Answer:
Under both statutes.
Explanation:
The meeting shown in the question above managed to violate two statutes, according to the statute developed to combat organized crime, in addition to violating the study that prohibits interstate drug transport. In that case, the convict must be tried for two infractions in different statutes and if convicted he must be convicted based on the guidelines of the two statutes.
This is based on who is telling the truth. The defendant denys being in the city at the time of the murder, but then a local newspaper states that he heard gunshots from inside his apartment the day of the murder (which would be impossible if he wasn't in the city at the same of the murder). There could also be a chance that the newspaper could be lying mainly because the defendant objected that the evidence was correct. In this case, the judge should take this into consideration especially when a local newpaper article announced that the defendant heard gunshots after saying that he was never in the city. So I would say, the newspaper article could be evidence to prove that the defendant is responsible for the murder.
Answer:
so that you dont do something bad or wrong you get me or no? I sometimes don't make sense.
A state is a polity under a system of governance with a monopoly on force. There is no undisputed definition of a state.[1][2] A widely used definition from the German sociologist Max Weber is that a "state" is a polity that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, although other definitions are not uncommon.[3][4] A state is not synonymous with a government, as stateless governments like the Iroquois Confederacy exist.[5]
