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.

acid rain is the answer

there are no options provided but you can choose among the following gender-neutral pronouns: zir, hir, eir, vis, tem, eir.

in the normal course of maintaining a pronoun-antecedent agreement, we could have used the words his or her but since we are also required to use gender-neutral language, we need to replace it with its equivalent gender-neutral pronoun.