Answer:
Check below for the answers and explanations
Explanation:
1) Standing is the process of examining the right of a plaintiff to take a lawsuit to the court of law.
Standing is important to ensure that the case brought to court is actually a dispute and not a contempt from an aggrieved party. It also ensures that the innocent is not unlawfully punished.
2) Sierra Club could have had a standing to file the lawsuit if it had an evidence or a likelihood of being injured or harmed
3) The Sierra club case led to the birth of a dissent that environmental objects should be regarded as persons in ecological matters.
4)The case did not have standing because it was filed by an organization and this conflicts with the Animal Welfare Act which stated that individuals and organizations do not have standing to file a lawsuit in a court.
5) Mr Jurnove, a worker of the Animal Legal Defence Fund was able to provide a substantial claim of the injuries he suffered when he saw the ill treatment the animals were subjected to by USDA.
Though other plaintiffs do not have standing, as far as one of them does, it will not be considered whether or not the others have standing. Therefore, the plaintiff had standing.
6) None of the plaintiffs that were acting on behalf of the dolphin met the requirement of "Injury in fact", a necessary requirement to have standing. None of them could give evidences of the injuries suffered as a result of the act by The New England Aquarium.
Answer:
Hsu was indicted for violating the Economic Espio- nage Act by conspiring to steal corporate trade secrets for an anti-cancer drug. The defense requested a copy of the trade secret documents. The government contended that the defense did not need access to the documents except under supervision of the judge. The defense maintained a right of full access to the documents so the defense of impossibil- ity could be established, meaning Hsu could not steal trade secrets that did not exist. District court agreed with the defense; government appealed. Must the defendant be allowed full access to trade secrets that are a key part of a case? [U.S. v. Hsu, 155 F. 3d 189, 3rd Cir. (1998)]
Explanation:
1)They are very reliable because they are almost always accurate.All science in the courtroom has to be verified in order to be used in the court to prove that their tests are accurate and reliable and can be used as an evidence in court. Reliability is measured by how much your machines have been validated ,if a forensic scientist in a court say the evidence is true but did not have a proper reliability , than people can question how true this test can actually be. Hard science is consisted of chemistry,biology and physics are the most reliable evidence.
2)The reliability of the analytical science in the courtroom is growing. This is because of the fact that analytical science involves comparison between the characteristics and features of the suspected specimens with those obtained from the criminals or victims. The analytical science plays an important role in proving a fact that a crime has been committed, the place of crime and establishing the identity of the culprit.
HOPE THIS HELPS..
