Plz help it’s very urgent!!

What does Baker v Carr have to do with Gerrymandering?

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?

Which statement best completes the diagram of the ways the different branches of government can limit each other's powers?

Awoman was found strangled in the basement of her home where she lived with her husband. the crime scene was processed and investigators left. the next day, the medical examiner reported that a scalloped, woven belt was used to strangle the victim. the police asked the husband to search the house again to look for such a belt and he agreed. a belt was found that matched marks on the victim. the man was arrested. his attorney made a motion that the belt be excluded from the evidence as he contended that the search was not legal. which statement is true? a. the belt should be excluded because the search was not legal. the police did not obtain a search warrant, as needed according to the fourth amendment to the u.s. constitution. b. the belt is admissible because the man gave his consent to the second search. c. the belt should be excluded because the search was not legal. the police did not obtain a search warrant, as need according to michigan v. tyler. d. the belt is admissible as evidence, according to mincey v. arizona.