Answer:
D. post-traumatic stress disorder.
Explanation:
Post-traumatic stress disorder: In abnormal psychology, the term post-traumatic stress disorder is also referred to as PTSD, and is described as mental illness and mental health condition that is being triggered by a traumatic or terrifying event by witnessing or experiencing it.
Symptoms: Severe anxiety, flashbacks, unstoppable thoughts, and nightmares related to the event.
An individual can experience PTSD at any age of his or her life.
Types:
1. Serious accidents.
2. Physical or sexual assault.
3. Childhood abuse.
In the question above, Sandra has symptoms suggestive of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Answer: <em>Federalism</em>
Explanation:
Federalism was recognized as aggregate state of government, mixing a federal government with state governments in a well defined political system. Its unique feature, demonstrated in the example of contemporary federalism by the US under its Constitution(1787), is stated as a relationship of equity between two levels of state(government) entrenched. Therefore it can be referred as a state of government where there is a distribution of strength/powers between these two levels of government.
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.
Answer:
Option A (wanted to farm the fertile soil) is the correct choice.
Explanation:
- Continuing to work throughout the middle colonies seems to have been desirable, because although the soil type must have been desired by immigrants.
- Most Europeans decided to move abroad to something like the British empire although, after already being oppressed by that same church, they decided to move to another country, individuals were searching for better work or those who decided to confess their faith of equality.
- Throughout the Americas, soil from several other areas was rich therefore suitable for planting. This would have been the circumstance with Virginia's Jamestown settlement, and perhaps other colonies like Pennsylvania.
The three other alternatives aren't related to the given instance. So that Option A would be the appropriate choice.
There are 9 justices. The number of justices that need to participate is at least 6.
