Answer:
This case involves a federal death sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Fields for conviction of a federal capital offense. Fields was sentenced to death largely on the basis of the opinion of a psychiatrist who stated that he could confidently predict Fields would be dangerous in the future. The psychiatrist testified that he did not know of any "standard psychiatric or medical procedures used in arriving at a determination or predicting future dangerousness" and that he was unaware of specific empirical data or studies. He issued his opinion without engaging in any testing or any other objective measures or use of an actuarial method. His basis for this opinion was discussions with the prosecutors and review of some records regarding the defendant. The defense attorney objected to the testimony as unreliable under the standards for expert testimony established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical (i.e., that proffered evidence must be grounded in scientific reasoning or methodology). The district court overruled the objections and allowed the expert testimony to go to the jury.
Explanation:
Farther! Cuz the other options don't make sense grammatically.
what underline phrases, and what are you asking?
The right answer for the question that is being asked and shown above is that: "moral dilemma." The literary device that does this passage illustrate best is that moral dilemma. Moral dilemma refers to the <span>conflict in which you have to choose between two or more actions and have </span>moral<span> reasons for choosing each action.</span>
