Answer:
Ang sagot po True po sagot diyan
Answer:
Hsu was indicted for violating the Economic Espio- nage Act by conspiring to steal corporate trade secrets for an anti-cancer drug. The defense requested a copy of the trade secret documents. The government contended that the defense did not need access to the documents except under supervision of the judge. The defense maintained a right of full access to the documents so the defense of impossibil- ity could be established, meaning Hsu could not steal trade secrets that did not exist. District court agreed with the defense; government appealed. Must the defendant be allowed full access to trade secrets that are a key part of a case? [U.S. v. Hsu, 155 F. 3d 189, 3rd Cir. (1998)]
Explanation:
Answer:
C
Explanation:
When I looked more into it, information on certain sites stated that it depended on the minor crime, the most I could find was someone saying 2000. One can only assume the closest number though.
Keep in mind that I'm no expert and just looked it up ;-; I tried to help though
We need the “following” options in order to answer the question. What are your multiple choice answers? The question is too broad to even begin to answer without what the question is aimed toward. I’m sure that you’ll get immediate response once you give the answer: “which of the following”, stated in the body of the question. Sorry.
