One fine day in the middle of the night two dead boys got up to fight back to back they faced each other drew their knives and shot each other the deaf policeman heard the noise and came and shot the two dead boys if you donât believe what i saw ask the blind man he saw it all what is wrong

Awife was having an affair with her neighbor. the wife and her husband had a prenuptial agreement that prevented the wife from receiving any of the husband’s sizable fortune in the event of a divorce. the wife and her neighbor formed a plan to murder the husband and run away together with the wife’s inheritance. the neighbor shot the husband one evening, killing him instantly, then drove to a town 100 miles away and checked into a motel. later that night, the police showed up at the motel with a valid warrant for the neighbor’s arrest. after the neighbor was arrested and placed in a police car, the police asked the motel clerk for permission to search the room, and the clerk granted the request. the police found the gun hidden in the tank of the toilet. the wife and the neighbor were each charged with first-degree murder and tried separately. at her trial, the wife sought to suppress any evidence of the gun, arguing that it was seized illegally. what is the prosecution’s strongest response to this argument? athe motel clerk gave the police permission to search the room. bthe wife was not staying in the motel room where the gun was found. cthe gun was found in a search incident to a lawful arrest. dthe neighbor did not have a reason

Humphreys collecting data for the tearoom trade study under the pretense that he was a lookout is an example of a violation of the principle of: a. justice. b. beneficence. c. respect for persons.

Arthur met rottweiler breeders lynda and george at a dog show in rhode island. the couple, who reside in new york state, later sold several rottweiler dogs to arthur who lived in rhode island. arthur later sued lynda and george, claiming that the dogs were sick and infirm. he filed a complaint in rhode island courts, claiming that even though the dogs were sold in new york, the breeders had attended the dog show and advertised in the rottweiler newsletter which was distributed at the event in rhode island. based on the facts, do you think rhode island courts have personal jurisdiction in this case?