Answer:
B
Explanation:
Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way).
Answer:
I'm pretty sure it's *<u>final walk-through</u>*, and *<u>logs the evidence</u>*.
Explanation:
It's been a few years since I've taken the class, but I finished the class with my grade over 99% so I'm probably remembering this correctly.
EDIT: Emergency correction, Final Walk-Through is correct, Logs the Evidence is NOT. This narrows the second blank down to only two options, I'll leave it to whoever reads this to use common sense and guess between the two.
Answer:
In a juvenile court, T.L.O. argued that her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated. The court sided with the school, and T.L.O. took her case to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which later found that the search was unreasonable and the evidence could not be used.
Explanation:
Answer:
The law does not allow the interpretation of a given situation, but gives a specific and practical answer to what is happening. For this reason, we can say that law is a practical discipline. Theory has no place in law.
Explanation:
A theory is something that was created according to someone's interpretation of a given situation. There is no certainty in the theory, it can be contested and redefined whenever someone finds it necessary. For this reason, there is no room for theory in the law.
The law is objective, clear and direct, there is no dispute, nor different interpretations, the law cannot be tested, that is, the law is something direct and specific that results in a single and correct answer about a situation.
I think the answer is A and D
