Answer:
The term for the associated scientific study of teeth is odontology
Explanation:
Forensic dentistry or forensic odontology is the application of dental knowledge to
those criminal and civil laws that are enforced by police agencies in a criminal
justice system.
Hmm I would have to say billions
Answer: The verdict is decided by a petit jury
Explanation:
Answer:
3 basic rights.
1.Religious freedom
2. Freedom of speach
3. Freedom of the press
Explanation:
All of our rights even inalianable rights come with limits.
The only right that has no limits is the freedom of thought which is the same as religious freedom. You have the right to think and believe anything. But even that has restrictions on how you can act on your beliefs. Your religious beliefs are not a license to do anything related to that belief. You can't engage in human sacrifice as a ritual for the belief. You can't hide behind your religous beliefs as a sheild against prosecution for murder.
"Freedom of religion embraces two concepts, -freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things the second cannot be. ~ <em>Cantwell v Connecticut.</em>
<em />
The freedom of speach also has limits. You can say anything but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Doing so could cause a stampede and endanger the lives of others. Likewise, we have an impeachment case before the Senate right now in which the former president incited a riot at the Capital complex that caused the death of 6 people. The question before the Senate is did the former President incite a riot causing death and destruction of public property?
The freedom of the press is a first amendment right. But that doesn't give a publisher the right to slander or print falsehood about another person. The freedom of assembly is another 1st amendment right, but there is a difference between a lawful and peaceful assembly and a riot that results in the death of 5 people and the destruction of property.
Answer:
The ruling was made by a lower court than the court hearing the current case.
Some of the facts of the original case are significantly different than the current case.
The judge in the original case did not have jurisdiction to try the case.
Explanation:
1, 5,4
