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: when a Supreme Court Justice dies or leaves unexpectedly? and what happens with cases already in progress but still undecided The following is an overview of how the vacancy is filled and pending cases are decided after the death of a Supreme Court Justice.
Explanation:
Answer: social class
Explanation: A social class can be described as a group of people within a society with similar social and economic status. The American Eurocopter company is showing their products to the group on the yatch because they belong to their target audience i.e the products are designed to appeal to individuals with taste similar to those on the yatch.
The reaction to the products by the group on the yatch could be indicative of how the social class the products are meant for would react to them as the group is a subset of their class. If the products appealed to the group, it will most likely appeal to the entire social class.
Answer:History continues to prove the wisdom of the Founders' belief in the unity of both political and economic freedom. ... Then, as now, some have wanted government to impose regulations, tariffs, taxes, or other interventions to protect and advantage certain activities and to minimize economic risk.
Explanation:
Freedom itself was important to our country's Founders. Our right to be free was built into the Constitution, especially in the Bill of Rights, which prevented Congress from passing laws that infringe upon our freedoms. ... Because our natural rights come from God, and not from other people, or the government.
Hope it helps!!
