Which rule of evidence would an attorney break if he or she were to ask a question that did not pertain to the case? hearsay speculation relevance voir dire

Option c. If an attorney were to ask a question to a witness that did not pertain to the case, she/he would be breaking the rule of evidence of relevance.

Explanation:

In a court, the rules of evidence encompass the rules and principles that govern whether an item of evidence must be or not be considered in a legal proceeding. In the case that an attorney asks a question to a witness in court, which does not pertain to the case that is being discusses, the attorney is breaking the relevance law rule of evidence. This is because if the question does not pertains to the case, the answer will also not, and all of the evidence used in the case needs to hold, to some degree, value to the case.

speed

explanation:

1.) question:

how was the agricultural revolution related to the industrial revolution?

d.) improved agriculture led to population growth, which increased demand for goods.

2.) question:

which of the following happened first in the events leading to american independence?

c.) the meeting of the first continental congress.

3.) question:

what was one advantage that cities offered businesses and industrialists?

answer:

d.) transportation networks

4.) question:

what economic philosophy developed in response to the problems of industrial workers?

a.) socialism

5.) question:

how does this image relate to the jacobins?

b.) the jacobins used this machine to scare and execute those who supported the king.

hope this !