Which rule of evidence would an attorney break if he or she were to ask a question that did not pertain to the case? hearsay speculation relevance voir dire

Option c. If an attorney were to ask a question to a witness that did not pertain to the case, she/he would be breaking the rule of evidence of relevance.

Explanation:

In a court, the rules of evidence encompass the rules and principles that govern whether an item of evidence must be or not be considered in a legal proceeding. In the case that an attorney asks a question to a witness in court, which does not pertain to the case that is being discusses, the attorney is breaking the relevance law rule of evidence. This is because if the question does not pertains to the case, the answer will also not, and all of the evidence used in the case needs to hold, to some degree, value to the case.

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )