It depends entirely on the circumstances. It depends on: Who obtained the statement? How was the statement obtained? Why was it obtained? What was included in the statement? How old was the person who made the statement? From whom was the statement taken?
In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact.
A prediction.
You must take your objection before the probate court and the judge will make a determination after hearing testimony and reviewing any evidence.
A statement made in advance that expresses the results that will be obtained from testing a hypothesis is a prediction. A hypothesis is supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
A bank statement can be checked in many ways. The three most common are a paper statement either mailed by the bank to the account owner or obtained a the bank, a statement viewed or printed at an ATM, or a statement viewed or printed on the bank's website.
I suppose that every Christian Testimony is 'talking about ourselves', yet as these two verses from the Bible, about Paul's testimony which he often gave, show that we do not exalt ourselves in the testimony, but rather exalt the Lord Jesus who saved us. 1 Timothy 1.12. And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; 13. Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.
Mapp v. Ohio
police never made matrix or plan to no knock raid my home with flashbombsAnswer To keep evidence from jury's eyesA motion to supress is a motion filed with the court that attempts to keep evidence from being considered by the jury (or judge in a bench trial). The evidence can be almost anything that has been obtained by police or government agents either unlawfully or in violation of the accused person's rights. For example, drugs that were seized from a house that police entered without a warrant or in an emergency, and which the prosecuting attorney intends to introduce to get a conviction for the homeowner.
All of them. Or none of them. I'm not sure because you DIDN'T GIVE ANY OPTIONS.
Yes, you can be convicted.The issue there is whether the police were acting on the statement in good faith or if they knew the statement to be false. If the police were not acting in good faith (eg suborning perjury to obtain the statement), or failed to obtain a warrant at all, any evidence obtained from that search may be deemed to be inadmissible. But generally one person's statement would not be enough for the police to obtain a warrant but also some sort of actual evidence.
The "exclusionary rule" was first developed in Mapp v. Ohio. If there was an illegal search/seizure, any evidence obtained as a direct result of that action is "the fruit of the poisonous tree" and should be excluded. However, the USSC has progressively weakened the fourth amendment protections available to criminal defendants, and most cases fall into an exception of some type, allowing the evidence in.
no cmmnt bakwas question