I think defendants should have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted is more appropriate.
<h3>Who is a Defendant?</h3>
This is referred to as the individual or group which have been accused of breaking the law and is being tried in court.
It is more appropriate for the defendants to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted because the jury will employ the use of evidences and testimonies in other to give a verdict. This ensures fair judgement and prevent innocent from being punished unjustly.
Read more about Defendant here brainly.com/question/7315287
#SPJ1
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
What the officers did was unconstitutional and violated the 4th amendment. Weeks v. United States established the Exclusionary Rule in 1914. At the time the exclusionary rule was only applied for federal courts instead of all courts. In 1949, Wolf v. Colorado, the High Court ruled that the Exclusionary Rule did not apply to the State but the Fourth Amendment did. In 1961, Mapp v. Ohio, the High Court ruled that the exclusionary rule applies to the state level as well as the federal. Justice Clark said this perfectly, "Thus the State, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the Federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold....... Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
Answer:
Congress overrides a veto by the President
Answer:
TLO, what amendment did this case involve? ... How did the court distinguish between the Tinker case and the Fraser case? the court distinguished it by saying the speech was unrelated to any political viewpoint. In Miranda v.
Answer:
A. A higher exchange rate for the country's currency can lead to more
favorable terms of trade
Explanation:
Just got it right!