Answer:
Obtaining palynological and other botanical evidence from murder victims is becoming part of routine mortuary protocol in the United Kingdom. Forensic pathologists are often keen to cooperate in the collection of classes of material that have, in the past, been considered to be of little importance in criminal investigation. Work over the last eight years has demonstrated the great value in scrutinising cadavers for the presence of plant material and/or soil stains. Macroscopic plant remains and palynomorphs (pollen, spores and other microscopic entities) retrieved from skin and hair have allowed the differentiation of murder scenes from places of eventual deposition. Furthermore, although the opportunity has not yet presented itself, obtaining palynological evidence from the hair of suspects is feasible. During an offence, the offender might have had physical contact with foliage or the ground. Pollen and spore assemblages picked up by hair during that activity might provide forensic evidence for contact. Brief details of some aspects of case histories are presented to demonstrate the value of sampling cadavers. One case has been through the courts while the other is ongoing and, therefore, cannot be identified
Answer:
State.
Explanation:
The most likely court system level that would be interacted with is the local level, which handles many of the smaller cases. However, that is not an answer choice, and so we would look towards what the state and federal court system handle.
State court cases <em>handle all civil, criminal, small claims, appeals, as well as monetary cases</em>. Any type of cases that are internally (not across state lines) is also handled by state courts.
Federal courts, on the other hand, <em>typically deal with violations against federal laws, crimes across state lines, and cases that deal with the violation of the US Constitution.</em>
As many problems would typically be solved within the state court system, and would not default to a federal court system unless a appeal is approved, most Americans will likely interact on the State level.
Learn more about the United States court system, here:
brainly.com/question/14726448
Answer:
Republicans express intensely negative views of “socialism” and highly positive views of “capitalism.”
By contrast, majorities of Democrats view both terms positively, though only modest shares have strong impressions of each term.
Overall, a much larger share of Americans have a positive impression of capitalism (65%) than socialism (42%), according to a new survey by Pew Research Center.
There are large partisan differences in views of capitalism: Nearly eight-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (78%) express somewhat or very positive reactions to the term, while just over half of Democrats and Democratic leaners (55%) say they have a positive impression.
But these differences are dwarfed by the partisan gap in opinions about socialism. More than eight-in-ten Republicans (84%) have a negative impression of socialism; a 63% majority has a very negative view. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats (65%) have a positive view of socialism, but only 14% have a very positive view.
The survey, conducted April 29-May 13, 2019, also asked adults about their impressions of several other terms: “libertarian,” “progressive,” “liberal” and “conservative.” Republicans and Democrats diverge in their impressions of progressive, liberal and conservative, but express similar views of libertarian.
The United States Congress divided into two houses as all states have equal representation in one house to benefit smaller states, and representation is based on population in the other house to satisfy larger states.
Answer: Option C
Explanation:
The framers of U.S. Constitution have essentially organized the Congress into two establishments namely:
- the Senate, and
- the House of Representative.
The Connecticut Compromise proposed the division of Congress. It was proposed in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 by the Connecticut delegates, Oliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman.
This object behind this proposal was to maintain the balance of interest of both the large as well as small states as the Constitution has bestowed equal voice to each State in the Senate whereas the criteria for representation in the House of Representative is the size of population of each State.
Answer:
As you may know, the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures of their “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” However, police are allowed to search and seize property by proving that there was probable cause to do so.
Probable cause generally refers to the criminal procedure requirement that the police demonstrate that they have a reasonable belief that a person has committed or will commit a crime, before a warrant is issued for a person’s arrest or to search or seize a person’s property.
Probable cause exists when a police officer has sufficient knowledge of facts to warrant a belief that a suspect is committing or has committed a crime. In general, probable cause requires more than a mere suspicion that a suspect committed a crime, but not enough information to prove that the person is guilty of a crime (beyond a reasonable doubt). The belief must be based on factual evidence, not just on suspicion.
