Final answer:
Without additional context, it is unclear which statement makes a true statement about the case of State v. Justin B. Goode. Plea bargains, witness testimonies, the presence or absence of evidence, and neighbor statements are all common aspects of legal proceedings that could be relevant in such a case.
Explanation:
The true statement about the case of State v. Justin B. Goode is based on understanding how plea bargaining works in the legal system. While the options provided about the defendant pleading guilty, the teacher's testimony, the police officer not finding evidence, and a neighbor's claim of buying stolen goods could each be elements of a legal case, they do not individually confirm the validity of the scenario without more context. Most criminal charges are often resolved before they reach trial, with defendants agreeing to plea bargains for lesser charges, thus avoiding the risk of being convicted of more serious crimes but forfeiting protections of the trial procedures. In cases where a defendant is found not guilty, they are immediately released, unless there are other pending charges. If convicted, the sentencing depends on various guidelines and the nature of the crime.
What group benefited most from the Roman road system, which enabled them to move quickly throughout the empire?
artists
engineers
soldiers
priests
Answer:
C. Soldiers
Explanation:
The Roman road system was actually created for military purposes - meaning, they were built to ease the travel of soldiers and generals throughout the empire. That makes C correct.
Artists didn't travel so extensively throughout the empire as soldiers did, so they didn't benefit as much. Engineers were the ones who built the system. Priests, like artists, did not have a need to move around too much, remaining mostly at the church, so this is wrong as well.
Answer:
Soldiers
Explanation:
This road system saved time and energy because the army had to march less