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.
Buck utilized System 2 of his cerebrum to figure his exercise plan, yet then surrendered to System 1 when he chose to sleep in.
System 1 and System 2 are two particular methods of decision making: System 1 is a programmed, quick and regularly oblivious state of mind. It is self-governing and productive, requiring little vitality or consideration yet is inclined to biases and methodical blunders. System 2 is an effortful, moderate and controlled way of thinking. Which explains why Buck chose to sleep :)
The recourse for dealing with overzealous prosecutors includes Private admonition or reprimand. Hence, option A is appropriate.
<h3>What is the meaning of the Prosecutors?</h3>
In jurisdictions with either a civil law independent judiciary or a common law adversarial system, a prosecutor is a prosecuting attorney of the prosecution.
Federal prosecutors want to retry the case. A prosecutor is indeed a legal agent who formally accuses someone else of committing a felony by presenting an argument against that individual in a court of law.
A prosecutor is often a lawyer with a law degree who has been approved as a qualified attorney by the jurisdiction in which they're functioning. This could imply that they have been admitted toward the bar or, if applicable, earned a comparable qualification. Hence, option A is correct.
Learn more about Prosecutor here:
brainly.com/question/12057544
#SPJ1
Answer:
tend to believe the United States should stay out of foreign countries
Silent gen.- tend to see the United States as a world guardian of freedom and democracy
Answer:
C. Atlanta
Explanation:
November 12, 1864, Union General William T. Sherman made the business district of Atlanta, Georgia destroyed even before of his he embarks on his March to the Sea.
