B. The old miner was lost in he dessert.
C. How many ours do we have to wait?
D. Karen's new dog had flees.
Answer: A) Making an emotional appeal to the jury in a final attempt to win them to their side
Explanation:
In opening statements, the attorney presents an overview of the case to the jury. This includes introducing the jury to the parties involved and the basic facts of the case. The attorney also outlines the key points they intend to prove during the trial. In addition, they may make an emotional appeal to the jury to persuade them to their side.
However, the answer that is NOT included in opening statements is A. making an emotional appeal to the jury in a final attempt to win them to their side. While attorneys may use emotional appeals during the trial, they typically do not make such appeals in the opening statements. Opening statements are primarily focused on presenting a clear overview of the case and what the evidence will show. Emotional appeals are usually reserved for later stages of the trial, such as during the closing arguments.
To summarize, in opening statements, attorneys introduce the jury to the case, outline key points, and provide an overview of the evidence. Emotional appeals are not typically included in opening statements, but may be used later in the trial.
I hope this helps :)
The correct fill for the sentence is 'Parents' ', it is the plural possessive form, identifying that something (in this case, blessing) belongs to more than one parent of a particular individual (Alexandra).
The correct option for the given blank in the sentence is B) Parents'. This is because in this context, we are looking at a possessive scenario, where the blessing belongs to both of Alexandra's parents hence the need for the plural possessive form - 'Parents' '. The apostrophe after the 's' indicates it is something belonging to them. To illustrate further with an example - 'The family packed their suitcases for their vacation.' Here, both the suitcases and the vacation belong to the family, similar to the blessing belonging to Alexandra's parents in the sentence given.
#SPJ11
B. "Cf. Hammond [p514] v. South Carolina State College, 272 F.Supp. 947 (D.C.S.C.1967) (orderly protest meeting on state college campus); Dickey v. Alabama State Board of Education, 273 F.Supp. 613 (D.C.M.D. Ala. 967) (expulsion of student editor of college newspaper)."
C. "While the absence of obscene remarks or boisterous and loud disorder perhaps justifies the Court's statement that the few armband students did not actually "disrupt" the classwork, I think the record overwhelmingly shows that the armbands did exactly what the elected school officials and principals foresaw they would."
D. "One does not need to be a prophet or the son of a prophet to know that, after the Court's holding today, some students in Iowa schools — and, indeed, in all schools — will be ready, able, and willing to defy their teachers on practically all orders.
Answer:
A. "In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. As Judge Gewin, speaking for the Fifth Circuit, said, school officials cannot suppress 'expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend.'"
Explanation:
In this excerpt, the speaker tells us that a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate speech was not found. This shows the importance of precedent. The doctrine of precedent is the idea that judges must inform their decisions by studying past judicial decisions. In this case, the fact that there was no precedent that could justify the regulation of speech means that the judges could not conclude that the regulation of speech had a legitimate constitutional basis.