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.
The first step in handling an Amazon delivery van car accident is to certify mail a preservation letter requesting the independent contractor to store any and all camera footage of the accident. You must act fast.
If a negligent Amazon driver hits your car, you may be able to sue them for compensation in some cases. Whether or not you can pursue a lawsuit depends on the relationship the driver has with Amazon directly. However, an insurance payout might also be an option for you even if a lawsuit is not.
If an Amazon driver causes an accident while they are off-duty and not in Amazon's control, then Amazon may refuse to take liability for the accident. As a result, you may be limited to pursuing compensation from the delivery driver's personal auto insurance policy.
Learn more about Amazon here: brainly.com/question/11333599
#SPJ4
James Madison, if you ever forget try and remember that the author has a first name for his last name too:)
Answer: The pilgrims came looking for religious freedom while the puritans came for religious freedom and many puritans came for economic opportunity too. The puritans came much more prepared with food than the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims came wanting to leave the Church of England while the Puritans wanted to purify it.
Explanation:
Answer:
The answer is labor shortages.
Explanation:
A labor shortage can be defined as a condition related to the economy in which employers consider that there are not the necessary qualified candidates or employees who can be in charge of the different demands concerning the marketplace.
This situation is usually considered by economists as "an insufficiency in the labor force." Wage levels are considered a factor to measure a labor shortage. However, that factor is not usually related to the way through which people perceive things.
