Answer:
A term used to describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary.
In certain relationships, individuals or the general public place their trust and confidence in someone to act in their best interests. When an individual has the responsibility to represent another person—whether as administrator, attorney, executor, government official, or trustee—a clash between professional obligations and personal interests arises if the individual tries to perform that duty while at the same time trying to achieve personal gain. The appearance of a conflict of interest is present if there is a potential for the personal interests of an individual to clash with fiduciary duties, such as when a client has his or her attorney commence an action against a company in which the attorney is the majority stockholder.
Incompatibility of professional duties and personal interests has led Congress and many state legislatures to enact statutes defining conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest and specifying the sanctions for violations. A member of a profession who has been involved in a conflict of interest might be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the body that granted permission to practice that profession.
Answer:
well
Explanation:
If they are not careful the results can be wrong and they might mess up the evidence. The evidence is so critical to what ever they have to solve. Again tho, The results can also be wrong, and they could mess up something really bad.
If the police had no warrant saying they could go in or search Joe's house then the police could be in a certain amount of trouble as well seeing as Joe did not willingly let them in and they never had a warrant but Joe could be in a lot more trouble for being in the possession of drugs.
And smart homes should be more advanced to these kinds of things because they could have been fake cops, plus they had no warrant which leaves everyone in this situation at fault especially Joe for being in the possession of drugs and the possible false 911 call influenced on drugs either making him see things or think things, maybe even both.
Answer:
Opening Statement: The lawyers for each side will explain the case, the evidence they plan to present, and the issues for the jury to decide.
Presentation of Evidence:
Rulings by the Judge:
Instructions to the Jury:
Closing Arguments:
Deliberation:
Explanation:
Have A Great Day!!
Answer:
people belive they are harmful because people say that they like to follow people and most likely because people are crazy and they like to be mean and not pay attention to how people feel, and those people cant trust one another which causes a big problem for some
Explanation:
