I may assert th' Eternal Providence, and justifie the wayes of God to men.
The difference between the Sioux tribe and the Cherokee tribe is seen in their languages and the things they do trade in.
<h3>How did the Cherokee tribe differ from other tribes?</h3>
The Cherokee is known to be the tribe that is called “five civilized” tribes due to their efforts to take in the American culture due to the European system of values and that of their ideals.
Note that the Cherokee are known to be seen to have settled in the area that makes up what is now seen as the five U.S. states, making up of Eastern North Carolina, for about 500 years ago.
Note that the Cherokee are seen as a trading conduit that often exist between the peoples of the coast and those of the Mississippi Valley. and therefore, The difference between the Sioux tribe and the Cherokee tribe is seen in their languages and the things they do trade in.
Learn more about Cherokee tribe from
brainly.com/question/23601626
#SPJ1
Stevenson requests a direct appeal of Walter’s conviction. In his written brief, he notes several flaws in Walter’s case, including faulty witness testimonies, State misconduct, racial bias in jury selection, and an unnecessary judge override of the jury’s life sentence. At the appeals court in Montgomery, Stevenson appears before Chief Judge John Patterson, the KKK-backed former Alabama governor notorious for resisting de-segregation and refusing to allow law enforcement to protect the Freedom Riders from violent mobs. At the end of Stevenson’s oral argument, Judge Patterson responds by asking Stevenson where he is from. Stevenson, caught off guard, responds that he “lives in Montgomery.” Stevenson regrets dissuading Walter’s family from requesting time off to travel to Montgomery, now wondering if their supportive presence would have helped distinguish Walter’s case. The State’s lawyer defends Walter’s conviction as “routine” and his sentence as “appropriately imposed.” Judge Patterson denies the appeal.
Stevenson encourages Walter to remain hopeful because they have new evidence and several remaining options, including a reconsideration of the direct appeal decision. Stevenson recently hired Michael O’Connor, a son of Irish immigrants and recovered heroin addict originally from a rough neighborhood. Though Michael regards his history of addiction with regret, Stevenson sees his background as an asset to their work. Stevenson and his colleagues have discovered records showing that county officials paid Bill Hooks and “somehow” had his city criminal charges dropped, which is information that the State should legally have disclosed pre-trial. They also found flyers advertising the fish fry held at Walter’s house, which confirmed it was held the day of the murder. They contacted Walter’s mechanic, who discredited Bill Hook’s testimony by confirming that the mechanic modified Walter’s truck six months after Ronda’s murder. Finally, a clerk at the store where Myers was asked to identify Walter confirms that Myers had to ask which black man was Walter.
Stevenson’s determination to pursue all available recourses for Walter demonstrates his perseverance and commitment to this case. Stevenson’s positive reaction to Michael’s story of addiction serves to reinforce the book’s emphasis on the importance of redemption. By framing Michael’s past mistakes as assets, Stevenson implies that he values having staff members who can identify with the population they serve. Michael’s past allows him to see clients as more fully human, and enables clients to trust Michael more easily. Stevenson implies that county officials conducted illegal activity, which they intentionally hid. Further, he implies that the corruption included collaboration with city, everything.”
