Answer:
none of the above
Explanation:
During closing arguments, both parties involved in the case are given between 20 – 60 minutes to come up and forceful argue whatever cases they have. They use this opportunity to see if they can persuade the jury that their opponent in the case is either liable or they themselves are should not be liable.
This argument is not presented by the judge nor by the plaintiff’s attorney only, rather by both parties. After the closing argument, then the jury instructions by the judge follow, the arguments in itself are not part of the instructions made by the jury.
Answer:Yes and no
Explanation:
I said yes because some of the things people do they should get punished for because they should be doin it or they could hurt someone like a DUI they know that they are not suppose to drunk and drive but they still do.I also said no because if they just have a tail light out or a headlight they should be punished so badly.
Answer: No.
Explanation:
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, later amended by the Clayton Act (1914) prohibits agreements in restraint of trade and monopolization. I expressely outlaws competing firms to conspire to consolidate the market by unfair means, restraining the trade of others.
In this case, the standards for non-wood bats set by the NCAA and the NFHS are not meant to establish a monopoly and they don´t restrain Marucci´s trade.
Answer:
True
Explanation:
A crime is when someone breaks the law. If there is no law, you can't accuse someone of something, Ex. A man gets arrested for having a rolex
This makes no sense, however it shows how not having laws means no crimes.