A defendant is being prosecuted for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. At trial, the government seeks to have its agent testify to a conversation that he overheard between the defendant and a co-conspirator regarding the incoming shipment of a large quantity of cocaine. That conversation was also audiotaped, though critical portions of it are inaudible. The defendant objects to the testimony of the agent on the ground that it is not the best evidence of the conversation. Is the testimony admissible? Answers:
A. No, because the testimony of the agent is not the best evidence of the conversation.
B. No, because the testimony of the agent is hearsay not within any exception.
C. Yes, because the best evidence rule does not require proof of the conversation through the audiotape.
D. Yes, because the audiotape is partly inaudible.

Why was charliemagne hesitant about being crounded holy roman emperor?

Which of the following scenarios illustrates the error in thinking known as overconfidence? choose the correct answer from the following choices, and then select the submit answer button. over the years, about 45 percent of the students in dr. hunt's introductory psychology course have correctly predicted their major, but their confidence in this prediction has been about 75 percent on average. maria was afraid she would fail her introductory psychology midterm. when she got an a, she convinced herself that she had known all along she would do well on the exam. over the years, about 45 percent of the students in dr. hunt's introductory psychology course have correctly predicted their major, and their confidence in this prediction has also been about 45 percent on average. five students in dr. hunt's introductory psychology course were unwilling to predict major because they were afraid of making an incorrect prediction.

For each of the following, mark whether it is a possible confounder (a factor that mixes up the results, making it look like candy is to blame when it's a causal (or causation) link which supports the argument that candy causes criminal behavior (ie, explains how candy leads to criminality ), or neither (an irrelevant factor, something that may cause people to become criminals but has nothing to do with eating candy). choose your answers based only< on the information given. additives in candy- additives found in candy may adversely affect brain development of young children in ways that could contribute towards adult aggression. impulsive personality-- kids who are highly impulsive and have trouble delaying gratification are more likely to eat candy every day as children and more likely to disobey laws as adults. violent abuse-- children who suffer violent abuse are more likely to become violent adults and commit violent crimes. gender- boys are overwhelmingly more likely to commit violent crimes