an attorney during interrogation, but it did not set the full pre-questioning warning rule by itself. Gideon v. Wainwright guarantees counsel at trial, not a pretrial interrogation warning. Brown v. Board of Education addresses desegregation and equal protection, not interrogation rights. Therefore, the case that requires informing suspects of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning is Miranda v. Arizona.