He top comment is very surely correct
Answer:
Explanation:eople are the products of their environment such as, parents, friends, family, education, employment, social status etc. This would mean that most part of the attitudes, values, personality, beliefs
Answer:
A. Grant the motion, because there is no evidence that the crew operated the ship negligently.
Explanation:
The cruse ship owner's request for a directed verdict should be granted because from the evidences produced by two parties, there is no established piece of evidence that the passenger's permanent state has of health resulting from his fall while walking through the passage of the cruise ship was due to the cruise ship's negligent control or operation. The supporting evidences are so clear that the issuing a directed verdict in this case is logical as no reasonable jury presented with the evidences produced would rule otherwise.
The answer is c.
Hope this helps!
Answer:
Sentencing
Explanation:
<u>Craemer v. Washington (1897)</u> In this case, which was an indictment for murder, the verdict being "guilty as charged," and judgment of condemnation to death thereon being armed by the supreme court of the state, and this Court having determined, on a former petition by the petitioner that it had no jurisdiction to review that judgment, Craemer v. Washington state, 164 U.S. 704, and the time appointed for execution having passed pending all these proceedings, it was within the power of the state court to make a subsequent appointment of another day therefor, and to issue a death warrant accordingly, and a judgment to that effect involved no violation of the Constitution of the United Staten.
<u>Robinson v. United States (1945) </u>In the case of a defendant who twice violently struck his victim on the head with an iron bar, inflicting injuries from which she was still suffering when liberated, and upon whom the death sentence was imposed, the proviso was not invalid for uncertainty in the meaning of the words "unharmed" and "liberated unharmed."
<u>Williams v. New York (1949)?</u> After a fair trial, appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and the jury recommended life imprisonment. After considering information as to his previous criminal record without permitting him to confront or cross-examine the witnesses on that subject, the trial judge sentenced him to death.