Have any crimes been committed? if so which crimes and by whom?

What are the consequences of not following the list of Assumptions and Principles in accounting?

andrey2020 [161]

Jasmjenemenwmkwkwjwjwnehsbsbhw

7 0

3 years ago

Jesse james, a 20-year old, was arrested for killing a police officer. As a newly elected prosecutor, you are responsible for pr

Nana76 [90]

It is important to note that various states use various metrics. In general, states adhere to some form of the federal procedural norms. States do have the freedom to take risks in the sake of justice.

<h3>What are federal procedural norms?</h3>

Civil process in United States district courts is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Rules Enabling Act requires the United States Supreme Court to promulgate the FRCP, after which the United States Congress has seven months to veto the rules or they become part of the FRCP.

<h3>Further overview on the above legal situation is as follows:</h3>

At the first stage of the "trial," the defendant must submit a plea. This is frequently followed by a first appearance or preliminary hearing, which may involve a plea if evidence is discovered.

If there are compelling reasons to proceed, a grand jury will be formed to conduct more investigations.

A grand jury must provide evidence that justifies a capital murder trial. The district attorney's office has the same authority. The defendant is then asked if he understands the charge at a pre-trial arraignment.

A plea can also be entered here at times. If the evidence merits it, a formal writ will be sent to the court, signaling the start of a trial.

Following that, pre-trial hearings are held, and witnesses may be questioned. If the defendant claims to have an alibi, he must normally produce documentation. He must describe in full where and when he was when he was exonerated from the crime.

A mental examination may be conducted in some circumstances, particularly in capital trials. There may be a demand that multiple-count trials be heard separately in order to avoid biasing the jury (guilty of the first, more likely that he is guilty of the second).

Deposits can then be made. These are largely out-of-court testimony from witnesses that will serve as the foundation for the defense or prosecution when the trial begins.

Depending on the stage, either of these processes can be considered part of the discovery process. The defendant's record is disclosed at this point, and specific objects of evidence are given over for the defendant's comprehension.

The "Pre-Trial Conference," a relatively new federal rule, is convened to agree on specific criteria throughout the trial. The goal is to speed up the trial and streamline the procedure in general.

The defendant might then request that the case be transferred to another jurisdiction.

Learn more about justice:
brainly.com/question/22967374
#SPJ4

7 0

2 years ago

10 sentences, what are the benefits of talking out problems rather than going to court? What is the difference

kap26 [50]

Answer:

Mainly, the greatest benefit of solving problems outside the judicial system is the cost, since every judicial process necessarily entails a high cost, both in taxes, costs, fees, etc. In addition, the resolution time is much longer, since it involves a whole series of procedural steps that necessarily imply a passage in time, which can be avoided through an alternative resolution of conflicts.

Those means of alternative dispute resolution include, among others, mediation and arbitration. Mediation, on the one hand, involves a series of meetings between the parties in conflict, with the assistance of a specialist, the mediator, who seeks to bring the parties closer together and achieve the resolution of the dispute. On the other hand, arbitration implies that the parties in conflict abide by the solution proposed by an impartial third party, the arbitrator, who will decide according to the rules of law or equity, as appropriate.

8 0

3 years ago

which criteria must a law meet in order to pass the government’s strict scrutiny test to reasonably discriminate? select all tha

KatRina [158]

The criteria that law must meet in order to pass the government’s strict scrutiny test to reasonably discriminate includes"

It must further a compelling government interest
It must use the least restrictive means to achieve its purpose.

<h3>What is a strict scrutiny test?</h3>

In law, a strict scrutiny refers to the highest standard of review which a court will use to evaluate the constitutionality of governmental discrimination. In order for a law to pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest" and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest.

This standard is the highest and most of the stringent standard of judicial review and is part of the levels of judicial scrutiny that courts use to determine whether a constitutional right or principle should give way to the government's interest against observance of the principle. However, the lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny and these standards are applied to statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.