Answer:
sentence #1
Explanation:
The question mark should be removed.
Answer:
Used to be considered the unknown value
Answer:
This case involves a federal death sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Fields for conviction of a federal capital offense. Fields was sentenced to death largely on the basis of the opinion of a psychiatrist who stated that he could confidently predict Fields would be dangerous in the future. The psychiatrist testified that he did not know of any "standard psychiatric or medical procedures used in arriving at a determination or predicting future dangerousness" and that he was unaware of specific empirical data or studies. He issued his opinion without engaging in any testing or any other objective measures or use of an actuarial method. His basis for this opinion was discussions with the prosecutors and review of some records regarding the defendant. The defense attorney objected to the testimony as unreliable under the standards for expert testimony established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical (i.e., that proffered evidence must be grounded in scientific reasoning or methodology). The district court overruled the objections and allowed the expert testimony to go to the jury.
Explanation:
Answer:
Shining down
Explanation:
A participle is a cause (an event or situation, typically one that is bad or undesirable) that happen suddenly, unexpectedly, or prematurely.
Hey....I hope your doing fine. Just so you know, we'll get a dad, I promise you that. Also make sure to keep talking to Daddy, he'll be gone soon...too soon so make sure you talk to him as much as you can.
