Evidence Fall Final

As proof of the manner in which Jin was injured in the workplace, evidence of a videotape in which Jin reenacts the events that led to her injury, offered in proof by Jin. The evidence is A. HEARSAY B. NONHEARSAY

A. HEARSAY

As proof that HiTech Corporation was a bad credit risk, evidence that the credit rating rating company Dun & Broadstreet gives HiTech Corporation a poor credit rating. The evidence is A. HEARSAY B. NONHEARSAY

A. HEARSAY

As proof that Victor owned a .32 caliber pistol, testimony by a police officer that when he asked Victor's father, Wilson, whether Victor owned such a pistol, Wilson went to a drawer in the house where he and Victor lived, pulled out a .32 caliber pistol, and handed it to the officer. The evidence is A. HEARSAY B. NONHEARSAY

A. HEARSAY

In Elton's personal injury suit, as proof that Foster was an agent of defendant All-Cure Drugstore, Elton's testimony that Foster said, "I'm awfully sorry, I was running an errand for my employer All-Cure Drugstore." The evidence is A. HEARSAY B. NONHEARSAY

A. HEARSAY

Allen sued Dow to recover for injuries he sustained when a badly rotted limb fell from a curbside tree in front of Dow's home and hit him. Dow claimed that the tree was on City property and thus it was the responsibility of the City to maintain the tree and ensure the safety of others. At trial, Allen offered testimony that a week after the accident, Dow had cut the tree down with a chainsaw. The offered evidence is A. admissible to show the tree was on Dow's property B. admissible to show the tree was in a rotted condition C. inadmissible, because it is irrelevant to the condition of the tree at the time of the accident D. inadmissible, because there is a policy to encourage safety precautions

ANSWER A A. admissible to show the tree was on Dow's property

This question is based on the same facts as the previous question. If Trish testifies against Rodney in the trial involving molestation of Rhonda, she can relate the following facts: I. Rodney was alone with the two girls on July 14. II. Rodney told her that night that he handcuffed the girls. III. Rodney confessed to her in October that he molested the girls. In the trial involving the molestation of Rhonda, to which of these items may Trish testify over a marital privilege objection from Rodney? A. To item I & II B. To item I only C. To item III only D. To item I, II, and III

ANSWER A A. To item I & II

Defendant wishes to introduce evidence on an issue on which she has the burden of proof. What standard must she meet to overcome an objection that the evidence is irrelevant? A. It must be direct rather than merely circumstantial B. It must have some tendency to make some issue in the case more or less likely that it would be without that evidence C. It must be sufficient to permit the jury to determine the issue favorably to Defendant D. It must have some tendency to prove the issue in question to be more likely than not

ANSWER B It must have some tendency to make some issue in the case more or less likely that it would be without that evidence

Darden was prosecuted for armed robbery. At trial Darden testified in his own behalf, denying that he had committed the robbery. On cross-examination, the prosecutor intends to ask Darden whether he had been convicted of the felony offense of drug possession six years earlier. The question concerning the conviction is A. proper, because the prosecutor is entitled to make this inquiry as a matter of right B. proper, if the court finds that the prejudice to Darden outweighs the probative value for impeachment C. proper, if the court finds that the probative value for impeachment outweighs the prejudice to Darden D. improper, because the length of time since the conviction makes the conviction less probative on character for truthfulness

ANSWER C C. proper, if the court finds that the probative value for impeachment outweighs the prejudice to Darden

During the trial of an automobile accident at the corner of O'Connor Street and Ginsburg Avenue, there was some confusion from a witness's testimony about whether O'Connor Street was a one-way street. The trial judge said, "That's OK, counselor, I am well aware of O'Connor Street since it is a primary artery into downtown. I take it to work every day. I will instruct the jury that O'Connor Street is a one-way street." Was the judge's instruction to the jury proper? A. No, the judge cannot take judicial notice once a witness has started to testify about a fact B. No, the judge cannot take judicial notice on his own motion, but only on a party's motion C. Yes, the judge can take judicial notice of facts generally known within the court's territorial jurisdiction D. Yes, but only if the party produces a map that shows that O'Connor Street runs one way

ANSWER C C. Yes, the judge can take judicial notice of facts generally known within the court's territorial jurisdiction

Porter is on trial for indecent exposure in a city park. The penal statute criminalizes exposing one's genitalia to another with the intention to sexually gratify oneself or another. Porter claims he was merely urinating when a woman walked by and caught him unawares. As part of its case in chief, the prosecution offers to prove that ten times in the past year Porter has been seen selling hardcore pornographic material, which showed many photos of men exposing themselves to outraged women, out of his car. This evidence is: A. admissible because it is relevant to the likelihood that Porter committed the act of indecent exposure B. inadmissible because Porter has not yet testified C. admissible because it goes to prove Porter's state of mind in exposing himself D. inadmissible because evidence of prior bad acts is never admissible in a criminal case

ANSWER C C. admissible because it goes to prove Porter's state of mind in exposing himself

Dirk and Brick, each driving down the highway in their respective cars, collided so forcefully that both cars rolled and flipped onto their tops, with the wheels pointing up. Driving behind them prior to the accident was Quest; he saw both cars as they passed him. He estimates that they were both traveling in excess of the speed limit when they passed him. He did not see the collision, because it occurred around a bend in the road, but he came upon the cars so soon after the accident that the wheels on each vehicle were still spinning. Quest is an auto mechanic with 12 years of experience working as the manager of KwikKar, an oil-change garage. When he saw the overturned cars, he noted the wheels of the two cars were spinning at different speeds. From this, he concluded that the cars were traveling at different speeds at the time of the collision. He believes that Dirk's car was traveling at a higher rate of speed than Brick's car. To what information can Quest testify? A. To neither the speed of the cars at the time of they passed him, nor which car was traveling faster at the time of the accident B. To the speed of the cars as they passed him on the highway, as well as which car was traveling faster at the time of the accident C. To the speed of the cars as they passed him on the highway before the accident only D. To which car was traveling faster at the time of the accident only

ANSWER C C. To the speed of the cars as they passed him on the highway before the accident only

As proof that Simon participated in a criminal venture under duress, evidence that co-participant Theo told him, "We will kill you if you don't help us." The evidence is A. HEARSAY B. NONHEARSAY

B. NONHEARSAY

Phillip was injured when the car he was a passenger in, driven by Kim, rear-ended a garbage truck. As proof that non-functioning brakes on the car caused the accident, Phillip testifies that Kim told him, "My brakes feel soft, I guess I ought to get them relined soon." A. HEARSAY B. NON HEARSAY

A. HEARSAY

George is charged with the crime of taking indecent liberties with a child, his four-year-old niece. The child is prepared to testify that Uncle George "hurt me" and describe in some detail the manner in which he had done so. In addition, two other relatives of George - a 9-year-old niece and an 11-year-old stepdaughter - are prepared to testify that George molested them when they were around 4 years old. He has not been convicted or charged with the molestations in those cases, and stands charged only for a crime against the 4-year-old. George admits he may have touched the child while changing her clothes, but denies that he molested her. The four-year-old child is called to the stand at George's trial. George objects to her competency. What ruling should the trial court make? A. In Texas, it must be shown that the child is competent to testify, while under the Federal Rules, the child is automatically competent B. In Texas and under the Federal Rules, the child is qualified to testify provided the prosecution can persuade the court that she is competent C. Under the Federal Rules, the child is automatically qualified to testify. However, in Texas, it must be shown that she can understand the nature of the oath D.In Texas and under the Federal Rules, the child is automatically qualified to testify since every person is competent to be a witness

ANSWER A A. In Texas, it must be shown that the child is competent to testify, while under the Federal Rules, the child is automatically competent

Steve Houston owned an internet-based sports memorabilia company and sold merchandise signed by famous sports figures. Customers became concerned about the authenticity of Houston's merchandise when several ball players alleged that they had not signed the items Houston was selling. The Federal Trade Commission brought a civil suit against Houston, and after it was discovered that nearly all of his merchandise was fraudulent, Houston entered into a settlement agreement with the FTC. As part of the agreement, Houston had to pay fines, agree to stop selling forgeries, and sign a stipulation admitting to fraud. During the negotiations with the FTC, Houston stated, "I knew the stuff was fake, but I figured the buyers knew also since they were getting them so cheaply." Shortly thereafter, Houston sold a baseball he claimed was signed by Babe Ruth - it was not. After discovering this, the government initiated criminal proceedings against Houston. While attempting to prove Houston's criminal intent, the government moved to introduce the statement made by Houston during the settlement negotiations with the FTC to prove that Houston knew his merchandise were forgeries. Houston's lawyer objected. Houston's objection will likely be: A. Overruled, because the FTC is a public agency and was exercising its regulatory authority B. Overruled, because the prior settlement agreement occurred before the current claim had arisen C. Sustained, because the government is attempting to introduce evidence from a civil settlement into a criminal trial D. Sustained, because the evidence is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent

ANSWER A A. Overruled, because the FTC is a public agency and was exercising its regulatory authority

Arthur was hired to pour concrete for a new driveway at Agatha's house. Because of groundwater problems at the site, the concrete did not cure as it was supposed to, and the driveway was damaged by Agatha driving her Hummer on the driveway; the Hummer was also damaged. Agatha sent the following email to Arthur: Arthur, You did a terrible job on my driveway. You need to tear up what's there, and re-pour the concrete. I also expect you to pay for the damages to my Hummer -- the mechanic says it will take $3500 to rebuild the suspension. Because you're married to my great-niece Hadley, I don't want to sue, so don't make me! Agatha Arthur responded: Aggie, I told you it was a bad site for a driveway, but you insisted. I'll redo it, but you're on your own for the car damages. No way your old Hummer is worth that. Agatha sued for the car damages, and claims that in addition to the car damage she suffered physical injuries to her back and neck while driving on the driveway. She says her medical bills amount to $120,000, and that Arthur should pay those, as well. Arthur was angry that Agatha was claiming personal injury as well: "She didn't say anything about it in her email!" He wishes to introduce Agatha's email into evidence. Can he? A. Yes, because the evidence is offered on credibility B. No, the evidence is protected by the settlement rule C. No, because settlement negotiation evidence is never admissible so as to encourage a public policy of settlement D. Yes, because statements ancillary to offers to pay medical expenses are admissible even when the offer is not

ANSWER A A. Yes, because the evidence is offered on credibility

Jim sues Millennium 22, a real estate firm, for damages resulting from the actions of Beth, whom Jim claims is an agent of Millennium 22. The real estate firm claims that Beth was an independent contractor. Jim seeks to prove that Millennium 22 has a policy for $50 million in "errors and omissions" insurance to protect against liability as a result of the actions of its agents. All agents covered by the insurance are named in the policy. Evidence concerning the policy is: A. admissible if the policy identifies Beth as one of the agents of Millenium 22 covered by the insurance B. inadmissible because it is irrelevant C. admissible because the large amount of coverage tends to show that Millenium is likely to be careless in its business dealings D. inadmissible because evidence of insurance is excluded on public policy grounds

ANSWER A A. admissible if the policy identifies Beth as one of the agents of Millenium 22 covered by the insurance

Peter sued the State Fair Board for injuries suffered when he was riding a roller coaster at the fair. The complaint alleged that while the car was hurtling down the track, a bird flew right in front of it, hitting Peter in the eye. It also alleged that because of the lack of a protective shield and the failure of the ride operator to issue protective goggles to the riders, Peter has suffered permanent damage to his eye. The State Fair Board claims that, due to technological concerns and costs, it is not possible to use a protective shield or issue protective goggles. In fact, the designer of the roller coaster testified in deposition that such measures would make the ride more dangerous because it would alter the aerodynamics of each car. But the next time that the fair occurred, the roller coaster had a protective shield, and each of the cars had built-in safety goggles that the riders were required to wear. If Peter attempts to offer testimony about these changes, such testimony should be: A. admissible, since the design changes are relevant to the feasibility of such modifications at the time of the accident B. inadmissible since it shows that the operator was negligent at the time of Peter's accident, which is always inadmissible C. admissible as a declaration against interest, to prove the possibility of installing these new design features D. admissible as an indication that the operator did not use due care at the time of Peter's accident

ANSWER A A. admissible, since the design changes are relevant to the feasibility of such modifications at the time of the accident

Babette has brought suit in federal court against her investment counselor, Daddy Warbucks, alleging federal causes of action arising from violations of federal securities law and state causes of action for conversion of property. Babette calls as a witness Annie, Daddy's daughter, to ask about certain statements Daddy made to her. Daddy's attorney objects that the question is improper under the state's parent-child privilege. The trial court should: A. admit the statements with a limiting instruction that they can be considered only in the actions involving securities violations B. admit the statements with a limiting instruction that they can be considered only in the action for conversion C. admit the statements because there is no federal rule of parent-child privilege D. exclude the statements because the state's parent-child privilege rule governs the trial

ANSWER A A. admit the statements with a limiting instruction that they can be considered only in the actions involving securities violations

Jonathan is being sued for failure to pay child support. He claims that he is unable to pay because he is virtually bankrupt. The owner of a local jewelry store will testify that he overheard Otto, Jonathan's business partner, talking to another man in the store. Otto said, "My partner Jonathan wants to buy the most expensive diamond ring in the store for his new lady friend." If this is offered by the proponent to prove that Jonathan has the ability to pay child support, is this hearsay? A. It is hearsay under the Texas rules but not under the Federal rules B. It is hearsay under the Federal rules but not under the Texas rules C. It is not hearsay under either the Federal rules or the Texas rules D. It is hearsay under the Federal rules and the Texas rules

ANSWER A It is hearsay under the Texas rules but not under the Federal rules

Jordan Smith was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, since he had a prior felony conviction for a particularly brutal sexual assault. The prosecutor wishes to put the full details of the prior conviction for sexual assault on the record by reading the indictment and other pertinent details. The defense has offered to stipulate to the fact that the defendant has been previously convicted of a felony. What should the trial court do? A. Reject the evidence because the prejudicial effect substantially outweighs the probative value B. Reject the evidence since the probative value does not substantially outweigh the prejudicial effect C. Permit the evidence because proving the prior felony is an essential element of the claim, charge or defense D. Permit the prosecution's evidence since the prosecution is entitled to introduce the defendant's prior conviction as impeachment evidence

ANSWER A Reject the evidence because the prejudicial effect substantially outweighs the probative value

R.J. is charged with shooting his wife. The prosecution seeks to introduce testimony that on the day after the shooting, R.J. was seen crating up guns, which he explained he was going to send to freedom fighters in Ethiopia. The guns are of the same caliber as the bullet which killed R.J.'s wife. R.J.'s best argument for excluding this evidence is: A. The testimony is highly prejudicial because the jury may be opposed to running guns to Ethiopia B. The fact that he was crating up guns on the day after the shooting is irrelevant to whether he committed the shooting C. The fact that he was crating up guns on the day after the shooting is irrelevant because it is not necessarily related to the shooting D. The testimony is highly prejudicial because it links R.J. to guns, when R.J. says he had nothing to do with the shooting

ANSWER A The testimony is highly prejudicial because the jury may be opposed to running guns to Ethiopia

Merryweather testified on behalf of Martha, in her criminal trial for making a false statement to an FBI agent. Merryweather testified that Martha had a reputation for always being truthful. Which of the following questions can the prosecution ask Merryweather on cross-examination? A. "Have you heard that Martha was convicted of perjury?" B. "Do you know that Martha was convicted of perjury?" C. "Have you heard that Martha has been seen on ten occasions selling pornographic materials out of her car?" D. "Do you know that Martha has been seen on ten occasions selling pornographic materials out of her car?"

ANSWER A A. "Have you heard that Martha was convicted of perjury?"

Ivan's car was parked outside his house when it was struck by his neighbor Drew's car. He sued Drew for negligently damaging his car by hitting it with his car. Drew says that was not driving the car, that he was out of town and no one else could have had access to his car. At trial, Ivan calls neighbor Elaine who testifies that shortly before the car smash she was having tea with her great-aunt Iris in her living room. At one point, Iris looked out the window and said, "Well, look, there's than handsome fellow, Drew, who asked you out after the block party." The statement is A. Admissible as a present sense impression B. Inadmissible because there is no proof Iris is unavailable C. inadmissible, unless Elaine also saw Drew outside the window D. admissible as an excited utterance

ANSWER A A. Admissible as a present sense impression

Joanna Adams called 911 to report that a person was trying to break into her house. The dispatcher assured her that police were on their way, and asked her to remain on the line. According to the recorded 911 call, Adams said at one point, "Oh, no! I think it's Jack Spratt - yes, I can see his face now. He's hated me ever since I got him fired for being drunk on the job. I'm sure he plans to kill me!" The police arrive and arrest Spratt before he can harm anyone. At his trial for burglary, Adams testifies that she has suffered from traumatic amnesia since the event, and cannot recall anything that happened. The prosecution offers the 911 tape into evidence. Over a hearsay objection, the trial court should A. Admit the evidence as an excited utterance B. Admit the evidence as a past recollection recorded C. Exclude the evidence as inadmissible hearsay D. Admit the evidence as a prior inconsistent statement

ANSWER A A. Admit the evidence as an excited utterance

Dan is charged with stealing a Volvo by "hotwiring" the ignition so he could start the car without a key and without breaking open the steering column. Dan denies he had anything to do with the theft of the car. The prosecution seeks to prove that Dan has previously hotwired ten cars, six of which were Volvos, of which four were stolen. The best argument to admit this evidence is: A. It helps identify Dan by showing that he had the knowledge necessary to carry out the crime B. It impeaches Dan's claim that he was not involved in the crime C. It shows that Dan is a car thief, and thus tends to make more likely that Dan stole the car in question D. This is evidence of specific instances of conduct admissible to probe the knowledge of opinion or reputation witnesses

ANSWER A A. It helps identify Dan by showing that he had the knowledge necessary to carry out the crime

Rodney and Trish married in August, and live with Trish's 7-year-old daughter Stacy on an Indian Reservation. Shortly after they were married, Rodney was charged with sexual abuse of Stacy and her friend Rhonda in July; the prosecution intends to try each case separately. The girls will testify that Rodney hand-cuffed them together and touched them inappropriately. Trish recalls that Rodney was alone with the girls on the night in question, and that she saw Rodney experimenting on himself with a pair of handcuffs that week. He said at that time that he had used the handcuffs on the girls when they misbehaved. Later, in October, Rodney confessed to Trish that he sexually molested the girls. Trish indicates to the prosecution that she wants to testify in the criminal trial where Rodney is charged with molestation of Stacy. Rodney files a motion to block her testimony. How should the trial court rule? A. The motion should be denied so long as Trish is willing to testify against Rodney B. The motion should be granted because the spousal testimonial privilege blocks one spouse from testifying against another spouse C. The motion should be granted unless the court finds that there is no marital harmony to preserve D. The motion should be denied since the events in question occurred before the marriage

ANSWER A A. The motion should be denied so long as Trish is willing to testify against Rodney

Jill Harper was recently interviewed by the local newspaper about her former employment as campaign treasurer for the newly-elected Mayor, Steve Branner. During the interview, she told the reporter that Branner had sexually assaulted her and that was why she no longer worked for him. When the story was run in the newspaper, Branner took out a full-page advertisement that said simply, "Jill Harper is a liar. I never laid a hand on her." Harper then filed a civil lawsuit accusing Branner of having defamed her by calling her a liar. At trial for the defamation case, Branner wishes to offer evidence that Harper lied on her college application by claiming that she had lettered in volleyball when she had never played volleyball. Is the evidence admissible? A. Yes, because character is an essential element of a claim, charge or defense in the case B. No, because Jill Harper has not first admitted evidence of her good character C. Yes, because the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect D. No, because evidence of character is not admissible in a civil case

ANSWER A A. Yes, because character is an essential element of a claim, charge or defense in the case

After a two-car collision between Hank and Clifford, Hank went to visit his physician, Dr. Vette. He told him that he hadn't been able to bend his knee all the way since the accident. When Dr. Vette asked him which knee, he answered, "The same one that's been stiff since my college football injury." When Hank sued Clifford for damage to his car and for personal injuries to his knee and back, Clifford's attorney asked Dr. Vette on cross-examination, "Isn't it true that Hank had a preexisting injury in his knee, so that it was stiff since his college football days?" Is this evidence admissible over an objection that it is covered by the doctor-patient privilege? A. Yes, since Hank has put his physical condition in issue in bringing this suit B. No, since it is a confidential communication between doctor and patient C. Yes, since it is covered by the hearsay exception for statements related to medical diagnosis or treatment D. No, since the privilege gives way upon a showing of necessity

ANSWER A A. Yes, since Hank has put his physical condition in issue in bringing this suit

On March 1, 2017, Victor's house was burglarized, and the thief took a number of items, including a 1793 silver dollar. On the day of the burglary, Victor called the police, who came to the scene of the crime. At that time, Victor identified to Officer Kojak the items that were missing, including the 1793 silver dollar. Kojak wrote down this information, and Victor signed the list. Believing that a rival collector had broken into his home to steal the coin, Victor brought a civil suit against Daphne for conversion. At trial, Victor testified that he does not remember now what was missing as a result of the burglary. After reviewing the list made by Kojak, he testified that he now remembers and proceeded to identify the items that were missing, including the 1793 silver dollar. Victor's testimony is A. admissible as a refreshed recollection B. hearsay, but admissible as a refreshed recollection C. hearsay, but admissible as past recollection recorded D. hearsay, and as such inadmissible

ANSWER A A. admissible as a refreshed recollection

Larissa Lawyer and her client, Maury Popover, met at a local restaurant to discuss Maury's case. Maury has been accused of sexual harassment by a former employee. During their lunch-time meeting on the crowded patio of the restaurant, Maury became upset upon hearing Lawyer's advice to settle the lawsuit. He shouted, "So what if I was a little grabby with that woman? I'm the boss and I can do what I want to my female employees!" Unbeknownst to the two, a local women's activist was lunching at the next table. When she realized early in the conversation that they were discussing a sexual harassment case, she began videotaping with her phone. She later posted the video on Twitter with the hashtag #MeToo, and it went viral. At Maury's trial, the plaintiff sought to admit the video and Lawyer asserted attorney-client privilege. The trial court should: A. overrule the claim of privilege since Maury and Lawyer did not maintain confidentiality B. sustain the claim of privilege since Maury was speaking to his attorney C. exclude the evidence as hearsay D. overrule the claim of privilege since the discussion involved potential criminal activity

ANSWER A A. overrule the claim of privilege since Maury and Lawyer did not maintain confidentiality

Dingle and Xenia were arrested for conspiracy to illegally smuggle certain endangered species in violation of federal law. At Dingle's trial alone, Xenia claims the 5th Amendment privilege and refuses to testify. Dingle calls Waldo (his brother-in-law) to testify that after Xenia's arrest, Xenia said to Waldo, "I don't know why the police are hounding Dingle. I, and I alone, smuggled those animals." Which is the most appropriate response by the court to the prosecution's hearsay objection? A. the statement is admissible as a statement against interest since Xenia is unavailable B. the statement is admissible as an admission of a co-conspirator C. the statement is inadmissible hearsay because statements against penal interest do not qualify as admissions against interest D. the statement is inadmissible hearsay because the truth of the statement is not corroborated

ANSWER A A. the statement is admissible as a statement against interest since Xenia is unavailable

Linda is charged with arson for hire in the burning down of an old office building, the Watson Towers, in downtown River City. During the prosecution's case in chief, evidence was introduced establishing that a can of turpentine, a highly flammable liquid, was discovered in Linda's closet when she was arrested. On direct examination by her own attorney, Linda states that when she was arrested and the can of turpentine was found, she told the officers, "I use that to clean my paint brushes after art class." If the prosecution moves to strike this testimony, how should the court rule? A. For the prosecution, because it is hearsay not within an exception B. For Linda, since it is a prior consistent statement C. For Linda, since it is the statement of a party opponent D. For the prosecution, because it is a self-serving statement

ANSWER A For the prosecution, because it is hearsay not within an exception

In Amy's civil suit for personal injuries against her stepfather, arising from acts of sexual abuse allegedly committed by him against her when she was a minor, Amy calls as a witness a police officer who will testify that, 11 years ago, the stepfather confessed to the witness that he had committed the acts complained of by Amy. Should the trial court admit the police officer's testimony over the stepfather's objection? A. Yes, because the stepfather's confession is an admission of a party-opponent B. No, because the best evidence of a conviction is the judgment of the court that convicted him C. Yes, because past instances of misconduct may be used to impeach a witness D. No, because the sexual assault that is the subject of the evidence is more than 10 years old

ANSWER A Yes, because the stepfather's confession is an admission of a party-opponent

Rosen was charged with issuing bad checks. At trial, the prosecuting attorney offered into evidence checks purportedly written by Rosen. All of the following would constitute adequate authentication of the checks EXCEPT A. comparison of the checks by the police officer who made the arrest with an admittedly genuine specimen of Rosen's handwriting B. comparison of the checks by the trier of fact with an admittedly genuine specimen of Rosen's handwriting made during police interrogation C. testimony by a police handwriting expert that the writing matches Rosen's on admittedly genuine exemplars D. testimony by the person who has been Rosen's bookkeeper for the last three years that the writing is Rosen's

ANSWER A comparison of the checks by the police officer who made the arrest with an admittedly genuine specimen of Rosen's handwriting

Assume for purposes of this question only that the judge ruled that Quest, from the previous problem, was qualified as an expert. The judge is now considering whether he should be permitted to testify that the rate of the spinning wheels indicates the speed of the cars at the time of the collision. What should the court consider in reaching its ruling? A. Whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect B. Whether the evidence would be helpful to the jury as the product of reliable principles and methods C. Only whether there are peer-reviewed articles on the subject D. Only whether the evidence is based on principles generally accepted by the scientific community

ANSWER B B. Whether the evidence would be helpful to the jury as the product of reliable principles and methods

Plaintiff Phillip sues Continental Transport Co. when he was seriously injured in a collision involving Barnses' truck. A "sideswipe" occurred between Phillip's pick-up truck and a trailer truck, owned by Continental Transport and driven by Barnes, as they passed in opposite directions on an FM road. At trial, after Barnes testified about the accident, Phillip called Tom Green, to testify that "Barnes, driver of the trailer truck, ran over to Phillip as he was lying on the ground awaiting an ambulance, and said 'It is all my fault, I should have been paying more attention to my driving.'" The trial judge should rule that Barnses' out-of-court statement is A. admissible under the common law as a statement of a party's agent B. admissible under the Federal Rules as a statement of a party's agent C. admissible as a declaration against interest D. admissible under both the common law and the Federal Rules as a statement of a party's agent

ANSWER B B. admissible under the Federal Rules as a statement of a party's agent

In the bank robbery trial of Charlie and Petey, the prosecution wants to introduce into evidence a letter from Charlie to Petey, in which Charlie wrote: Dear Petey, I hope our plan for the heist works. If it does, we'll have a giant pile of bills to roll around in! /s/ Charlie Before the letter can be admitted into evidence, the prosecution must A. demonstrate the relevance of the letter outweighs its prejudicial effect B. present evidence of the authenticity of the letter C. have an expert witness identify Charlie's signature as genuine D. bring the original letter into court

ANSWER B present evidence of the authenticity of the letter

A group of veterans from the Gulf War are suing the United States government for exposure to Agent Yellow, a chemical defoliant used by the United States Army during that conflict. The veterans claim that their exposure to Agent Yellow caused them to develop lung cancer. The United States argues that the chemical was perfectly safe and could not possibly have caused the injury. The veterans intend to call Dr. Franklin Pierce, a world-famous physician and author of many scholarly articles on cancer and its causes. Dr. Pierce has devised a new laboratory test for studying chemicals to determine whether they cause cancer. This test has only been accepted by a handful of researchers around the country, but the judge believes it is reliable, since it has undergone peer review and has very low error rates. Dr. Pierce has not personally tested Agent Yellow, but he has seen the results of various tests performed by lab technicians who applied his new technique. He will testify that it is standard for physicians and epidemiologists to rely on the work of trained lab technicians when conducting studies and reaching conclusions. Based on the results of the tests that he has seen, he is willing to testify that, in his opinion, Agent Yellow can in fact cause lung cancer. How should the court rule on this proposed testimony? A. His testimony should be barred entirely because the technique he is relying upon has not been accepted by most scientists practicing in the field B. His testimony about his conclusions should be allowed, but he cannot testify about the underlying data on direct unless the court determines that the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect C. His testimony should be barred entirely because he bases his conclusions on hearsay data D. His testimony about his conclusions AND the description of the underlying data should be allowed on direct examination

ANSWER B B. His testimony about his conclusions should be allowed, but he cannot testify about the underlying data on direct unless the court determines that the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect

The case of State v. Caraway was called to trial on September 1, 2019. In August 2018, Harold was the victim of petty theft. His beach chair was stolen during his summer vacation at a lake resort. Caraway was charged with the theft. At Caraway's trial, the state called Harold as an eyewitness to the crime. Harold testified that as he was dozing on his beach towel, he heard a noise, opened his eyes, and then saw Caraway fold up the beach chair and run away with it. In 2016, Harold was convicted of the criminal offense of perjury and was sentenced to a prison term of 90 days, which was the maximum term under the applicable state law. At Caraway's trial, Harold's conviction of perjury is A. inadmissible on cross-examination because it was not punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year B. admissible on cross-examination for impeachment purposes C. inadmissible on cross-examination D. admissible on cross-examination for impeachment purposes, only if the court determines that the probative value is not outweighed by the prejudicial effect

ANSWER B B. admissible on cross-examination for impeachment purposes

Al Davis, retired baker, was sitting on his front porch when he saw an accident happen right in front of him. His neighbor, Sandy Pinkston, was backing out of her driveway to take her daughter, Amy, to ballet class. A pickup truck driven by Danny Rizzo collided with Pinkston's station wagon. Al saw Pinkston get out of the car, and drag Amy out, too. He went to Rizzo's pickup to check on him, and then called 911. Which of the following would Davis be permitted to testify to? A. "The station wagon was totaled, the whole side was caved in." B. "Amy was crying and screaming like she was in a lot of pain." C. "It looked like Sandy had dislocated her shoulder, and Amy had broken her back." D. "That dude in the pickup must have been high to miss seeing that green station wagon backing out. It's so bright it practically glows in the dark!"

ANSWER B B. "Amy was crying and screaming like she was in a lot of pain."

Paula sues Dean for negligently causing her injuries in a car-motorcycle collision. Paula was riding the motorcycle. She claims that the accident resulted from Dean's negligence in driving while drunk. The fact that Dean had been previously convicted in an unconnected incident of vehicular homicide while drunk is probably admissible against him I. only if the conviction was for a felony II. only after the defendant has given testimony in the present action III. but not to show his propensity for drunkeness A. II only B. I, II, and III C. I only D. III only

ANSWER B B. I, II, and III

Dodge Viper, a quarterback for the Arizona Jackals, was struck by a car driven by Shelby Cobra, the back-up quarterback for the Jackals, as he crossed the parking lot at the practice facility. He alleges that Cobra struck him on purpose in order to take his position as the starting quarterback, and caused a career-ending injury. A renowned orthopedist, Dr. Benz, is prepared to testify that Viper did, indeed, suffer a career-ending injury to his hip in the accident. He would advise Viper to avoid high-contact activity, since even a minor injury could leave him unable to walk. He based his diagnosis on his review of Viper's medical records, including X-rays and the results of an MRI test administered by Dr. Mercedes. Neither the X-rays nor the results of the MRI test have been admitted into evidence. Can Dr. Benz testify to his diagnosis of Viper? A. No, because neither the X-ray nor MRI results have been admitted into evidence B. Yes, provided Dr. Benz based his opinion on data reasonably relied upon by other orthopedic doctors in the field C. No, unless Dr. Benz based his opinion, at least in part, on his first-hand examination of Dodge Viper D. Yes, so long as Dr. Mercedes testifies to validate the MRI results

ANSWER B B. Yes, provided Dr. Benz based his opinion on data reasonably relied upon by other orthopedic doctors in the field

Dr. Thomas Rodney is charged with the murder of his wife, Rachelle. The prosecution alleges that on December 17, 1997, Dr. Rodney murdered his wife by giving her a massive injection of succinylcholine while she was asleep. Succinylcholine is a drug used in small quantities by anesthesiologists as a muscle relaxant. The prosecution claims that the fatal dose given Rachelle so totally relaxed the muscles surrounding her lungs that she was unable to breathe. Further allegations claim that Dr. Rodney's principal motive was to collect his wife's $500,000 life insurance policy under which he was the named beneficiary. The prosecution seeks to introduce into evidence proof that the defendant, Dr. Rodney, had been married before and that this first wife, Mona, died 12 years ago under mysterious circumstances. Although Mona was 27 and had no history of heart trouble, her death certificate showed that heart attack was the probable cause of her death. The medical examiner who prepared the death certificate in that case is prepared to testify that he did not check for the presence of any poisons when performing the autopsy. This evidence is: A. inadmissible, because the doctrine of chances requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the first death was murder and committed by the defendant B.admissible, because the evidence is offered to show absence of accident under the doctrine of chances C. inadmissible, because the doctrine of chances does not apply under the federal rules D. admissible, to show defendant's murderous character trait under the doctrine of chances

ANSWER B B.admissible, because the evidence is offered to show absence of accident under the doctrine of chances

Chaz Handler was driving south on High Street. As he was approaching the light at 24th and High, Harry Chandler, who was driving in the car next to Chaz, observed Chaz talking on his cell phone, drinking coffee, and looking down at his CD player in the car. Two minutes later, at 12th and High, Chaz turned right on green, accidentally striking Paula Pounder on her bike. Paula sues Chaz for negligence. Paula's attorney wants to call Harry to testify as to Chaz's behavior at 24th and High. Is this evidence relevant? A. Yes, because only two minutes elapsed between the observation and the accident, it is more likely than not that Chaz was still talking on his cell phone and drinking coffee at the time of his accident B. Yes, because Chaz's actions while driving at 24th and High tend to prove, however slightly, that Chaz was not paying close attention to his driving two minutes later C. No, because there is no evidence that the behavior Harry observed caused the accident D. No, because Harry observed Chaz two minutes before the accident, but not at the time of the accident

ANSWER B Yes, because Chaz's actions while driving at 24th and High tend to prove, however slightly, that Chaz was not paying close attention to his driving two minutes later

At Dennis's trial for robbing Alice, the prosecution established the following evidence. Alice, a cashier at a supermarket, was held up at the point of a gun by someone wearing a ski mask. Alice could not identify the robber, but she was able to describe the revolver, which had red paint on the barrel. Two weeks after the robbery, the police received a tip telling them that Dennis was the robber and that they should check the dumpster behind Dennis's apartment and they'd find a surprise. Upon checking the dumpster, the police found a revolver with red paint on the barrel. The police arrested Dennis, transported the gun to the station, where it was placed in the evidence lock-up. At trial, the prosecution showed Alice the revolver from the police evidence lock-up. Alice testified that she recognized it immediately as the gun used by the robber because of the red paint blotches on the barrel - the blotches were in the shape of China, just like the gun the robber had. The prosecution then offered the gun into evidence as State's Exhibit No. 1. The defense objected that the prosecution had failed to establish a chain of custody. The trial court should: A. sustain the objection, since Alice is not an expert in firearms B. overrule the objection, since Alice testified to distinctive characteristics which authenticated the gun C. overrule the objection, since the State is using the gun merely as demonstrative evidence D. sustain the objection, since there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody

ANSWER B overrule the objection, since Alice testified to distinctive characteristics which authenticated the gun

Aaron Attorney represents Eloise Employee in a discrimination suit against Bradley Boss. At trial, during Boss's case in chief, Boss's attorney asks a question Aaron thinks is improper. He objects, and the judge sustains the objection. At Aaron's request, the judge instructs the court reporter to strike the evidence from the record and instructs the jury to disregard it. Feeling smug, Aaron sits down. Has Aaron done what he needs to do to preserve any error for appeal? A. Yes, he made a timely, specifc objection that stated the legal grounds B. Yes, unless his opponent filed a motion in limine prior to trial C. No, he must move for a mistrial D. No, he must make an offer of proof

ANSWER C C. No, he must move for a mistrial

Donald is charged with murdering his wife, Virginia, by intentionally stabbing her with a knife. Donald testified and admitted striking her with the knife, but claimed that she was injured when they struggled with the knife he was holding with the intention to kill himself. He had threatened to kill himself and she tried to get the knife away from him. In the resulting scuffle, he accidentally struck her with the knife. In rebuttal, the prosecution offers testimony that two years ago Virginia sought refuge in a shelter for battered women, having told the intake clerk that her husband had tried to stab her when she threatened to leave him. That evidence is: A. admissible if the trial court is persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that Donald previously tried to stab Virginia B. inadmissible, because Donald was neither charged nor convicted of the previous stabbing incident C. admissible, if the prosecution offers evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that Donald previously tried to stab Virginia D. admissible, if there is independent evidence to corroborate Virginia's statement to the intake clerk

ANSWER C C. admissible, if the prosecution offers evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that Donald previously tried to stab Virginia

Carl is tried for robbing the First Guaranty Bank. The prosecution calls Carl's girlfriend, Brenda, who opened the door when the police came to arrest Carl. She will testify that when Carl saw the police approaching, he first ran to the back door, and then hid in a closet after seeing an officer standing in the back alley. The defense objects that Carl's arrest was actually on a warrant issued two years earlier on unrelated charges. Should the trial court admit the evidence? A. No, because the attempt to evade arrest is impermissible character evidence B. Yes, because Brenda can offer an opinion that Carl was attempting to escape under the doctrine of chances C.Yes, because the evidence is probative of guilt and the outstanding warrant goes to the weight not the admissibility of the evidence D. No, because the evidence has probative value only if there are no other charges pending against Carl at the time of his arrest

ANSWER C Yes, because the evidence is probative of guilt and the outstanding warrant goes to the weight not the admissibility of the evidence

When seeking to use an exhibit as demonstrative evidence, rather than as real evidence, the foundation to be laid requires: A. Proof that the item is an original, a duplicate original, or excuse the nonproduction of the original B. The same foundation as required for authentication under Rule 901 C. A showing that the item amounts to a fair and accurate depiction of the matter in question and would be helpful to the jury D. Proof that the probative value substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect

ANSWER C A showing that the item amounts to a fair and accurate depiction of the matter in question and would be helpful to the jury

In a lawsuit for slander, Brennerman testifies on direct that he heard Turnip say about the plaintiff, who is head of the school board, "The whole board is ruthless, but the Superintendent is the worst. She's going to be locked up for thievery one day." On cross-examination, which of the following questions of Brennerman is the trial judge most likely to rule IMPROPER? A. "Isn't it true that you had had fourteen martinis at the reception before you 'overheard' Turnip's alleged comments?" B. "Didn't you claim 6 dependents on your tax return last year, when you actually have none?" C. "Isn't it true that you are known as 'Georgie the Lush' because of your addiction to alcohol?" D. "Do you feel any hostility toward Ted Turnip since you believe his attentions to her caused your wife to leave you?"

ANSWER C C. "Isn't it true that you are known as 'Georgie the Lush' because of your addiction to alcohol?"

When Jill Harper gave a newspaper interview asserting that Mayor Steve Branner sexually assaulted her, Meara Herald approached her and said that Branner had sexually assaulted her, too. Two other women also came forward to report that Branner had sexually assaulted them, too. Harper decided to sue Branner, to prevent other women from suffering as she had. Prior to trial, Branner files a motion in limine seeking to block evidence of any other alleged sexual assaults committed by Branner. The trial court should: A. Grant the motion because the other acts establish res gestae B. Grant the motion since only evidence of reputation or opinion is admissible C. Deny the motion since the evidence is admissible on any issue to which it is relevant D. Deny the motion since character evidence is not admissible in civil cases

ANSWER C C. Deny the motion since the evidence is admissible on any issue to which it is relevant

A stipulation is A. An instruction given to the jury to avoid implicit bias in reaching their verdict B. A shortcut to proof that allows proof of one facts or set of facts to substitute for another fact C. The process by which the court takes judicial notice of a fact in issue in the litigation D. An agreement between the parties as to the existence of certain facts in a dispute

ANSWER D D. An agreement between the parties as to the existence of certain facts in a dispute

Bonnie brought an action against a major national department store alleging that the electric blanket she bought from them overheated, causing a fire that destroyed her home and all that it contained. The defendant contends that its blanket could not have overheated unless it was left on after Bonnie left for work on the day of the fire. Bonnie offers in rebuttal the testimony of her husband, Clyde, who will state that he has been married to Bonnie for seven years, and has slept in the same bed with her for most of that time, and that the first thing Bonnie does every morning upon awakening is to turn the control on the electric blanket to "off." Should this testimony be admitted? A. No, because habit may only be established by opinion or reputation evidence, not specific conduct B. No, because there is no corroboration of Clyde's testimony by a nonparty witness C. No, because prior conduct may not be used to show action in conformity with character D. Yes, because evidence of habit may be used to show that a person acted in conformance with the habit on a particular occasion

ANSWER D D. Yes, because evidence of habit may be used to show that a person acted in conformance with the habit on a particular occasion

Daniels is prosecuted for speeding. It is undisputed that the speed limit was 55 m.p.h. Prosecution attempts to establish that Daniels was traveling 65 m.p.h. through the arresting officer's testimony and his use of a radar gun. The prosecution also called a bystander, Peter, who testifies that Daniels was speeding. On cross-examination by Daniels' attorney, Peter admitted to having made a prior statement to Franklin, a friend, that he was not sure if Daniels was exceeding the speed limit. The trial judge should A. on request by Daniels, instruct the jury that the bystander's testimony that Daniels had been speeding be disregarded B. permit Daniels to call other witnesses to confirm the fact that the prior statement was made C. permit the jury to consider the prior statement for any issue D. on request by the prosecution, instruct the jury that the prior statement may be used only to impeach Peter's credibility, and not for any other issue

ANSWER D D. on request by the prosecution, instruct the jury that the prior statement may be used only to impeach Peter's credibility, and not for any other issue

After a tax rebate check was stolen from a post office, suspicion turned to postal employee Erica Hill. Hill was aware that she was under investigation but was allowed to keep her job until the investigation was completed. In order to determine if she was the thief, postal inspectors placed three "test letters" containing money in a bin of letters that Hill was processing. Hill properly processed each test letter and did not steal them. At her criminal trial, Hill sought to prove her law-abidingness by offering proof that she did not steal any of the test letters. Is this evidence admissible? A. No, evidence of specific instances of conduct are not admissible to prove a pertinent trait of character B. Yes, because character is in issue, specific instances of conduct can be used here C. No, evidence of character to show action in conformity with character is not admissible D. Yes, the letters are relevant to a pertinent trait of character

ANSWER D D. Yes, the letters are relevant to a pertinent trait of character

Zara Stone, age 8, is the complaining witness in the State's child sexual abuse case against her uncle, Lenny Fritz. Zara first told her 13-year-old sister, Lydia, that Uncle Lenny had touched her inappropriately, and her sister reported it to her mom. When Mom talked to Zara, Zara refused to tell her anything out of fear that Uncle Lenny would retaliate. Mom then promised Zara a trip to Disney World if she would tell the police what happened. Zara then told the police about the same incidents she related to her sister. At trial, after Zara testified on direct about the inappropriate touching, defense counsel questioned Zara about the promised trip to Disney World, asking, "Your mommy promised you the trip to Disney World if you told her what she wanted to hear, didn't she?" In rebuttal, the prosecution wishes to call Lydia and the police officer who took the original complaint to testify as to Zara's statements. The trial court should: A. Exclude the testimony of both witnesses as hearsay B.Allow the police officer's testimony, but disallow Lydia's testimony C.Allow the testimony of both witnesses D.Allow Lydia's testimony, but disallow the police officer's testimony

ANSWER D Allow Lydia's testimony, but disallow the police officer's testimony

Porter is on trial for assaulting the umpire at his daughter's Little League game after a dispute about a call at the plate. As part of his defense to the assault charge, Porter calls as his first witness, MacKenzie, an old friend, to testify as to Porter's character. Which of the following testimony would be admissible? I. MacKenzie testifies, "Porter has a fine reputation for peacefulness." II. MacKenzie testifies, "Porter won a Medal of Honor for bravery under fire." III. MacKenzie testifies, "In my opinion, Porter would tell the truth under oath." A. I only B. I, II, and III C. I and II D. I and III

ANSWER D D. I and III

Juana had a frutera business - a mobile fruit stand where she sold fresh, peeled and cut fruit to passersby. Bella purchased the business, and the two signed a contract where Juana agreed not to open a frutera stand for a period of two years within a distance of two miles of the old frutera stand, now owned by Bella. Bella sues Juana, alleging in her complaint that Juana violated the contract by opening a frutera stand one-half mile from the old location. At trial Bella seeks to introduce a photocopy of the signed, written contract. The copy is: A. admissible, only if the duplicate is a carbon copy B. admissible, only if the original contract was lost or stolen C. inadmissible, since the best evidence rule requires that the original contract always be used as evidence D. inadmissible, if Juana contests the authenticity of the written contract

ANSWER D inadmissible, if Juana contests the authenticity of the written contract

During an arson trial, the defendant's brother-in-law was called to testify. He testified in response to the prosecutor's questions that the defendant had borrowed his gas can the day of the fire. He also told the jury that at a time that must have been right after the fire, he saw the defendant and he smelled like smoke and seemed to be in exceptionally good spirits. The prosecutor then asked, "Do you have any idea why he'd set the victim's house on fire?" The witness answered, "He must have been crazy! Just because a guy steals your girl is no reason to burn down his house!" Is this answer admissible? A. No, since his interest in the lawsuit renders him incompetent to be a witness B. No, there is no evidence that the witness has personal knowledge C. Yes, the witness is under oath and can answer the question D. Yes, his relationship with his brother-in-law allows him to answer

B. No, there is no evidence that the witness has personal knowledge ANSWER B