Answer:
For this problem we just refer to the descriptions that you placed under the prompt. According to Malcolm's bandmate, it would be easier to solve the trinomial by subtracting 350 from both sides and then factoring the equation. Malcolm, on the other hand, thinks that we should manipulate the equation in order to make it a perfect square trinomial.
2. This trinomial would be easily solved by using Malcolm's idea. As Malcolm pointed out, you just need to apply a formula to manipulate the equation then you can find the roots in no time. Finding the factors of 350 just to solve the trinomial would be the hard way to go since you would be considering a lot of them.
3. For this item, we are just tasked to follow what Malcolm's bandmate started doing. So, we would just need to think of two numbers that would result to -350 when multiplied. To start off, let's think of something we can divide 350 by, let's say 70. Now, if we divide -350 by 70 the result would be -5 therefore that would be our two numbers (p and q). p + q would therefore just be 65.
Explanation:
add up and keep doing it
Answer:
b. one that might have affected the outcome of a case.
Explanation:
A reversible error is an error of sufficient gravity to warrant reversal of a judgment on appeal. It is an error by the trier of law (judge), or the trier of fact (the jury, or the judge if it is a bench trial), or malfeasance by one of the trying attorneys, which results in an unfair trial. It is to be distinguished from harmless errors which do not rise to a level which brings the validity of the judgment into question and thus do not lead to a reversal upon appeal.
Answer:
no
Explanation:
this will help the criminals to be alert of officers
Answer:
<em>An </em><em>amicus curiae brief</em><em> in support of a petitioner or appellant shall be filed within 30 days after the case is placed on the docket or a response is called for by the Court, whichever is later, and that time will not be extended.</em>
Answer:
The decision of the Supreme Court on Steagald v United States (1981) established that according to the Fourth Amendment, police officers can´t search for a suspect in a third party´s property without getting a search warrant first.
Explanation:
According to the Supreme Court, the search carried in the house of the petitioner, Gary Keith Steagald, which was conducted only with an arrest warrant for Ricky Lyons, and led to Steagald´s arrest, was a violation of the exclusionary rule stated in the Fourth Amendment that protects all citizens from illegal searches and seizures. I do agree with this decision because any effort to apprehend a suspect should never infringe nor his or a third party´s constitutional rights.
