In a felony case, before a defendant goes to trial, who grants a verdict that there is sufficient evidence to begin prosecution and that a threshold of probable cause has been met?
Grand Jury grants a verdict that there is sufficient evidence to begin prosecution and that a threshold of probable cause has been met.
What happens in a Felony case?
- Any offence punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year is called a Felony case.
- In this Felony case, there are various steps to be followed before going to trial. They are: Initiating charges by complaints, The initial appearance, Preliminary hearing, Grand Jury hearings, Arraignment on the indictment, Hearings on motions, The witness conference and Trial.
- In this Grand Jury hearings, the Grand Jury will decide whether the case should be prosecuted, after hearing the evidence presented by the Assistant United States Attorney.
- The Grand Jury charges against a defendant are called indictments.
Hence, it is the Grand Jury, who grants a verdict in a Felony case that there is sufficient evidence to begin prosecution and that a threshold of probable cause has been met, before a defendant goes to trial.
Learn more about Grand Jury here -
brainly.com/question/28029672?referrer=searchResults
#SPJ4
Answer: Schemas can be useful because they allow us to take shortcuts in interpreting the vast amount of information that is available in our environment
12. The civil rights movement was a struggle for social justice that took place mainly during the 1950s and 1960s for blacks to gain equal rights under the law in the United States. The Civil War had officially abolished slavery, but it didn’t end discrimination against blacks—they continued to endure the devastating effects of racism, especially in the South. By the mid-20th century, African Americans had had more than enough of prejudice and violence against them. They, along with many whites, mobilized and began an unprecedented fight for equality that spanned two decades.
13. The first in-depth history of how domestic environments were exploited to promote the superiority of either capitalism or socialism on both sides of the Iron Curtain, Cold War on the Home Front reveals the tactics used by the American government to seduce citizens of the Soviet bloc with state-of-the-art consumer goods and the reactions of the Communist Party.
<span>Economic rivalry among sellers for the consumers' dollars is called competition. Your welcome, I have researched this topic.</span>
Answer:
The Categorical Imperative, was the philosophical view of moral actions and behavior in people, according to Immanuel Kant, its creator. Basically, this philosophy states that there are universal truths that cannot be altered, or changed, by absolutely anything: not by culture, not by genetics, not by learning, and much less by the beliefs of the majority. A truth is what it is, and it must be obeyed as the utmost "right", not merely what is "good".
In contrast to Kant´s philosophy, which was born from Kant´s displeasure with how the society of his time behaved, it was hypothetical imperatives that would dictate how people needed to behave to be considered moral. These hypothetical imperatives were truths that were dependent on certain circumstances, and on empirical knowledge, and therefore, were bound to change given certain conditions. This was something that Kant could not tolerate and thus fed his need to create his Categorical Imperative philosophy.
However, even during his own time Kant´s philosophy was criticized and questioned. And one person who did that was Benjamin Constant, who proposed the idea of the Inquiring Murdered. He said that if Kant´s philosophy of moral behavior was absolute, then when a murdered asked a question, he should be given the TRUTH, because that woud be what was universally held as morally right. But if that truth led to the murderer finding his victim, then, what did the philosophy told people was right to do? This questioning showed even Kant that there were instances in which due to the nature of the situation, lying would not be held as wrong, but rather, as the correct measure to act morally.
