Answer:
Explanation:
Escobedo hizo declaraciones que luego se usaron contra él, lo que resultó en que fuera declarado culpable. Aunque la Corte Suprema de Illinois confirmó la condena, la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos revocó la condena en parte porque la policía violó los derechos de Escobedo bajo la Sexta Enmienda.
<u>Answer:</u>
Yes, there is a social contract between the rulers and the ruled in Tanzania.
<u>Explanation:</u>
- For the law, order, and the state of the process, the meaning of the Social contract is the fundamental rule.
- Citizens are to be an organization that makes an arrangement to live in harmony and to maintain the human rights of people.
- The Developed Government is for the entire citizens and its primary focus is to give individuals safeguards and assurance.
- Taking into account that the Tanzanian constitution implies shared participation between the governed people and the authorities, the people of Tanzania must be unreservedly acknowledged to their benefit.
In court cases, the Plaintiff is the party that brings charges and the Defendant is the party accused of a violation of the law. This is further explained below.
<h3>Who is
Defendant?</h3>
Generally, Defendant is simply defined as the person or persons charged with a crime or violation of a legal code.
In conclusion, Defendants are accused of breaking the law, whereas Plaintiffs are the ones who file the accusations against them.
Read more about Defendant
brainly.com/question/12441773
#SPJ1
Answer:
when your aressted
Explanation:
To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] 'fire' in a crowded theater.”). Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). To make or distribute obscene materials.
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:
