Answer:
The British approach appears to be more effective and even more efficient.
Explanation:
The British approach eliminates the tendency of lawyers to coach the witnesses to produce required answers. This means that using the British approach, witnesses are not properly prepared with correctly rehearsed answers to questions. The discovery of the case by both lawyers happens in the courtroom and not at a pretrial stage. With the British approach, courtroom lawyers are responsible for conducting the opening statement, direct examination of witnesses, closing statement, and cross-examination of witnesses.
Answer:
Products liability laws
Explanation:
These laws govern the responsibility/liability of any or all the parties that participate in the chain of manufacturing a certain product for the damage caused by that product. The parties involved and, therefore, liable are the manufacturer or producer, the wholesaler and the retailer. If a product has certain defects that have caused damage to the consumer, the abovementioned parties may be subject to products liability suits.
Products liability is usually considered a strict liability offense. If the plaintiff evidences that a certain product is defective, the defendant is liable. It is not taken into account whether the manufacturer or provider of the product had intention to cause damage or not, they shall be liable for the damage caused to the plaintiff.
Answer:
Making citizens of the states also citizens of the Union.
Explanation:
Through this passage, and specifically by establishing that all the free inhabitants of the states would enjoy the same rights in the other states in which they were not residents.
Thus, by guaranteeing a unity of rights throughout the territory of the Union, the Articles of Confederation sought to reaffirm the legal unity of all the states, in order to form not only a country with legal security for its inhabitants, but a nation with unified legal criteria at the government level.
Answer:
With no "control" you have no base line to compare your results with, for whatever hypothesis your testing
Explanation:
Answer:
In 2005, police misconduct in New Orleans had reached an all-time high. In the weeks before and after Hurricane Katrina, several high-profile beatings and unjustified shootings by police led to intense federal scrutiny of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD), including a 2010 U.S. Department of Justice investigation and a 2013 federal consent decree to overhaul policies and promote greater transparency and more civilian oversight of the police force.
In 2017, the NOPD aspires to serve as a model for how to reduce police misconduct. Rather than standing silently by—or joining in on a fellow officer's brutality—New Orleans
