Answer:
A
Explanation:
Its true
sorry if wrong but most likely it's true
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
Every state court in the United States have jurisdiction over the persons within the territory. The court must have both personal jurisdiction as well as subject jurisdiction so as to have a jurisdiction over a case.
Any court can exercise personal jurisdiction over any defendant unless the statute exists in forum state which explicitly give authorization to the court to have personal jurisdiction over that particular defendant. A defendant must not be a resident of the state in order to have a personal jurisdiction over him by the court.
Sequestering jurors (cutting them off from news/media that covers the case they are assigned to) can potentially allow them to he impartial. So I would say yes, it is somewhat possible
Answer:
True.
Explanation:
The Sixth Amendment States "Guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you."
Answer:
The Court has held that practically all the criminal procedural guarantees of the Bill of Rights—the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments—are fundamental to state criminal justice systems and that the absence of one or the other particular guarantees denies a suspect or a defendant due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.1077 In addition, the Court has held that the Due Process Clause protects against practices and policies that violate precepts of fundamental fairness,1078 even if they do not violate specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights.1079 The standard query in such cases is whether the challenged practice or policy violates “a fundamental principle of liberty and justice which inheres in the very idea of a free government and is the inalienable right of a citizen of such government.”1080
