Answer: Have a family member attend every appointment with her because they need to tell the doctor about any issues and remember what the doctor says
Explanation: If someone goes with then they can remember what the doctor and tell the doctor all the symptoms she’s having
The story of Romeo and Juliet is a very interesting One. The nurse says the letter r is the name of the dog.
<h3>What does the letter “R.” meant?</h3>
In the story of Romeo and Juliet , When the nurse delivered the letter to Romeo, Romeo ask the Nurse what the letter “R.” meant in the context of what they were discussing about What Rosemary and Romeo in the later means.
The Nurse told Him that that was the Dog and They both (Rosemary and Romeo) are very important to Juliet.
Learn more about Romeo and Juliet from
brainly.com/question/1556509
Answer:
By the time Mike left his house at 12:00 noon, Erik had already traveled: 2 x 70 mph =140 miles.
308 - 140 = 168 miles left.
Let the time when they meet =T
70T + 50T =168 miles, solve for T
T =7 / 5 =1.4 hours, or 1 hour and 24 minutes after 12:00 noon.
12 + 1.4 =1 O'clock + 24 minutes, or 24 minutes after 1:00 pm when they will meet.
Answer:
The type of decision that increases a nation's sphere of influence is called an Expansionist policy. This is a form of an aggressive and radical nationalism where expansionism is the main goal. Expansion in terms of military and economic context that caused a lot of major conflicts and colonization in history.
The testimony regarding the man’s conduct during the three prior arrests is:
- The reason for this is that the prior events serve as impermissible character evidence.
<h3>What is irrelevant evidence?</h3>
Irrelevant evidence is the type of evidence that does not apply to the issue at hand and can cause a distortion of the facts.
In the case of the police officer in question, the evidence that he wants to present will cause confusion about the issues and possibly mislead the jury.
Learn more about irrelevant evidence here:
brainly.com/question/1865742
#SPJ1
Complete question:
A man has sued a police officer, alleging that the officer violated the man's civil rights by using excessive force while arresting him. At trial, the officer admits to having hit the man in the head with the butt of his gun but contends that the force was necessary because the man was resisting arrest. In support of his contention, the officer seeks to introduce evidence that the man had resisted arrest on three prior occasions during the last 10 years.
Is this testimony regarding the man’s conduct during the three prior arrests admissible?
