Answer: They do it because it might look like cocaine or LSD but that doesn't mean it actually is
Explanation:The prosecution must prove that a seized substance is indeed the illicit drug it claims it is by sending the evidence to a crime lab for analysis. The crime lab analyst then must testify at trial in order for the prosecution to make its case.
1)They are very reliable because they are almost always accurate.All science in the courtroom has to be verified in order to be used in the court to prove that their tests are accurate and reliable and can be used as an evidence in court. Reliability is measured by how much your machines have been validated ,if a forensic scientist in a court say the evidence is true but did not have a proper reliability , than people can question how true this test can actually be. Hard science is consisted of chemistry,biology and physics are the most reliable evidence.
2)The reliability of the analytical science in the courtroom is growing. This is because of the fact that analytical science involves comparison between the characteristics and features of the suspected specimens with those obtained from the criminals or victims. The analytical science plays an important role in proving a fact that a crime has been committed, the place of crime and establishing the identity of the culprit.
HOPE THIS HELPS..
A forensic scientist's day-to-day activities will vary throughout the week. The majority of their time is spent in the office writing reports and preparing for laboratory visits. Other days, however, they may be carrying out a laboratory visit or attending court as an expert witness (Brightside, 2003).
Answer:
GHB Sdn Bhd and Sandhu
The prospect for Sandhu to recover the extra commission negotiated with Ahmad during golf is very remote.
1. It was made under undue influence, when Ahmad could have lacked the capacity to make a binding contract. In addition, at that time, Sandhu disclosed that the land was being sought after by many other parties as a way of piling unnecessary pressure on Ahmad.
2. There was no intention to create a legal relation because the additional commission represents a counter-offer. Since the earlier offer was fully documented, this additional offer should have also followed the same process if the company intended to be legally bound.
3. There is lack of consideration to back this additional contract. In the first place, the main contract with Sandhu was made in view of his negotiation skills. So what is Sandhu expected to offer the company in exchange for the extra commission? Nothing.
Explanation:
GHB cannot be expected to promise 0.5% extra commission on a deal, which was equivalent to RM2 million, when an already executed contract for 3% commission had been reached. One can also claim that Ahmad, who suffered from occasional dementia, could have made the promise without the intention for it to be binding on his company but as a way of encouraging Sandhu to close the deal in favor of GHB. Was the deal closed because of the extra commission? No.
