Economics is the study of the use of resources to roduce/distrubute good services

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.

Karin bought illegal firearms at a gun show. at her trial, she alleged that she had committed this crime because her boyfriend had threatened to harm her and her two daughters if she did not. her lawyer asked the judge to instruct the jury that the prosecution had an obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that karin had acted freely. instead, the judge told the jury that karin had the burden of proving duress by a preponderance of the evidence. who is correct?

Hegyes was driving her car when it was negligently struck by a unjian enterprises truck. she was injured, and an implant was placed in her body to counteract the injuries. she sued unjian, and the case was settled. two years later hegyes became pregnant. the growing fetus pressed against the implant, making it necessary for her doctor to deliver the child 51 days prematurely by cesarean section. because of its premature birth, the child had a breathing handicap. suit was brought against unjian enterprises for the harm sustained by the child. was the defendant liable?