Social Studies, 28.04.2021 21:20 karolmolina49

What was the hardest part of playing Court Quest?

Answers: 2

Show answers

Other questions on the subject: Social Studies

Social Studies, 21.06.2019 20:10, CDMJ8320

When would the government be allowed to limit what people say? a. the government may prevent individuals from engaging in "hate speech" b. the government may prevent individuals from engaging in "symbolic speech" c. the government may prevent entertainers from using foul language d. none of these are examples of permissible limitations on the freedom of speech

Answers: 2

continue

Social Studies, 21.06.2019 21:30, lilybrok04

A. in weeks v. united states (1914), the court established the exclusionary rule, which was incorporated to the states in mapp v. ohio (1961), and the court established the concept of a "good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule in united states v. leon (1984). in their opinion, the supreme court pointed out that compliance with the exclusionary rule can have a cost to society (criminals can go free) that outweighs the benefits (stopping illegal searches by police). ultimately, the court determined that despite the exclusionary rule, evidence can still be admitted in situations where police made genuine "good faith" efforts to act legally, but technically acted illegally, in obtaining the evidence. explain the exclusionary rule good faith exception and explain and support whether you agree or disagree with the concept of a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule? why or why not? use the lesson notes and/or one news source to support your answer.

Answers: 3

continue

Social Studies, 22.06.2019 01:00, aprilpendergrass

Choose all that apply. which of the following is characteristic of a rural lifestyle? slow-pacedmany deadlineshigh level of stressclose families

Answers: 1

continue

Social Studies, 22.06.2019 01:30, axleon11

The defendant and an accomplice were on trial together for burglary. both had given confessions implicating themselves and their accomplice. at trial, the defendant maintained that his confession had been obtained through improper coercion by the police. for the purpose of countering the claim of coercion, the prosecution seeks to place the accomplice’s confession into evidence. after objection by the defendant’s counsel, the judge agrees to issue a limiting instruction to the jury that the confession is to be considered only with regard to the question of whether the defendant’s confession was coerced. may the accomplice’s confession be admitted under that condition?