1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Inga [223]
3 years ago
10

I Promise it's worth a lot of points

Law
1 answer:
serious [3.7K]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

Write a 1 To 2 Paragraph exploring what the conversation may have been while the jury was deliberating. what did they discuss? How did they reach a conclusion?​

Explanation:

This research project, which took more than a year to complete, would not have been

possible without the cooperation and support of a large number of people and organizations

committed to improving American jury trials.

We start by acknowledging and thanking the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Office of

Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice, for funding the project and the associated

NIJ Visiting Fellowship grantee B. Michael Dann was privileged to enjoy. Special thanks are

owed Christopher A. Innes, Chief of the Justice Systems Research Division, Office of Research

and Evaluation, NIJ, for his support, suggestions and patience during the fellowship and research

project. Many others at NIJ are owed thanks as well, but the Director, Sarah V. Hart, was

especially interested and encouraging. NIJ DNA experts Dr. Lisa Forman and Kim Herd, an

Assistant U.S. Attorney and former Special Assistant to the NIJ Director on DNA, offered

valuable technical advice in the project’s early planning phases.

NIJ’s financial grant was administered by the National Center for State Courts in

Williamsburg, Virginia. That indispensable work was ably performed by Sherry KeeseeBuchanan and Mary Hogan and overseen by Paula Hannaford Agor at the National Center.

Nicole Waters provided expert assistance with the statistical analyses.

We are indebted to the members of the project’s Advisory Committee who gave us

invaluable counsel and advice concerning research design and which jury trial innovations to

test, among other things. The Advisory Committee was chaired by Judge Ronald S. Reinstein, a

trial judge from Phoenix, Arizona, and member of NIJ’s Commission on the Future of DNA

Evidence; Robert P. Biancavilla, Deputy Chief, Nassau County (New York) District Attorney’s

Office; Connie L. Fisher, Forensic Examiner, FBI Laboratory, Quantico, Virginia; Paula

Hannaford-Agor, Principal Court Research Consultant, National Center for State Courts,

Williamsburg, Virginia; Judge Gregory E. Mize, Superior Court for the District of Columbia

(Ret.); Anjali R. Swienton, Consultant, SciLaw Forensics, Ltd., Germantown, Maryland; and

Beth Wiggins, Senior Research Associate, Federal Judicial Center, Washington, D.C. Professor

William Shields, of the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, served as an

additional resource on mtDNA analysis, answering questions and providing us with useful

material about the interpretation of mtDNA tests.

We recruited several cast members for two separate tapings of the “trial” for use in the

subsequent mock jury trials. The first shoot took place in June 2003, in Tempe, Arizona, at the

Arizona State University College of Law. The Tempe cast included Leonard Ruiz, an Arizona

prosecutor; Susan Corey and Chad Pajerski, local public defenders; James Humphrey, a former

Phoenix Police Department detective; Katherine Dann, a student at George Washington

University; and Elliot Goldstein, Professor of Biology, Arizona State University. The

videographer in Arizona was Manny Garcia of Manny Garcia Productions, Inc. In Phoenix.

Attorney Mara Siegel, another local public defender, consulted regarding the script.

You might be interested in
The first responding officer is in charge of the crime scene until the crime-scene investigator arrives. After the investigator
solmaris [256]

Answer:

Explanation:

The first responding officer is in charge of the crime scene until the crime-scene investigator arrives. After the investigator communicates, the crime scene is _____.

secure

safe

controlled

legal

8 0
3 years ago
¿Qué es la ciudadanía?
Ostrovityanka [42]

Answer:

be a citizen

Explanation:

live in a state/country with rights

4 0
3 years ago
Peter’s Uncle Douglas is a state legislator. He works very hard to represent the people who elected him. What is the main focus
kakasveta [241]

Answer:

C

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
1. Is Defensible Space Theory a logical explanation for controlling crime? Why or why not?
Kaylis [27]

Answer:

See explaination

Explanation:

1. The Defensible Space Theory can really be seen as a logical explanation for controlling crime from the perspectives of a defender as well as an attacker. This theory makes use of the science of psychology with the science of meaningful space. When the defender, that is, the home owners will be responsible for their home space, the sense of responsibility will be higher on the same. The home owners will be accountable for their defense. This encourages home owners to design their home space in such a way that they will be able to control their environment based on their present capabilities like family structure, income level, and socioeconomic status. The attacker, that is, the potential criminal will feel insecure and uncomfortable on a highly defended land. So, the probability of the criminal attacking the home space or neighborhood may be lessened. This argument is supported by the study which involved private homes in two high-crime areas in St. Louis. These areas recorded lower crimes than public areas using the Defensible Space Theory.

2. According to the Routine Activity Theory, the condition for crime is the presence of a suitable target(s) and the absence of a guardian(s). It is important to note that something or the other will always be present to motivate potential offenders to commit crime. So, there will always be motivated offenders. If motivated offenders are present, so suitable targets will be present in the society on the other side for crime to take place. So, suitable targets cannot be left unguarded which will increase the probability of crime, considering the target is in an isolated position. Even a weak guardian is sometimes equivalent to no guardian or protector. So, I think, presence of guardian(s), more specifically, more capable guardian(s) plays the greatest role at reducing

8 0
3 years ago
Happy thanksgiving<br> what are you thankful for
DanielleElmas [232]

Answer:

I like ice cream :D

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • When the Supreme Court rules on a case, how many opinions might be written to explain the verdict? A) one: the majority opinion
    7·1 answer
  • Clients who feel that they have suffered damages as a result of a professional's breach of his or her duty of care can bring a n
    14·1 answer
  • Explain the ceremonial and real executive functions of the president in the presidential system of government
    7·1 answer
  • What factors does Fallon suggest create psychopathic killers
    12·1 answer
  • Suppose your mother immediately after you were born decided to prepare an educational fund for your llege education. Current tim
    15·1 answer
  • The criminal justice does not include which of the following
    13·2 answers
  • Suppose that you are a prison warden. What if a group of incarcerated individuals calling themselves the “Sons of Purple Flower”
    15·2 answers
  • Which of the following is a litigant in a criminal trial?
    7·1 answer
  • if someone kill other person that tryed to harm your their dog who is at fault? ( you do not know more information then that the
    5·2 answers
  • If I have interval-level data, this means I can do which of the following with the responses:
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!