Explanation:
The witness's testimony is inadmissible.
Under Federal Rule 804(b)(1), the testimony of a witness who is unavailable, given at another hearing, is admissible in a subsequent trial if there is sufficient similarity of parties and issues so that the opportunity to develop testimony or cross-examination at the prior hearing was meaningful.
The former testimony is admissible upon any trial of the same subject matter. The party against whom the testimony is offered or, in civil cases, the party's predecessor in interest must have been a party in the former action. "Predecessor in interest" includes one in a privity relationship with the party, such as grantor-grantee, testator-executor, life tenant-remainder man, and joint tenants.
These requirements are intended to ensure that the party against whom the testimony is offered (or a predecessor in interest in a civil case) had an adequate opportunity and motive to cross-examine the witness.
In the civil suit here at issue, the survivors of the victim were not parties to the criminal case, nor were they in privity with any such party. (The parties to that case were the defendant and the government.) These survivors, who are the plaintiffs in the instant litigation, are the parties against whom the testimony of the witness is being offered. Because they were not parties to the action in which the witness testified, they had no opportunity to cross-examine him. Even if the government had a similar motive to cross-examine the witness as do the plaintiffs in the current action, that is not sufficient to make the government a predecessor in interest to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the testimony of the witness does not come within the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule, and the testimony is inadmissible hearsay.
A victim and his former business.
They are both stock markets
Susan is an autocratic leader. This leadership style is like a one-person show where no one can share the spotlight. An autocratic leader decides on his/her own without considering subordinates' opinions. This style of leadership hinders career growth and promotes dependency, forcing the subordinates to follow without thinking like mere minions instead of honing their decision-making skills.
Answer: B.conformity
Explanation:
Conformity is when a person changes his/her belief to match that of a group of people which may be the person's peers but have no right to dictate his/her behavior.
Labeling is the act of applying a social description to a person or a group of people and may define a person’s status in a society.
Deviance: to go against what is seen a normal or acceptable by a group of people
.
Obedience: is to submit to the laws of an authority, such as the government.
Answer:
en ek het 'n bietjie besig, maar ek is nog nie by die huis nie, maar ek sal vir u 'n foto stuur as ek kans kry om my hare klaar te kry
