19. Which of the following evidence would always be admissible in-court?

Law

1 answer:

Drupady [299]2 years ago

7 0

Answer:

"Evidence that is formally presented before the trier of fact (i.e., the judge or jury) to consider in deciding the case. The trial court judge determines whether or not the evidence may be proffered. To be admissible in court, the evidence must be relevant (i.e., material and having probative value) and not outweighed by countervailing considerations (e.g., the evidence is unfairly prejudicial, confusing, a waste of time, privileged, or based on hearsay). Also termed competent evidence; proper evidence; legal evidence."

Explanation:

You might be interested in

What political philosophy did Hitler want to eradicate in Russia?

Harman [31]

Hitler wanted to eradicate Communism, as he saw this as a threat to his plans for a totalitarian state

7 0

3 years ago

What should a customer receive to make him or her fully aware of what is going on in a transaction, such as the condition of the

trapecia [35]

A customer becomes a client when a relationship is documented in an agreement and the customer will be updated regarding the ongoing transaction.

<u> Explanation: </u>

An agreement entered between the customer (buyer or seller) and a licensed real estate agent, which allows the real estate agent to represent on behalf of the customer or client in a real estate transaction. This documented agreement entered between them is called Representation and it has a legal validity.

It is the duty of the licensed real estate agent to brief the customer about the kind of transaction is going to take place and this will make the customer to have a clear idea about the regulation in buying and selling of the property as per the legal proceedings.

5 0

3 years ago

Expressed powers are those that are

Yuki888 [10]

Answer:

Explanation:

7 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Freedom of speech allows all of the following EXCEPT

mote1985 [20]

The third option is right.

6 0

2 years ago

Facts of the case

netineya [11]

Answer:

I believe that someone could argue xenophobia in that case. Because not all people of a nation are going to be bad or want revenge, I think that since he was a decedent that he shouldn't have been penalized Because he never made a threat or showed any signs of danger to anyone.

Explanation:

4 0

2 years ago