Judicial review is the power of the american courts to select one: a. declare a law unconstitutional. b. suspend the writ of habeas corpus. c. impeach the president. d. give advisory opinions to congress. e. give advice and counsel to the president.

A. in weeks v. united states (1914), the court established the exclusionary rule, which was incorporated to the states in mapp v. ohio (1961), and the court established the concept of a "good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule in united states v. leon (1984). in their opinion, the supreme court pointed out that compliance with the exclusionary rule can have a cost to society (criminals can go free) that outweighs the benefits (stopping illegal searches by police). ultimately, the court determined that despite the exclusionary rule, evidence can still be admitted in situations where police made genuine "good faith" efforts to act legally, but technically acted illegally, in obtaining the evidence. explain the exclusionary rule good faith exception and explain and support whether you agree or disagree with the concept of a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule? why or why not? use the lesson notes and/or one news source to support your answer.

Japan’s key exports to africa and southwest asia are mostly a) raw materials. b) human capital. c) manufactured items. d) agricultural products.

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.