Criminal Evidence 1-9

1. According to Wigmore, 16 legal systems developed to a stage at which they could be recognized as such. The oldest recognized legal system was the:

a. Chinese. b. Mesopotamian. c. Egyptian.* d. Greek.

Throughout the trial, the prosecution has the obligation to convince the jury of the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt:

a. In so doing, circumstantial evidence is not admissible. b. This means that each element of the offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.* c. However, the burden of proving a defendant's innocence may shift to the defendant if the prosecution has successfully presented its case. d. However, the failure of the accused to substantiate his or her defense relieves the prosecution of this burden of proof.

Four reasons are generally advanced for excluding otherwise pertinent evidence. Which of the following is not one of these reasons?

a. Protect interests and relationships. b. Protect the jury from relying on speculative evidence.* c. Avoid undue prejudice to the accused. d. It is considered unreliable evidence.

In some instances, a court will exclude gruesome photographs, such as a photograph of the mutilated body of a crime victim. The reason for excluding such evidence in certain cases is:

a. a relationship that is of social importance must be protected. b. the evidence violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. c. it could unduly prejudice the accused by inflaming the sensibilities of the jury.* d. it is considered unreliable evidence.

In the federal criminal case of Trammel v. United States ,Part II, the defendant-appellant contended that the trial judge committed reversible error when the judge allowed the defendant-appellant's spouse to testify against him at his drug importing and conspiracy trial. The defendant contended at trial that a marital privilege should have excluded his wife's evidence.

a. a wife's testimony is always allowed to be admitted against a spouse accused of criminal activities. b. the trial judge's decision was correct because when one spouse is willing to testify against the other, there must not be much of a marriage remaining to protect.* c. the judge's decision was erroneous because marital privileges protect the most intimate of human relationships, and society has an interest in protecting the institution of marriage. d. the evidence should have been excluded because a spouse's testimony would not be considered reliable because the other spouse could improperly influence the witness spouse.

Demonstrative of the evolutionary development of the rules of evidence is the case of Trammel v. United States, in which the Supreme Court changed the rule regarding the testimony of one spouse against another. In making the change, the Court reasoned that:

a. all witnesses should be permitted to offer their evidence without artificial restraints that cloud the truth. b. because one spouse was willing to testify against another, there was little marital harmony to preserve.* c. the trial judge should make all decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence without guidance from appellate decisions. d. because the Supreme Court serves as the final arbiter of all evidentiary issues, it could collectively decide to alter the rules of evidence as it deems necessary.

In an effort to obtain more uniformity in court procedures, the Supreme Court of the United States and Congress adopted a set of rules of evidence. These rules:

a. apply in both state and federal courts. b. govern proceedings in the courts of the United States and before United States magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges.* c. were approved by Congress in the same form that they were written by the Supreme Court. d. are not binding on the lower federal courts but only on the United States Supreme Court.

5. The rules of evidence that have been developed for use in United States courts:

a. are now probably more restrictive than those developed in England.* b. have been established after much consideration and cannot be changed in the future. c. may be changed by legislative action but should not be changed by court decisions. d. are now the same as those adopted by the English courts.

In some instances, the burden of proving affirmative defenses is placed on the defendant. In this situation, the degree of proof usually is:

a. beyond a reasonable doubt. b. by clear and convincing evidence. c. by a preponderance of the evidence.* d. by evidence that is uncontradicted.

. Even after the jury has determined guilt, the judge may make use of evidence. Evidence made available to the judge to determine whether probation is to be granted:

a. can be used only if the same admissibility rules that were applied at the trial are followed. b. does not have to meet the technical rules required for evidence introduced at the trial.* c. can not be considered if the evidence was used to determine guilt at the trial. d. is not useful because the judge cannot grant probation if the evidence clearly indicates guilt.

. "The means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact." This is a definition of:

a. circumstantial evidence. b. testimony. c. direct evidence.* d. indirect evidence.

Evidence that requires inferences to be made by referring to other or additional facts is called:

a. circumstantial evidence.* b. testimony. c. direct evidence. d. real evidence.

One difference in a criminal case and a civil case is that in a:

a. civil case there is a presumption in favor of the plaintiff. b. criminal case the burden of proof is on the defendant. c. criminal case the accused must be proved guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. d. criminal case a presumption in favor of the defendant accompanies him or her from the time of apprehension to the moment of conviction.*

Some civil cases call for a higher standard of proof than is usually the case for the average civil matter, and the degree of proof must be such as will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established. This standard is known as:

a. clear and convincing evidence.* b. a preponderance of the evidence. c. beyond a reasonable doubt. d. clear and unequivocal.

The point in the pretrial process at which the defendant personally appears before the judge for the first time to make an initial determination of probable cause is the :

a. grand jury hearing. b. trial of the case. c. indictment or information stage. d. arraignment.*

The evidence that a prosecutor must present to a grand jury must, at a bare minimum, be sufficient to prove:

a. guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. b. guilt by a preponderance of the evidence. c. that it was more likely than not that the defendant was the person who committed the crime charged. d. that probable cause exists to believe that the defendant committed the crime.*

Since July 1973, the Federal Rules of Evidence have guided the federal courts in evidentiary matters. These rules have:

a. had very little influence on the states in drafting state evidence rules. b. played a significant part in the preparation and adoption of states' rules of evidence.* c. had some influence on state rules but less than 10 states have adopted rules of evidence patterned after the federal rules d. been adopted as written by all 50 states.

The law regarding the alibi defense differs from state to state. If the defendant claims an alibi defense:

a. he or she denies that he or she was at the scene of the crime.* b. the rule in all states is that the defendant must prove the alibi defense beyond a reasonable doubt. c. a state law that requires the defendant to give notice to the prosecution that an alibi witness will testify is unconstitutional. d. the state has the burden of disproving the alibi defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

In the case, State v. Anthony, Part II, involving multiple deaths of family member, the defendant father was convicted in the murders. The prosecution tested body fluids that were found on a mattress that may have been sourced from the defendant stepfather, but was not determinative. Additionally, there was some vague evidence that he had inappropriately touched one daughter, but there was no clear and convincing proof that he had molested the girl. Over the defendant's objection the trial judge allowed the state to argue that he actually had molested the daughter despite the lack of proof. Under the circumstances, the appellate court:

a. held that the evidence and the way it was argued constituted only harmless error because no substantial right of the defendant's was violated. b. decided that the evidence may give rise to certain inferences and that a jury is perfectly qualified to draw conclusions from the evidence. c. determined that the murder convictions must be reversed because the evidence and the way it was argued created undue prejudice and denied the defendant a fair trial.* d. upheld the convictions because a prosecutor is permitted wide latitude on what can be mentioned during a closing argument.

In 1984, as a part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, Congress enacted legislation titled "Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984." Under this Act:

a. insanity is no longer a recognized defense in a federal case. b. the defendant has the burden of alleging and proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.* c. the defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. d. the federal government must prove sanity after the defendant has introduced expert testi¬mony indicating that the defendant is mentally incompetent.

In jury trials, the degree of proof referred to as beyond a reasonable doubt:

a. is the degree required in both criminal and civil cases. b. is a rule of evidence but has not been made applicable to the states by the due process clause. c. does not have to be explained by the trial judge in a jury instruction in every criminal case.* d. must, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, always be defined when the charge is made to the jury.

In a criminal case, the state does not normally actively prosecute a case unless:

a. the prosecutor is absolutely certain of a conviction. b. there is at least a good chance that all the elements of the crime alleged can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.* c. the court determines that the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is on the pros¬ecution. d. the judge, in advance, indicates his or her belief that the defendant is guilty.

If the defendant in a criminal case relies upon a true affirmative defense that his or her acts come within one of the exceptions in the statute creating the offense:

a. it is incumbent upon the prosecution to show that the exception does not apply to the defendant. b. it is incumbent upon the defendant to show that his conduct and mental state were appropriate to meet the elements of that defense.* c. the burden of proving "not guilty" has been unconstitutionally shifted to the defendant. d. the burden is on the prosecution to show guilt of all the elements of the crime, but then only by a preponderance of the evidence.

In the case of Martin v. Ohio, Part II, the defendant was tried in state court for aggravated murder. At the trial, the defendant admitted that she had killed her husband but claimed that she acted in self-defense. After the evidence was presented, the court instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving the "affirmative defense" of self-defense. The United States Supreme Court held that:

a. it is not unconstitutional to require the defendant to prove the affirmative defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt* b. it was not a violation of the due process clause to place the burden of proving self-defense on the defendant. c. as the majority of the states now assume the burden of disproving affirmative de¬fenses, requiring the defendant to prove self-defense violated the Constitution. d. the Ohio law placing the burden on the defendant to prove that she was acting in self-defense in effect relieves the prosecution of proving one element of the crime and is therefore unconstitutional.

. If "specific intent" is an element of a crime:

a. jury instructions that have the effect of shifting the burden to the defense to produce evidence demonstrating lack of intent are improper.* b. the burden can be shifted to the defense since this concept operates similar to an affirmative defense. c. there is a rebuttable presumption that the defendant intended the consequences of the act that he or she set in motion. d. a defendant has the responsibility of proving lack of intent.

In the case of In re Winship, Part II, the United States Supreme Court decided that:

a. juvenile courts could use whatever legal standard of proof the respective state law required because juvenile courts were not subject to federal constitutional standards. b. proof beyond a reasonable doubt had never been required by the Fourteenth Amendment for juvenile cases. c. juveniles who are tried in juvenile courts had to have their cases decided by proof beyond a reasonable doubt when the acts of which they stood accused would have been crimes if done by adults.* d. when juveniles were charged with acts that would have been crimes if they had been done by adults it was not required that they be adjudicated by the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt because a juvenile case is considered civil in nature.

In applying the rules of evidence:

a. lower court judges today are left with more discretion than the earlier court jus¬tices concerning the admissibility of evidence. b. the judges have complete discretion concerning the admissibility of evidence. c. the jury, not the judge, makes the decision concerning the admissibility of evidence. d. recent decisions appear to give the trial judge less discretion concerning the ad¬missibility of evidence.*

Although the prosecution has the duty to prove all the elements of a charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the failure to clearly prove one element of a crime:

a. may be excused as long as there is strong general evidence that the crime occurred and that the defendant was the one who committed it. b. means that the defendant should be acquitted of the crime accused due to the prosecution's failure to meet its burden of proof.* c. allows the jury to convict for the crime charged but to give a reduced sentence. d. will still allow a conviction to stand if the defendant did not object to the prosecution's failure to prove the one missing element.

In the case of Craft v. State, Part II, the defendant complained that the trial judge failed to remain neutral in the way he asked questions of some of the prosecution's complaining witnesses. It was the defendant's contention that the court expressed an opinion concerning the believability of the prosecution's witnesses when their credibility had never been attacked. The trial judge:

a. may question witnesses, and if the jury gets the impression that the judge thinks a particular witness is truthful or is dishonest, such questioning helps the jury make its determinations. b. is permitted to ask questions and the only limit is the judge's own discretion. c. is permitted to ask questions of the witnesses for either side, but commits error when the judge asked questions in a manner that conveys the judge's opinion concerning the credibility of the witness.* d. commits reversible error when questioning any witness because that is the duty of the prosecutor and the defense attorney.

In State v. Eichelberger, Part II, the defendant was tried in Washington for trafficking in stolen property. He claimed that the evidence against him was insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction for trafficking in stolen property because there was no evidence that he knew the compact discs he found were stolen. The Washington Court of Appeals held that

a. mere proof that a defendant sold stolen property that was in his possession did not indicate that he knew or should have known the property was stolen. b. the jury was entitled to find that Eichelberger had subjective knowledge of and disregarded the substantial risk that a wrongful act would occur when he sold the CDs to the pawn shop.* c. under the circumstances, no reasonable trier of fact could have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the property Eichelberger found was in fact stolen and that he knew it d. the proof was based upon circumstantial evidence alone, and that type of evidence, by itself, cannot reach proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a criminal case, the prosecution:

a. must prove the defendant guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. b. need not prove each element of the crime but only the general guilt of the accused. c. must prove the guilt of the accused by clear and convincing evidence. d. must compile enough evidence to convince the jury or the judge that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.*

Following the Norman Conquest in England, jurors were selected to assist the judge in making the investigation and decision. At that time jurors were selected:

a. only if they were not aware of the facts of the case. b. and advised not to consider any facts not brought out at the trial. c. only if they were not titled or not knights. d. because they had a special knowledge of the facts of the case.*

. In most instances, the person who is responsible for discovering, evaluating, protecting, and analyzing evidence is the:

a. police or investigating officer.* b. prosecutor. c. judge. d. defense attorney.

In regard to the mental element (insanity) that may be at issue in a criminal case:

a. requiring the defendant to prove the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence does not violate due process.* b. there is a presumption that the defendant is not sane and the prosecution must prove sanity before introducing any other evidence. c. all the defendant has to do is claim insanity, thereby placing the responsibility on the prosecution to prove sanity. d. all courts agree that insanity is an affirmative defense that must be shown by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence

Assume that state law does not require trial courts to offer a jury instruction in any particular format that describes the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the trial court failed to offer any instructions the jury that it must find guilt, if at all, by the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, and a conviction resulted, an appellate court should:

a. reverse the judgment if the jury returned a guilty verdict.* b. not reverse the judgment because it is the duty of the defendant to request an instruction. c. not automatically reverse the verdict. d. not review the verdict because the judge would have offered a jury instruction on proof beyond a reasonable doubt if it had been needed.

In the case of Funk v. United States, Part II, which considers the traditional rule prohibiting a wife from testifying for or against her husband in a criminal case, the court discussed the devel-opment of the rules of evidence. There the court found that

a. rules of evidence, once established, cannot be changed by court decision. b. the common law relating to the rules of evidence is not immutable, but is flexible and may be adapted to varying conditions*. c. common law rules of evidence that developed under the English system must be fol¬lowed in the United States. d. the court must continue to enforce the traditional rule, which prohibits a wife from testi¬fying for her husband in a criminal case.

In the case of Victor v. Nebraska, Part II, the defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He claimed on appeal that instructions to the jury did not meet the "reasonable doubt" standard. The United States Supreme Court decided that the:

a. the Constitution requires that reasonable doubt instructions be given in every case. b. since it had defined the concept of reasonable doubt, that the exact words must be used in advising the jury of the government's burden of proof. c. the Constitution does not dictate that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government's burden of proof.* d. the jury instructions in this case did not correctly convey the concept of reasonable doubt.

As a general rule, in a criminal case:

a. the accused must be found guilty by all members of the jury.* b. a unanimous decision is not typically required. c. the degree of proof need not be as strong as would be required in a civil case d. a money judgment is granted to the injured party.

Under the Hebrew legal system, the law was tied closely with religion, but under the early Chinese system that existed until the twentieth century:

a. the civil law system was entirely different than the criminal law approach. b. the decision of guilt or innocence was made by a 30-person court of judges. c. there was little difference between civil law and criminal law.* d. the accused was entitled to have an attorney represent him or her in a criminal case.

. Two legal systems have developed and are dominant in modern times. One of these is known as the English system. It is distinguished from the Romanesque system, in that, in the English system

a. the court has a judge, a lay jury, and an elaborate network of rules.* b. a bench of judges is established and there are few rules of evidence. c. there are no elaborate controlling rules. d. only the judge can determine the guilt or innocence of the accused

If the defendant has been convicted at trial by a jury:

a. the defendant may not appeal even if evidence was erroneously admitted. b. the trial court may grant the prosecution a new trial if it wants to attempt to convict the defendant for a higher crime. c. double jeopardy provisions allow the state to retry the case if an appeal is won by the state. d. an appellate court will not overturn a verdict of guilty if there was sufficient evidence upon which the defendant could reasonably have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt*

The term burden of proof in a criminal case means:

a. the duty of establishing the truth of a given proposition or issue.* b. the party has a requirement to introduce more witnesses than the other party. c. the same as the burden of going forward with the evidence. d. the burden to prove that the defendant is not guilty rests with the prosecution until it shifts to the defense.

Prime Facie evidence is defined as:

a. the effect of evidence. b. evidence that suffices for proof of a particular fact unless and until contradicted and over-come by other evidence.* c. supplemental to that already given, and tending to strengthen or confirm it. d. evidence that comes to the court through witnesses speaking under oath or affirmation.

In a criminal case, the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, and jury each play a role. In regard to the role of the jury:

a. the jury determines the law and the facts from the evidence admitted. b. in early English proceedings, a member of the jury was selected only if he or she had no knowledge of the facts of the case. c. today the jury is responsible for determining whether the evidence is relevant, material, and competent. d. the jury today hears the evidence and makes a determination as to the facts.*

In a homicide case, if the accused pleads self-defense:

a. the prosecution has the burden initially of disproving self-defense. b. the prosecution must go forward with proof that the defendant did act in self-defense. c. the prosecution is relieved of proving that a person was killed because the defendant has effectively admitted the killing. d. the accused has the burden of proving that he or she was in great imminent peril and that he or she could not escape or retreat with safety without increasing that peril.*

In a criminal case:

a. the rules of evidence are identical to all the rules followed in a civil case. b. a jury will not be likely to convict based on weak or uncertain evidence because more than money is at stake for the defendant.* c. the degree of proof need not be as strong as would be required in a civil case. d. a money judgment is granted to the defendant if the defense wins the case.

If the defendant is acquitted at the trial level:

a. the state may appeal if evidence was erroneously admitted and retry the defendant if the appeal is successful. b. the trial court may grant a new trial at the request of the prosecution. c. double jeopardy provisions prohibit the right of the state to appeal in a way that could affect the acquitted defendant.* d. the appellate court will reverse and enter a conviction if it finds that the suspect was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

8. When a state adopts the Federal Rules of Evidence as its model evidence code:

a. the state's judges remain free to give a particular rule of evidence a different interpretation than might be given by a federal court.* b. state judges must look for federal court guidance when the judges interpret the state's version of the Federal Rules of Evidence. c. it must update the state's version of the Federal Rules of Evidence whenever the Congress makes changes in evidence rules. d. the state must adopt the complete version of the Federal Rules of Evidence and cannot adopt some parts and reject other provisions.

Generally, the laws of evidence that prevail in the state apply if the state has jurisdiction over the parties and cause of action. In establishing state rules of evidence:

a. these rules must comply with the constitutional standards as determined by the United States Supreme Court.* b. the state legislature may make less restrictive rules notwithstanding constitutional standards established by the Supreme Court. c. the state legislature has the same authority to establish rules of evidence as does Congress. d. state legislatures may disregard any federal Congressional rules relating to the ad¬missibility of evidence in state courts.

Evidence rules have been formulated for several reasons. One of these is:

a. to allow the court to carry on the proceedings in an orderly and efficient manner.* b. to make it less difficult for the state to prove the case against the accused. c. primarily to keep out evidence that is unduly prejudicial to the state. d. judges are generally impressionable and specific rules had to be developed to sift through the evidence.