Answer:
Explanation:
The Missouri Plan is a method for selecting judges that were first implemented in Missouri in 1940. Under this system, a nonpartisan commission composed of lawyers and laypeople screens and nominates candidates for judicial positions. The governor then selects a judge from the list of nominees, and the judge serves for a set term before standing for retention or rejection in a retention election.
The Missouri Plan was designed to eliminate the influence of politics in the selection of judges and ensure that judges are appointed based on their qualifications and merit rather than their political affiliations or connections. This system has been adopted in various forms by over 30 states in the United States.
Whether the Missouri Plan is an ideal way to select judges is a matter of debate. Supporters of the system argue that it helps to ensure that judges are selected based on their qualifications rather than political considerations and that retention elections provide a way for the public to hold judges accountable. They also argue that the system helps to prevent the appointment of unqualified judges who are appointed solely due to political connections.
Opponents of the Missouri Plan argue that it can be difficult to ensure that the selection commission is truly nonpartisan and that the system can still be subject to political influence. They also argue that retention elections can become overly politicized, with judges facing pressure to rule in certain ways to win reelection.
Overall, while the Missouri Plan has been successful in many states and has been credited with improving the quality of the judiciary, it is not without its drawbacks and limitations, and there is an ongoing debate about the best way to select judges.
PLS MARK ME BRAINLIEST
one important question in a particular criminal trial was whether the defendant had actually been present during an important meeting the victim had with several business partners, during which the victim said something that created a motive for murder. determining whether the defendant had been present is an example of a:
Determining whether the defendant had been present is an example of a Relevant Factual Issue.
In order to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant, the court must determine if the defendant was present at the meeting in question. This requires an examination of the evidence provided by both the prosecution and the defense to determine if the defendant was present at the meeting.
If the defendant was present at the meeting, it could create a motive for the murder and provide evidence of guilt. If the defendant was not present, it could provide evidence of innocence. The court must determine the truth of this factual issue in order to reach a conclusion in the case.
To know more about court, click here:
https://brainly.com/question/13375489
#SPJ4
Question 12
O True
O False
In United States federal law, the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury
i believe its true hope this helps