The defendant was on trial for murder. the defendant called a witness to testify to an alibi. on cross-examination of the witness, the prosecutor asked, "weren't you on the jury that acquitted the defendant of another criminal charge? "what is the best reason for sustaining an objection to this question? a the question goes beyond the scope of direct examination. b the probative value of the answer would be substantially outweighed by its tendency to mislead. c the question is a leading question. d prior jury service in a case involving a party renders the witness incompetent.

Explanation:

The answer is between A or B. We can't assess A. We do not know what took place during the direct examination.  So you have to look at B.

B means that if the question is allowed, it has some value in answering it, but the question's answer is far outweighed by the fact that it is misleading. What difference does it make that the witness served on a jury that acquitted someone. So did 11 other people. Not every case is based on 12 angry men. What is implied in the question is that the witness will always go for acquittal where this defendant is concerned.

answer; have joints that fail from excess by early the accumulated effects of unnoticed infections,all of these things are possible for a person born without the ability to feel pain;

answer; under developed;