Evidence introduced to establish motive is generally admissible. true or false?

False.

Explanation:

The defendant, that is, his guilt, can only be clearly defined by material evidence.

The motive says a lot about the character of the act committed, but the motives of the crime are null and void without proof.

If the motive requires the sole reason for the commission of the crime, such treatment can be devastating to the truth, since in that case, the evidence sheds light.

The motive is the starting point of the investigator in the search for truth. The danger of taking a motive in this context can lead the investigation into the "wrong track". Finally, a motive for committing a crime without any person having done the same.

apart from being against desegregation, governor of georgia eugene talmadge opposed as well to the work progress administration, an ambitious program of the "new deal" created by president franklin d. roosevelt to overcome the great depression after world war i. talmadge disagreed with welfare spending, job training and organized labor. according to his ideas, he thought the government was spending too much money on this, and he wasn't willing to accept a wage higher than georgia's lower average wage. besides, talmadge strongly opposed to the "new deal" as he thought it had communist ideas.