There could be multiple answers to this question. However, the best option is option C.
Answer:
No, as hearsay not within any exception.
Explanation:
(B) The sketch is inadmissible on hearsay grounds. Under Rule 801 of the Federal Rules, prior identification can be admissible, and the sketch could be deemed a prior identification. However, to be admissible, the witness must be there to testify at trial and be subject to cross-examination. The witness in this case is unavailable; hence, this exception does not apply. (D) is therefore incorrect. (A) applies to documentary evidence and has no relevance to this question. (C) is likewise not applicable, because this exception applies only to information within the personal knowledge of the public employee. In this case, the public employee gained the knowledge from the hearsay statements of an absent witness.
Answer:
D. Citizens analyze the actions and words of elected officials -> Officials are held to account when they misbehave.
Explanation:
An informed citizen can better hold officials accountable for their actions. They can raise issue thru media or even their own blogs today. A. also has merit in that citizens educate themselves on important issues, but that should help dictate plans politicians should take, not make politicians communicate plans easier. Also C. Citizens understand how to acquire information leads to citizens are more likely to know how to vote. If C. was slightly reworded then it may be best as in citizens educate themselves on important issues and this leads to citizens making more informed votes. Instead, C. just says citizens understand how to acquire info instead of educate on the issues, and then it says know how to vote (there is not one know how way to vote), but rather should have said make an informed vote.
The answer is the last one D