Answer:
A child with type B blood can have a mother with type B blood and a father with type O blood so the judge grants her request and decides due to Susan is right and Craig must pay child support (option b).
Explanation:
Susan is right in this case because her <u>son with type B blood may have a mother with type B blood and a father with type O blood</u>.
Blood types, according to the ABO system, depend on the existence of surface antigens A or B —Types A, B and AB— or their absence in the erythrocyte membrane.
In the inheritance of blood groups A and B are co-dominant, while the absence of antigens —type O— is a recessive trait.
Assuming that Susan has a genotype B/B and that Craig has a genotype O/O:
<em>Alleles O O </em>
<em>B B/O B/O
</em>
<em>B B/O B/O</em>
So it is very likely that the child is Craig's son and Susan is right.
The right option is d.
comparative advantages
The comparative advantages
pattern of organization places several alternatives side by side and show why one
of them is more advantageous than the other. The items or alternatives to be
compared are in relation to one another and are functionally equal.
Answer:
The celebrity of the defendant, the other major players, and the case itself had, and continues to have, society as a whole discussing domestic violence and the effectiveness of our laws that deal with this area of criminal law. Since the commission of the crimes in June of 1994, the Simpson' case brought to the forefront the issue of what role evidence of prior domestic violence should play in criminal prosecutions. In addition to the forensic evidence which the Los Angeles prosecutors relied upon to attempt to convict Mr. Simpson, the theory of the prosecution's case rested on the proposition that Mr. Simpson committed the murders against his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson (hereinafter Ms. Brown), and her friend, Ronald Goldman, because of jealousy, obsession, and the need to dominate Ms. Brown. The prosecution's case rested entirely upon circumstantial evidence, and as such, the prosecutors sought to introduce evidence of Mr. Simpson's past abusive conduct toward Ms. Brown to establish the identity of the perpetrator and his motives to commit the brutal crimes. The prosecution argued that the history of domestic violence and prior threats were probative evidence of Mr. Simpson's motive, intent, plan, and identity as the killer. According to Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti, the trial judge's ruling on the admissibility of this evidence was the "most critical ruling" that the Court would make in the case The prior conduct which the prosecution wanted to introduce on its direct case included acts of physical beatings upon Ms. Brown by Mr. Simpson, some of which were documented by photographs showing Ms. Brown's injuries. Other incidents included an episode in which Mr. Simpson had thrown Ms. Brown out of a moving car; a 1989 assault for which Ms. Brown had been hospitalized due to her injuries; Mr. Simpson's 1989 no contest plea to spousal abuse for which he was ordered to undergo counseling and pay a fine; letters of apology for the abuse written by Mr. Simpson to Ms. Brown; Mr. Simpson's repeated threats to kill Ms. Brown; a 1993 recording of a "911" telephone call made by Ms. Brown to the police, during which the voice of Mr. Simpson was heard making threats and shouting obscenities at Ms. Brown; evidence that Mr. Simpson was stalking Ms. Brown, and that shortly before her death, Ms. Brown had made contact with a battered women's shelter help-line; and many other instances of actual and threatened violence committed by Mr. Simpson against Ms. Brown dating back to 1977. In January 1995, Judge Lance Ito, who presided over the murder trial, ruled that much of the domestic violence history would be admissible on the prosecution's direct case, including the 1993 "911" tape-recorded telephone call by Ms. Brown. The evidence was admitted to provide the jury with an appreciation of the "nature and quality" of the relationship between Mr. Simpson anji Ms. Brown, and to aid in establishing motive, intent, plan, and identity of the killer.
