What does it mean “to turn state’s evidence”?

In American legal language evidence for the government, people or state in criminal prosecutions is called state’s evidence, In English law evidence for the Crown is called King’s (or Queen’s) evidence. These terms are applied more particularly to evidence voluntarily given by an accessory in a crime who confesses his part and who testifies against his accomplices. When a person implicated in a crime voluntarily confesses his share in the illegal act and gives testimony tending to incriminate his associates he is said to turn state’s evidence; that is,he becomes a witness for the prosecution and consequently for the state or government. In such cases there is often an expressed implied promise on the part of the authorities that they will not prosecute the witness who thus testifies, or that they “Will at least deal leniently with him. It is not customary for prosecutors to promise such immunity unless there is insufficient evidence etc convict a defendant without the testimony so obtained. But a person who has committed a crime or who has been an accomplice in an illegal act bas no legal claim to clemency merely because he “turns state’s evidence.” Occasionally a guilty person who bas not received either an expressed or implied promise of leniency will turn state’s evidence. In this case he hopes that testifying for the government will result in a pardon even if he is convicted. In popular language state’s evidence is sometimes loosely applied to the person who turns state’s evidence.

Do trees die of old age?

No close parallel exists between trees and animals in respect to maturity and longevity. Trees do not die of old age in the same sense that higher animals and human beings do. In “The Deacon’s Masterpiece” Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: In fact, there’s nothing that keeps its youth, So far as I know, but a tree and truth. Some authorities are inclined to believe that death of trees results only from accidents, disease or other unnatural causes. Few trees are permitted to die of “old age.” They are generally killed. by storms, insects, blights. soil erosion, fire or the ax and saw of man. Most trees die of disease, and the disease usually takes the form of decay in the trunk, which shuts off the water and food supply from the soil. Still there is some reason for believing that trees do have a sort of life cycle or longevity period and that they would grow old and die as the result of the ravages of time even if not destroyed by unnatural or artificial means. Of course this span of life or life cycle, which is much longer in some species than in others, is very indefinite and cannot be calculated. with any degree of accuracy. A human being reaches his maximum height at a comparatively early age. In fact in Iater years his height often decreases somewhat. But a tree continues to grow as long as it is alive, although after it reaches a certain size, depending on the species and other factors, the rate of growth slows down. Some trees live and continue to grow for thousands of years. The giant redwoods of. California, famous as the oldest living things on the earth, have virtually achieved “the miracle of perpetual growth.” A few individual trees of this species are estimated to be between 4000 and 5000 years of age.

Why are ultraconservatives called Bourbons?

The Bourbons were a royal family who ruled France from 1589 to 1848,with interruptions caused by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic regime. Members of the Bourbon family also ruled for centuries in Naples, Parrna and Spain. The family was first heard of in the ninth century when its head, Baron Aimar, was lord of the castle and seigniory of Bourbon-l’Archambault in central France in the present department of Villier. Through the centuries the autocratic Bourbons became noted for their opposition to all change and their firm adherence to the ancient regime (“the old order”). In 1796 a French naval officer named Charles Louis Etienne, Chevalier de Panat said of the Bourbons: “They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.”

What is the origin of the bridal veil?

The wedding or bridal veil is believed to be a survival of an ancient superstition dating back to the time of the Greeks and Romans, if not much earlier. It was first worn to conceal and protect the bride from evil spirits that it was thought would harm her if she were not veiled. Perhaps this was the origin of the general custom of wearing veils, which still prevails to a great extent among women of the Orient. Bride, it is supposed, is derived from an ancient Teutonic root signifying “to cook.” Bridal as an adjective meaning “pertaining to a bride or newly married wife” mayor may not be derived from bridal in the sense of a wedding party. The latter term is derived from two old English roots meaning “wedding” and “ale.” Bride-ale is still a historical term. Bride-ales (bridals) were wedding festivals at which tile guests were served ale. It is probable that the adjective bridal was formed from bride under the influence of the older noun bridal.

Who are the Anzacs?

This is a name often applied collectively to the people of Australia and New Zealand. It originated during the First World War. The Australian and New Zealand divisions in the British forces were merged into a single unit officially known as the “Australian-New Zealand Army Corps.” In popular usage this name was shortened to Anzac, being the-initial letters of the words composing the name. “When I took over the command of the Australian and New Zealand Corps in Egypt (in 1914),” wrote General Sir William Birdwood after the war, “I was asked to select a telegraphic-code address and I adopted the name Anzac.” In the following spring The Australian and New Zealand forces made their heroic landing on the Gallipoli Peninsula and to commemorate the event General Birdwood named the landing place Anzac Cove. Originally only those Australian and New Zealand soldiers who fought at Oallipoli were caned Anzacs, and they jealously guarded the name, but it was gradually extended first to other members of the corps and finally to any Australian or New Zealander. The Anzac Area, a small district on the western side of the Oallipcli Peninsula, was dedicated after the war as a permanent memorial to the valor of the members of the Callipoli expeditionary army who vainly tried to take the western defenses of Constantinople in 1915-1916. By the Treaty of Lausarine, signed in 1923, Turkey granted this area in perpetuity to France, Italy and the British Empire, and these three powers agreed to appoint custodians for the graves and cemeteries. Turkey, however, controls access to the district, which under the terms of the agreement cannot be fortified or built up in any way except to provide shelter for the sale use of the custodians. In 1916 Australia and New Zealand by statute forbade the commercial use of Anzac in any trade, business, profession or calling without government permission. During the Second World War the familiar name for the Australians was Aussies. What queen reigned after death of Inez de Castro, wife of Dom Pedro, King of Portugal in the fourteenth century, is often referred to as the Qu(:en who “reigned after death.” . She became the morganatic wife of Dam Pedro while he was heir to the,throne. The Prince’s father, the King, seriously objected to the marriage. He feared the powerful Castro family; besides, Inez was believed to be of illegitimate birth. In 1355 Inez was stabbed to death supposedly at the instigation of the old King. The outraged Dam Pedro started a rebellion that did not subside until the Prince was given a large share in the government of Portugal. When the old King died in 1357 Darn Pedro succeeded to the throne. According to tradition, the new King had the body of his murdered wife exhumed, placed on a throne and crowned. All the nobles were compelled to pass and do obeisance to the dead Queen by kissing her withered hand. Then Inez, the “Queen who reigned after death,” was interred with great pomp in a beautiful sarcophagus of white marble. Shapur II, King of Persia from 310 to 370 A.D., was crowned before he was born. He was the posthumous son of Hormuzd II, whose born sons were all lolled or imprisoned by the nobles immediately after the old King’s death. The unborn child was then formally declared King as Shapur II.