I was one of the best fingerprint examiners in the world. I could do things the FBI thought impossible. I could memorize fingerprints. The nearby agencies, including local offices of federal agencies that had their own labs, came to me for help. One day in a trial a new-hatched defence attorney tried to make me seem neglectful because I hadn't sent the prints from the crime scene to the FBI for verification. The FBI will not look at prints that have already been identified locally. I tried to get that across to him. Finally I said, "Sir, you don't understand. I don't ask the FBI for help. The FBI asks me for help." The courtroom went dead silent. The lawyer choked a bit and looked frantically at the judge, who knew me quite well. The judge slowly nodded. The lawyer choked a few more times, said, "No further questions," and returned to his seat. I was the only person in the five-state area in which the silver burglar was hitting who got him on fingerprint evidence. He never left fingerprint evidence . . . except when he did. Every other police agency quit looking, because his MO was unmistakable. We didn't. A detective got prints from a bamboo tree he had used to climb in a window, and I got several prints from items he had handled inside the house. After the trial he was being led back to the jail and I was walking down the hall. He stopped and said, "I want to talk to that lady." The bailiff told him he couldn't talk to the witness, but I said I wanted to hear what he had to say. He said, "Lady, you're the smartest cop I ever saw, and I hope to God I never see you again." I think that was the best compliment I ever got. I have other accomplishments. But I consider my police work the most important. Question: Who was told they couldn't talk to the witness? Options: - the judge - not enough information - the burglar - the lawyer === The correct answer is
the burglar

"Hey, Natalie! Nice sweatshirt!" I was passing through the hallways of school last year, being messenger boy for the teachers, when this girl walked up to me. I had no clue who she was, but I thought she was a year younger than me. That's why I thought it was weird that she said my name. But the "nice sweatshirt" bit was what really got me. I wasn't even wearing my sweatshirt. So. There was a substitute teacher in my literacy class, so my class was split. half of us did actual work, and the other half watched a documentary. Ben, Evan, Isabelle and myself were put together in the class watching the super boring documentary. We got bored, so, when Ben left the classroom for a bit and left his jacket behind, I don't remember why, but, I put on his sweatshirt and traded it for mine. This turned into everyone swapping sweatshirts for the next hour until school was out. At one point I was called to the office to deliver a message to a different classroom. I walked out of the office with the information, and turned around at the sound of my name. "Hey, Natalie! Nice sweatshirt!" I smiled and thanked her like the nice human being I want people to think I am. Once she started down the stairs I looked down at my sweatshirt. Black and orange? Nike? But my sweatshirt's gray and purple! Then I remembered our little game of "try not to get caught swapping sweatshirts and giggling". I wasn't wearing my sweatshirt. Someone else had it. I was wearing Evan's. It's also kind of sad because that was one of the only compliments I've gotten from a stranger all year. Complimented on something that wasn't even mine Welcome to my life, everybody! Question: Who complimented Natalie on her sweatshirt? Options: - a classmate - the substitute teacher - not enough information - the girl in the hallway === The correct answer is
the girl in the hallway

The U.S. Supreme Court plunged into the politically messy issue of redrawing congressional and legislative districts Tuesday, in a case that could have profound implications for both major political parties for years to come. The high court heard oral arguments in a case brought by Democratic voters in Wisconsin. They argued that a Republican redistricting plan for the state assembly was so overtly partisan that it violated constitutional protections of freedom of speech and equal protection under the law for Wisconsin voters. A lower federal court sided with the challengers last year and against Republican state officials in Wisconsin. Officials argued Tuesday that they had not violated any constitutional rights when they drew up new boundaries for state assembly districts. "Our legislature followed traditional redistricting criteria, which is what they have been required to do and we think they followed that and that the justices will agree," Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel told reporters in front of the court following the oral arguments. The process of state legislatures redrawing congressional and legislative district boundaries has been enmeshed in politics for two centuries. Early on, the process was referred to as "gerrymandering," where one party or the other tries to gain an electoral advantage by redrawing district boundaries to maximize their voting clout. Republicans have had success in several states in redrawing congressional and legislative voting districts and that has helped them maintain their majority in the House of Representatives. Democrats have come under fire as well for partisan maps in states where they control the legislature, like Maryland and Massachusetts. During Tuesday's oral arguments, the more liberal high court justices seemed open to the case brought by Democratic voters. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a ruling in favor of the Republican districting plan in Wisconsin would encourage others to stack the deck against their political opponents. "What becomes of the... Question: The supreme court is likely to rule: Options: - agree with the lower federal courts ruling - dismiss the case due to lack of evidence - gerrymandering is unconsistutional - not enough information === The correct answer is
gerrymandering is unconsistutional