Participant observation I think hope this helps :)
Answer:
You are the trial judge at the sentencing hearing. If you wish, you can rely on the suppressed confession for a sentence enhancement, in effect imposing the same sentence Bertha would have received for second-degree murder. Should you do so? Why or why not?
b. If you were on the appellate court reviewing Bertha’s sentence imposed as described in (a), would you rule that this sentence is fair?
Answer: 20% goes into the bloodstream and then the rest goes to the Stomach and Small Intestine as well as the Liver.
This is based on who is telling the truth. The defendant denys being in the city at the time of the murder, but then a local newspaper states that he heard gunshots from inside his apartment the day of the murder (which would be impossible if he wasn't in the city at the same of the murder). There could also be a chance that the newspaper could be lying mainly because the defendant objected that the evidence was correct. In this case, the judge should take this into consideration especially when a local newpaper article announced that the defendant heard gunshots after saying that he was never in the city. So I would say, the newspaper article could be evidence to prove that the defendant is responsible for the murder.
Answer:
identify the plant - the material that used to set the fire
