Open-toed footwear and shorts should not be worn in the lab due to the possibility for injury.
As the name suggests, open toe shoes are any footwear that exposes the toes, such as flip flops, sandals, and Open-toed footwear.
Peep-toe shoes or sandals with a complete toe opening are both examples of open-toe footwear. I'm of the belief that a stocking CAN be worn, but only with a Open-toed footwear, not a sandal.
In warm weather, especially, wearing a sandal serves the objective of displaying your feet. Stockings with sandals negate the aesthetic goal of exposing the majority of the Open-toed footwear . To stay warm during the winter months, the majority of people also wear stockings. In the winter, I wouldn't suggest wearing sandals, and I definitely wouldn't suggest pairing them with sheer stockings because they wouldn't keep you warm. Additionally, unless you are wearing closed-toe shoes, you can plainly see the seam at the toe of this style of stocking.
Learn more about Open-toed footwear here
brainly.com/question/17090052
#SPJ4
Explanation:
The witness's testimony is inadmissible.
Under Federal Rule 804(b)(1), the testimony of a witness who is unavailable, given at another hearing, is admissible in a subsequent trial if there is sufficient similarity of parties and issues so that the opportunity to develop testimony or cross-examination at the prior hearing was meaningful.
The former testimony is admissible upon any trial of the same subject matter. The party against whom the testimony is offered or, in civil cases, the party's predecessor in interest must have been a party in the former action. "Predecessor in interest" includes one in a privity relationship with the party, such as grantor-grantee, testator-executor, life tenant-remainder man, and joint tenants.
These requirements are intended to ensure that the party against whom the testimony is offered (or a predecessor in interest in a civil case) had an adequate opportunity and motive to cross-examine the witness.
In the civil suit here at issue, the survivors of the victim were not parties to the criminal case, nor were they in privity with any such party. (The parties to that case were the defendant and the government.) These survivors, who are the plaintiffs in the instant litigation, are the parties against whom the testimony of the witness is being offered. Because they were not parties to the action in which the witness testified, they had no opportunity to cross-examine him. Even if the government had a similar motive to cross-examine the witness as do the plaintiffs in the current action, that is not sufficient to make the government a predecessor in interest to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the testimony of the witness does not come within the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule, and the testimony is inadmissible hearsay.
A victim and his former business.
Amendment number 8 is used for cruel and unusual punishment
Well, Manifest destiny meant that the US wanted to control land from the Pacific to the Atlantic, so they wanted most of North America. This meant that they displaced many Native Nations. The US could have reconsidered their motivation but at the time most people had the idea of white supremacy so they did not really care about Natives, and therefore did not reconsider their motivations.
Answer:
Steppe nomads would invade the settled communities to take control of pasture lands. Settled communities were in the fear of new or next invasion. The nomad's trade was not related to the gain but related to the goods provided themselves that they don't have that time Nomads were from two different cultures and districts.
Nomads speak a Turkic language. There were many nomads group who traveled on the silk road.
