Why does communism never work out

The defendant and an accomplice were on trial together for burglary. both had given confessions implicating themselves and their accomplice. at trial, the defendant maintained that his confession had been obtained through improper coercion by the police. for the purpose of countering the claim of coercion, the prosecution seeks to place the accomplice’s confession into evidence. after objection by the defendant’s counsel, the judge agrees to issue a limiting instruction to the jury that the confession is to be considered only with regard to the question of whether the defendant’s confession was coerced. may the accomplice’s confession be admitted under that condition?

The defendant is charged with the battery of a bouncer at a local tavern. at the trial, the prosecutor introduces evidence that while the bouncer was attempting to question the defendant about her intoxicated demeanor, the defendant committed a battery on the bouncer. the defendant attempts to defend against the charge on the basis of self-defense, insisting that the bouncer used excessive force in stopping her from entering the tavern. the defendant attempts to introduce into evidence an authenticated copy of the tavern records that show that three patrons had written complaints against the bouncer within the past six months for the use of excessive force. the prosecutor objects on the grounds that the records are inadmissible character evidence. should the court sustain the objection?

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.