Answer:
This case involves a federal death sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Fields for conviction of a federal capital offense. Fields was sentenced to death largely on the basis of the opinion of a psychiatrist who stated that he could confidently predict Fields would be dangerous in the future. The psychiatrist testified that he did not know of any "standard psychiatric or medical procedures used in arriving at a determination or predicting future dangerousness" and that he was unaware of specific empirical data or studies. He issued his opinion without engaging in any testing or any other objective measures or use of an actuarial method. His basis for this opinion was discussions with the prosecutors and review of some records regarding the defendant. The defense attorney objected to the testimony as unreliable under the standards for expert testimony established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical (i.e., that proffered evidence must be grounded in scientific reasoning or methodology). The district court overruled the objections and allowed the expert testimony to go to the jury.
Explanation:
D. Points that elicit an emotional response
The contrast in honor that can be found in the following excerpt is:" Brutus' honor knows no excuses; Cassius excuses dishonest behavior "in such times as this." (Option C)
<h3>
What is a contrast?</h3>
The process of highlighting the difference between a thing and another is called a contrast. The antonym for contrast is comparison.
<h3>
What proof of Brutus honor may be seen in the highlighted section 13 exchange between Brutus and Cassius?</h3>
Brutus professes to be fearless of Cassius' threats since he is equipped with honesty.
Brutus reprimands Cassius for writing in behalf of a bribe-taker.
Learn more about contrast:
brainly.com/question/24507709
#SPJ1
Answer:
B - A document that offered forgiveness for sin.
Explanation:
edge
I think it is c good luck
