If you are referring to what group such as the Egyptians than it would be true.
hope i helped <(^(oo)^)>
Explanation:
The witness's testimony is inadmissible.
Under Federal Rule 804(b)(1), the testimony of a witness who is unavailable, given at another hearing, is admissible in a subsequent trial if there is sufficient similarity of parties and issues so that the opportunity to develop testimony or cross-examination at the prior hearing was meaningful.
The former testimony is admissible upon any trial of the same subject matter. The party against whom the testimony is offered or, in civil cases, the party's predecessor in interest must have been a party in the former action. "Predecessor in interest" includes one in a privity relationship with the party, such as grantor-grantee, testator-executor, life tenant-remainder man, and joint tenants.
These requirements are intended to ensure that the party against whom the testimony is offered (or a predecessor in interest in a civil case) had an adequate opportunity and motive to cross-examine the witness.
In the civil suit here at issue, the survivors of the victim were not parties to the criminal case, nor were they in privity with any such party. (The parties to that case were the defendant and the government.) These survivors, who are the plaintiffs in the instant litigation, are the parties against whom the testimony of the witness is being offered. Because they were not parties to the action in which the witness testified, they had no opportunity to cross-examine him. Even if the government had a similar motive to cross-examine the witness as do the plaintiffs in the current action, that is not sufficient to make the government a predecessor in interest to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the testimony of the witness does not come within the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule, and the testimony is inadmissible hearsay.
A victim and his former business.
The correct answer (may) be 'D'. I am not to sure i tried my best, i spent like 5-10 mins looking at this lol
Answer:
Correct answer is C: They both created strong centralized forms of government.
Explanation:
Both the Macedonian Empire, which began in truth with Alexander the Great´s father, King Phillip II (359-336), but which grew to become the most powerful in ancient times, thanks to Alexander´s prowess, from 338 till Alexander´s death in 323 B.C., and the Roman Empire, which initiated after the end of the Republic period, and which lasted far longer than any other empire (27 BC to 285 A.D.,) before it fragmented into two empires, The Eastern Roman Empire, centered in Constantinople and the Western Roman Empire, with its center based in first Milan and then Ravenna, had a common denominator that defined them and also made them unique; they established a strong and centralized system of government, with the center of government on their capital cities, that allowed them to keep constant control over their conquered lands and keep their power without any division of it. Both Alexander and the Roman emperors maintained full control of their empires in their hands, which eliminated in part the problem of fragmentation due to power struggles between other powerful people aside from themselves. This is why the correct answer is C.
