Answer: i don't know you have to figure it out yourself duh.
Explanation: this is none of your beeswax ok
Answer:
well what law are u asking for because Florida has specific laws
Answer: Option A
Explanation: The modification of the pickup truck that weighed 4,000 pounds is getting modified.
There are certain rules for the modification of vehicles and one of them states that the bottom of the front bumper must not be more than 28 inches above the pavement for the vehicles weighing 3,500 lbs. or more.
The rules are different for different countries. Some countries have variation in the distances between the bumper and pavement. It varies depending on various factors such as the weight of the vehicle and its modification, et cetera.
The common range lies between 16 to 30 inches indicating that the distance between the front bumper and pavement should not be less than 16 inches and not more than 30 inches.
I think defendants should have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted is more appropriate.
<h3>Who is a Defendant?</h3>
This is referred to as the individual or group which have been accused of breaking the law and is being tried in court.
It is more appropriate for the defendants to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted because the jury will employ the use of evidences and testimonies in other to give a verdict. This ensures fair judgement and prevent innocent from being punished unjustly.
Read more about Defendant here brainly.com/question/7315287
#SPJ1
In Palko v. Connecticut (1937), the Supreme Court had to decide whether "due process of law" means states must obey the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment
<u>Explanation:
</u>
The observation of the Supreme Court is that the convict cannot be punished two times for the same offense. It is simple and very clear that the convict cannot be punished under the fourth and fifth amendments for same offense.
In this particular case, the prosecution has charged Frank Palko for first-degree murder and the court has given a decree as life imprisonment. But the actual nature crime amounts to second-degree murder.
So, the state of Connecticut appealed against this judgment and it has been proved that offense made by Frank Palko amounts to second-degree murder and the death penalty is awarded to convict. The Supreme Court's main decision in Palko vs Connecticut was Palko was the victim of unconstitutional double jeopardy.
