Answer:
Case 1 (Fordjour v. Ahmed case on rent) and Case 3 (Giz Construction v. Ministry of Roads on Nonpayment of project ) are civil cases which entail one party by talking the other party to court over money. Ahmed was taken to court by his landlord Fordjour over rent arrears while Minirtsy of Roads was taken to court for non-payment of project by Giz Construction. Case 2 (GRA v. Melcom over Tax payment) is criminal case as it entails Melcom violating laws stipulated by the government.
According to data, it is found that juveniles do not sufficiently understand the Miranda warning and find it difficult to exercise their right of remaining silent.
<h3><u>Explanation:
</u></h3>
Juveniles are far more sensitive than adults are. This is the reason what may not mean coercion in the case of an adult may be considered as coercion in the case having a juvenile involved. According to the data obtained from a number of juvenile justice cases, it is clear that the juveniles do not choose to make use of their right to remain silent.
This may be either because they don't properly come to terms with what Miranda rights actually are or they are too vulnerable to the interrogation and can't resist speaking out of fear.
Answer:
The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action. This includes the right to be present at the trial (which is guaranteed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 43). As well as the right to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses.
Explanation:
It means be quiet or shut up
