Answer:
The Constitution is a flexible document because of its custom, usage, tradition, broad framework, and elastic clause. ... Usage refers to the government, “using certain pieces of legislation to alter the Constitution” (Flexibility).
What would be the hardest thing to deal with when you are a forensic scientist, collecting evidence or securing a crime scene? And what would be the most interesting part?
Answer:
the hardest thing to deal with is people that are with you will sometimes get your head messed up so make sure your partner is someone who can help you
A woman and man were charged with murder. Each gave a confession to the police that implicated both of them. The woman later retracted her confession claiming that it was coerced. The woman and man were tried together. The prosecutor offered both confessions into evidence. The woman and man objected. After a hearing, the trial judge found that both confessions were voluntary and admitted both into evidence. The woman testified at trial, and the man did not. She claimed that her confession was false and the result of coercion. Both defendants were convicted. On appeal, the woman contends her conviction should be reversed because of the admission into evidence of the man's confession. The woman's contention is
Answer:
she was to give involuntary confession.
Explanation:
Remember, we are told, "the woman later retracted her confession claiming that it was coerced". In law when a defendant claims that their confession was coerced (involuntary), it cannot be used against a defendant in court even if it was true.
In fact, the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona case sets this judicial precedence.
List the people involved in Carmela Coppilino’s death. Why is there a possible problem with her death certificate?
How did William Farber die? Was there a problem with his death certificate?
Why was Dr. Coppolino charged with the murders of his wife and William Farber?
Why was Dr. Coppolino not convicted of William Farber’s murder?
What did Dr. Umberger do to prove Dr. Coppolino’s guilt?
How would the “Frye Standard” be applied in this case?
What was the final ruling in Dr. Coppolino’s 2nd trial?
The case against Dr. Coppolino for his wife’s murder was tried under the Dauber Ruling? Why was it resolved the way it was? Compare it to the first.
This question is about the text "Dr. Coppolino's Deadly House Calls"
Answer and Explanation:
1. The possible people involved in Carmela's death are her husband Dr. Carl Coppolino and Dr. Karrow. That's because they probably gave a fake death certificate on Carmela's death. This is because when Dr. Karrow arrived home, Carmela was already dead and did not appear to have had a heart attack (as her husband had stated. On the contrary, it seemed that her death had been caused, but even so Dr. Karrow agreed to sign a state of death stating that Carmela had died of "coronary occlusion".
2. William Farber died of suffocation by the hands of Dr. Carl Coppolino, who used a pillow to kill Faber. he did this because Faber's wife had an affair with him and was unable to give her husband a lethal injection. The injection was given by Carl himself.
3. Because Marjorie Farber told the police how Carl murdered her husband and why he did it. The police then launched an investigation and realized that William Faber's death certificate indicated death from "coronary occlusion," a death that is rarely investigated by the police. After that, the police managed to obtain authorization to carry out the bodies of Camela and William Farber for an autopsy to be done, confirming that both did not die of "coronary occlusion," the police therefore decided to accuse Dr. Coppolinode of murdering his wife and William Farber.
4. Marjorie Farber had an affair with Dr. Carl Coppolino and decided to report it because she was sad when he decided to marry a wealthy socialite. She was portrayed in court as an embittered woman against a respected and professional doctor, which lightened her complaint. Furthermore, no chemical substances were found in William Farber's body, although there were indeed signs of strangulation. In the end Coppolino was not convicted because he was a professional doctor, while Marjorie was a betrayed and sad woman.
5. He proved that Carl Coppolino injected his wife with succinylcholine chloride. This substance is paralyzing and deadly, but its identification in the body is almost impossible, because it is degraded by two substances that happen naturally in the human organism. So Dr. Umberger created a new method to detect this substance. He managed to isolate, in Camelia's body, very high levels of succinic acid, which is a strong indication of the use of succinylcholine chloride
6. The Fryer standard would accept the process applied by the doctor as proof of Umberger's guilt. That's because Dr. Umberger was a toxicology expert and the Fryer standard states that within a trial, an expert's opinion should be accepted as evidence if he can use a scientifically recognized technique to prove the point, like Dr. Umberger did.
7. After presenting the facts discovered by Dr. Umberger, Dr. Coppolino was found guilty of the murder of his wife and was convicted of second-degree murder.
8. We can consider that the case was tried within the Dauber Ruling, as it considered Dr. Umberger's methodology as a proof of Coppolino's guilt. However, the case of the murder of William Farber was also investigated by an expert, but it did not have the same result, probably for sexist reasons.
WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST
Which Amendment gives the states the powers to have their own constitutions?
A 5th Amendment
B. 10th Amendment
C. 19th Amendment
D. 22nd Amendment
Answer:
it would be the 10th amendment.
Explanation:
because
Democratic vs Republican view on gun control
what is 2 + 5,940,714
Answer:
5,940,716
Explanation:
that is what it is
Answer:
5940716
Explanation:
A person is prosecuted for assaulting a neighbor.
Would this case be tried in a federal or state court
When a person is prosecuted for assaulting a neighbor, then this case would be tried in a state court.
What is a state court?A court in the US that decides issues based on state law rather than federal law stockholder class actions settled by state courts must be recognised by federal courts. State legislation protecting the rights of people with disabilities allows them to file a claim for damages in state court.
The final decision-makers for state laws and constitutions are state courts. They may appeal to the US Supreme Court over how they interpret federal law or the US Constitution. Such cases may or may not be heard by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, when any of the cases or incidents like assaulting a neighbor is filed, this case will be tried in the state court.
Learn more about state court from here:
https://brainly.com/question/23041991
#SPJ2
Why did Congress have so much trouble passing laws under the terms of
the Articles of Confederation?
Who is Austria’s foreign minister?
Answer:
Alexander Schallenberg
Explanation:
Since 3 June 2019
Which statement about bias in social studies sources is true?
Answer: D. Bias occurs when a writer intentionally omits information that weakens his or her argument.
Explanation:
Social studies is the study of people and how they relate with one another in society.
In research, bias can occur for a multitude of reasons and one of these reasons is when a writer intentionally omits information that weakens his or her argument.
All the relevant information about a subject should be included so that the research can be scrutinized appropriately. However, sometimes researchers want the research to turn out in a certain way for whatever reason and will omit information that will weaken this result.
This will result in a bias in the research.
Which is a reason ethics are important to law enforcement?
Answer:
Ethics is important because law enforcement is placed in a position of authority.
Explanation:
HELP! In addition to the physical fitness test, or PFT, every applicant to the FBI must pass _____.
a polygraph test
a background check
a background check and a polygraph test
a background check, a polygraph and a defensive driving examinatione
Answer:
A polygraph test.
Explanation:
They obviously perform a background check, but after you receive a conditional offer you must pass a polygraph examination.
Answer:
the answer is a
Explanation:
. Lana, a ten-year-old child, is run over by a car negligently driven by Mitchell. Lana, at the time of the accident, was acting reasonably and without negligence. Clark, a newspaper reporter, photographs Lana while she is lying in the street in great pain. Two years later, Perry, the publisher of a newspaper, prints Clark's picture of Lana in his newspaper as a lead to an article concerning the negligence of children. The caption under the picture reads: "They ask to be killed." Lana, who has recovered from the accident, brings suit against Clark and Perry. What result? Explain fully and completely.
Answer:
Two actions which took place.
1) was it a defamation for the publisher - yes,
2) false light? no
Explanation:
It was a defamation of character from the publisher because what he did could cause harm to the young child, One thing is show though the accusation of a false light is a no. And lana can't complain about how her pictrue was made because she was in a public space so no reasonable expectation of privacy.
"Don hires James to work in his liquor store. James is specially trained to ask for the identification of any individual who appears to be under the age of thirty and attempts to buy alcohol. One night, James sells alcohol to Ashley and does not request identification because Ashley is attractive and James wants to ask her out on a date. Unfortunately, Ashley is underage and is participating in a sting operation with local law enforcement. Certain statutes could subject Don to criminal prosecution for selling alcohol to an underage person like Ashley, even though Don did not personally participate in the sale.
Answer: :)
Explanation: I do not think he will get into trouble if he has nothing to do with it.
Is a criminal act by a person who is a "victim" of an unjust society morally wrong?
WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST AND THANKS
+ 25 POINTS
Which of the following is the term used to describe the part of an arrest when a defendant is fingerprinted, photographed and put in a holding cell?
A. INITIAL APPEARANCE
B. DELIBERATIONS
C. BOOKING
D. NOVATION
Answer:
C. Booking
Explanation:
"During booking, a police officer typically takes the criminal suspect's personal information; records information about the alleged crime; performs a record search of the suspect's criminal background; fingerprints, photographs, and searches the suspect."
In the case of Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Georgia sold large tracts of land to speculators in 1795. A few years later, the Georgia legislature voided the sale in response to public outcry that the original agreement was conducted with bribes. In the intervening period, Robert Fletcher, a land speculator, had purchased a tract of land from John Peck, who had acquired the land from the original agreement in 1795. Fletcher took Peck to court, arguing that he had no right to sell the land and that the sale was a breach of contract. The Court's decision favored Peck based on the argument that bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. Why is the Supreme Court's decision in the scenario one that reflects judicial restraint
Answer:
Because the court did not review the events and laws that govern the process.
Explanation:
As you can see in the question above, Fletcher bought land from Peck before legislation that prohibited the sale of land to speculators was enforced. This means that he made this purchase when this practice was still legal, although there was a clamor for this activity to end. However, Fletcher decided to go to the federal supreme court stating that the purchase was illegal. However, the Court stated that this case was an ex post facto law, which they considered invalid, unconstitutional. This is a type of law with retroactive effects, where its effects work on the facts that happened before its ratification. Thus, the court refused to make a judicial review of these facts, promoting an example of judicial restraint.
How did watching the debate extend or broaden your thinking about the candidates and the campaign? What new information did you learn?
Answer:
The debate extends and broadens our ability to decide which political party candidate is better for us and for our country and this decision we can only make by watching or listening debates.
Explanation:
A candidate's debate or presidential debate is a common debate carried out throughout a general election campaign, where the candidates of different political parties display their political views and public policy projects, and review of them, to inherent voters. They are normally televised live on Social media, radio, television, and the Internet.
Why was it difficult or impossible for the government of the United States
under the Articles, to raise money to pay its expenses? *
One of the biggest problems was that the national government had no power to impose taxes. To avoid any perception of “taxation without representation,” the Articles of Confederation allowed only state governments to levy taxes. To pay for its expenses, the national government had to request money from the states. The states, however, were often negligent in this duty, and so the national government was underfunded.
Without money, the US government could not pay debts owed from the Revolution or easily secure new funds. Foreign governments were reluctant to loan money to a nation that might never repay it. The fiscal problems of the central government meant that the currency it issued, called the Continental, was largely worthless.
Hope that this helps :)
How did watching the debate challenge or complicate your previous opinions on the candidates or the campaign? What new questions did it raise for you?
Answer:
The last debate has left me disheartened with both political parties. For one, the President made a fool out of himself and did not exhibit proper decorum. The Presidency is an important office and you want to make a lasting impression on the constituents. Furthermore, the failed acknowledgment of white supremacists has really left me ashamed. Especially with what has been going on with (BLM and so forth). Conversely, Joe Biden behaved better than the President of the United States, however, could have done better. He could have had better responses. This leads me to think, this was the best option the Democratic Convention chose? I feel that both are unqualified to serve in the Presidency. It amazes me that the Republican party continues to endorse him and feel upset over Bernie Sanders's fate.
Explanation:
This is a good start. I hope this helps.
The United States government doesn't have the right to allow troops to occupy a citizen's home. This is an example of
Answer: Slavery codometics
Explanation:
Hello,
The United States government doesn't have the right to allow troops to occupy a citizen's home. This is an example of ...
Answer:
Slavery Codometics, I hope this helped!
Brainiest would be nice
- Sparkle
4. What is the momentum of a vehicle that has a mass of 12,000 Kg and velocity of 40 m/s?
Which type of government does the passage best describe?
A country is led by a king who inherited his rule from his
father. The king's subjects are not given a say in how the
government is run, and those who challenge the king's
power are often jailed or executed.
A. Democracy
B. Absolute monarchy
C. Oligarchy
D. Dictatorship
Answer:
Absolute monarchy
Explanation:
All of the following statements are false. Correct each statement to make it true.
12. The least common pieces of PPE worn by forensic lab personnel are lab coats, safety glasses, and protective gloves.
13. To maintain the integrity of evidence for use in court, there should be no more than two unexplained or undocumented openings to the evidence package.
14. Proper lab practices are important to make sure the analysis results are reliable, inaccurate, and estimated.
15. Before the evidence is even opened, the analyst must make sure there are witnesses.
12. The least common pieces of PPE worn by forensic lab personnel are lab coats, safety glasses, and protective gloves.
The most common pieces of PPE worn by forensic lab personnel are lab coats, safety glasses, and protective gloves.
13. To maintain the integrity of evidence for use in court, there should be no more than two unexplained or undocumented openings to the evidence package.
To maintain the integrity of evidence for use in court, there should be no unexplained or undocumented openings in the evidence package.
14. Proper lab practices are important to make sure the analysis results are reliable, inaccurate, and estimated.
Proper lab practices are important to make sure the analysis results are reliable and accurate.
15. Before the evidence is even opened, the analyst must make sure there are witnesses.
When evidence is opened, there must be proper documentation to prove it.
In your opinion do you think the two officers who fired their weapons was Taylor justified in using force to protect themselves?
Answer:
The fact that you're up against someone that can physically harm you and has the intention to do so, in my opinion Taylor is justified in using force with two officers who are also using force, not along with firing weapons which can cause harm to Taylor.
Explanation:
Ashton is a crime scene investigator. He ensures that all the evidence gathered at the scene is properly handled and labeled. What is Ashton protecting? Ashton ensures that the the documentation of who possesses evidence at all times, is protected by properly handling and labeling evidence.
Answer:
so if ashton is in charged of protecting the evidence meaning he has to keep up with files on the person this person is a demonstrative investagator
Answer:
chain of custody
Explanation:
Should Congress have the power to refuse to vote on a justice nominee? Why or why not?
Answer:
It is the duty of Congress to have hearings in order to confirm a Supreme Court Justice nominee (as stated in the Constitution). This exclusive power rests on the U.S. Senate. The consensus, however, may be different and may vote against a nominee. Political parties within the Senate generally get in the way of who will vote and who won't, and vice-versa.
Explanation:
For example, Merrick Garland (former President Obama's nominee) was not given a hearing. Furthermore, Congress failed to perform the duties to have a hearing and decide whether to vote or deny a nominee. This is an example of how they refused to even vote on him. This is not the way government should operate.
Is police work a profession? Explain. What are the advantages of viewing policing as a profession? How can police professionalism be enhanced?
Answer:
Yes, police work is a profession because a profession is defined as the occupation that required training and a formal qualification to fulfill the requirement of work to be done and police is a profession in which training and a formal qualification both are required to achieve the goals.
There are many advantages of viewing policing as a profession that includes:
Job security: In police, the job is secure unless or until you do work against the laws.Attractive benefits: People in police get attractive benefits such as pension plans and salary increment plan.Respect in society: Police as a profession not only give monetary benefit but also keep your status in society respectable as the job deals with the crimes in the society which is a social cause.The ways in which police professionalism can be enhanced are as follows:
Education: Proper education in schools and making them understand the importance of the police profession.Training: Enhancement in training does not mean physical training only but also inlclude enhancement in mental, emotional, and moral training as well, that will make a policeman more responsible and help them to take the correct decisions.Department policies: improvement in department policies can help the department to run its responsibilities more smoothly.
WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST :)
Which Supreme Court decision set a precedent allowing police to search a property without a warrant as long as the tenants whom are present consent to the search at the time of the search?
A. Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
B. Crawford v. Washington (2004)
C. Maryland v. King (2013)
D. Fernandez v. California (2014)
Answer:
D
Explanation:
cannot be A. cause that case was about authorizing police use of deadly force to apprehend fleeing.
cannot be B cause that case gives defendants the right to confront witnesses and cross-examine their testimony.
cannot be C cause that case allows to collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested for a crime of violence
it is D .
The Supreme Court decision set a precedent allowing police to search a property without a warrant as long as the tenants who are present consent to the search at the time of the search Fernandez v. California (2014). Thus the correct option is D.
What was Supreme Court?The Supreme court is the highest judiciary body in the country which evaluates whether the laws are practiced properly or not. It helps to check the activities that are unconstitutional in the country and take strict actions against them.
Georgia v. Randolph, a judgment from 2006 that found that co-objection residents declare searching permission unlawful, was tested to its limitations in Fernandez v. California (2014).
The Supreme Court ruled that an inhabitant who was unavailable because of a valid arrest or imprisonment was on equal ground with an occupant who was missing for any other reason.
Therefore, option D is appropriate.
Learn more about Supreme Court, here:
https://brainly.com/question/10739091
#SPJ2
5. Imagine you were talking to someone who said that she didn't worry about
protecting the rights of the accused because she never planned to commit a
crime. How would you respond?
