Bro I swear nobody wants to help me with my most recent question which is literally just two easy questions that was posted a few minutes ago like I can literally post the most easiest question and nobody will answer it but I bet you 1000 bucks that y’all are gonna come crazy trying to answer this quick not to help me but just for the points smh.

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.

As you drive in to school, you hear a random radio-show caller arguing that sun exposure really has not been shown to cause skin cancer and that some research suggests that skin cancer is completely genetic and not related to sun exposure at all. at the time, you think that this is a silly argument and that the caller does not know what she is talking about. however, two months later, you are outside without wearing sunscreen, and you find yourself remembering that you had read something about how the sun actually does not cause skin cancer. this process is evidence that has influenced your attitude

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?