Tingnan ang lahat ng mga set ng pag-aaral

Evidence Practice Questions

Pataasin ang iyong marka sa homework at exams ngayon gamit ang Quizwiz!

The defendant introduces evidence in a car wreck case that a text message was sent from the plaintiff's phone at the time of the collision. The plaintiff takes the witness stand and testifies that he has no recollection of sending a text but that he never texts while driving. The plaintiff's testimony is likely: A: Admissible as habit evidence. B: Inadmissible as propensity evidence. C: Inadmissible because the habit evidence has been contradicted. D: Admissible only if someone other than the plaintiff testifies to the fact that the plaintiff never texts while driving.

Which of the following IS an example of a witness who is "unavailable"? A: A witness who refuses to testify on the basis of privilege. B: A witness who is absent but the proponent of the former testimony has made no effort to procure the witness's attendance. C: A witness whom the proponent of the evidence has killed to prevent from testifying. D: A witness who testifies inaccurately.

Who decides preliminary questions about whether evidence is admissible? A: The judge B: The jury C: The judge, but the jury may override the judge's decision D: The jury, but the judge may override the jury's decision

In a jury trial, a criminal defendant is being tried for murder and claims that he killed the victim, but did so in self defense. The prosecution wants to introduce gruesome photos of the victim, who was repeatedly stabbed in the back. Is the court likely to admit this evidence over a Rule 403 objection? A: Yes, because it is relevant to the crime of murder. B: Yes, because the probative value of disproving the self defense claim is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. C: No, because the defendant's admission that he killed the victim removes any probative value of this evidence. D: No, because grusesome crime scene photos are likely to inflame the passions of a jury.

A is not the best answer because it does not even address the unfair prejudice balance of Rule 403. C is not the best answer because the pictures have high probative value to disprove the self defense claim because they will show the victim was stabbed in the back. D is not the best answer because even provocative evidence is usually admitted and any emotional effect on the jury does not substantially outweigh their probative value, described above.Thus, B is the best answer.

A plaintiff sued an airline for hearing damage when the plane allegedly suffered a sudden loss of cabin pressure. The airline offered evidence that none of the other 156 passengers complained. Is the evidence relevant? A: Yes, because the fact no one else complained has some tendency to make it less probable that the plaintiff suffered harm from a sudden depressurization. B: Yes, because the the absence of other complaints conclusively disproves the plaintiff's complaint. C: No, because the plaintiff may still have been injured, even if others were not. D: No, because the lack of complaints has too many alternative explanations that it would be too confusing for the jury.

A is the best answer because it has at least some tendency to prove facts of consequence - such as whether a depressurization occurred or whether the plaintiff was harmed by the alleged depressurization. Especially considering the number of other passengers potentially affected, this evidence is relevant.

A witness who is not the accused was convicted of perjury as an adult 15 years ago and served only 6 months in prison. The witness takes the stand and testifies. Her conviction is: A: Admissible. B: Admissible if its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. C: Admissible, subject to Rule 403's balancing test. D: Not admissible.

Convictions where more than 10 years have passed the date of conviction or confinement, whichever is later, are usually not admissible, but can be. See Rule 609(b).

A declarant's prior consistent statement is not admissible if: Question Not Answered A: The declarant does not testify as a witness. B: The witness/declarant is not subject to cross examination. C: The prior consistent statement was made after the improper motive arose. D: All of the above.

A defendant is on trial for securities fraud. He allegedly set up a "dummy" corporation (one that never conducts any business), created financial statements that falsely indicated that the corporation was profitable, and sold worthless stock in the corporation to unwitting investors. At trial, the defendant refuses to testify. After giving proper notice, the prosecutor seeks to introduce into evidence proof that the defendant had set up thirteen other nearly identical "dummy" corporations that never conducted business. Is the proffered evidence likely admissible? A: Yes, to show the defendant's dishonest character. B: Yes, to show the defendant's intent to defraud or absence of mistake. C: No, because character cannot be proved by specific instances of misconduct. D: No, because the evidence is not relevant to the current allegations.

In a case of criminal assault, the prosecution may: A: Call a reputation witness to testify to the victim's lack of respect for property. B: Call an opinion witness to testify to specific acts of violence to prove the criminal defendant's violent character. C: Call a reputation witness to testify to the criminal defendant's violent character if the criminal defendant first offers evidence of the victim's same trait. D: Call an opinion witness to testify about the criminal defendant's lack of respect for property.

Opposing counsel asks a third-party witness whether he noticed the plaintiff and defendant make eye contact across the room. Which objection is most likely to be sustained? A: Lack of competence B: Hearsay C: Lack of personal knowledge D: Rule 403

Prior inconsistent statements are not hearsay if: A. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross. B. The statement was under penalty of perjury and at a legal "proceeding". C. Both a and b are required. D. Either a or b is required.

The scope of cross examination is limited to: A: Any matter that is relevant. B: Any matter that is relevant to the subject matter of the direct examination. C: The subject matter of the direct examination, the witness's credibility, and additional matters with court approval. D: Only matters affecting the witness's credibility.

To be relevant, evidence must: A: Be more likely true than not true B: Directly prove the fact it is offered to prove C: Have some tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable D: Prove an element of the claim, crime, or defense

To make a timely objection to evidence you must object: A: Before the jury is selected B: When your opponent rests his or her case C: When the basis for objecting is first apparent D: At any time

Which of the following does NOT qualify as "unavailability"? A: The declarant is simply too ill to testify. B: The declarant is deceased. C: The declarant is absent and the proponent has not attempted to procure the witness's testimony. D: The declarant actually testifies as a witness, but claims a lack of memory.

Which of the following does NOT qualify as "unavailability"? Question Not Answered A: The declarant is simply too ill to testify. B: The declarant is deceased. C: The declarant is absent and the proponent has not attempted to procure the witness's testimony. D: The declarant actually testifies as a witness, but claims a lack of memory.

Which of the following does not qualify as "unavailability" for hearsay exceptions requiring unavailability? A: The declarant is simply too ill to testify rather than deceased. B: The declarant is deceased. C: The declarant is absent and the proponent has not attempted to procure the witness's attendance or testimony. D: The declarant actually testifies as a witness, but claims a lack of memory.

C is the best answer because Rule 804(a)(5) requires the party offering the hearsay statement to have made at least reasonable efforts to obtain the witness's attendance or testimony. A, B, and D are all explicitly permitted under Rule 804(a).

A victim identified the accused's car as the one that struck her in an intersection and drove away without stopping. Later, at trial, if the victim takes the stand and testifies, the victim's prior identification is: A: Admissible as a prior identification under Rule 801. B: Admissible because the declarant and the witness are the same person. C: Inadmissible because the statement is hearsay without an applicable exception or exclusion. D: Inadmissible because the out of court statement is not inconsistent with the victim's trial testimony.

C is the best answer. This statement does not fit any of the Rule 801 exclusions. Prior identifications must be of a person.

Witnesses testify from personal knowledge when the facts they relate are: A: Limited to what they know for a fact is true. B: Consistent with what they believe is true. C: Limited to what they perceive with their senses. D: Consistent with another witness's testimony.

C is the best answer. Witnesses testify from personal knowledge when they experience an event or condition through one of the five senses

Which of the following crimes most likely involves a dishonest act or false statement: A: Murder. B: Assault. C: Sexual assault of a minor. D: Embezzlement.

Rationale: D is the best answer because the remaining answers are crimes of violence.

Which of the following would likely not qualify as an admission by a party opponent? A statement made by: Question Not Answered A: An employee authorized to speak for the party. B: An independent contractor authorized to speak for the party. C: The opposing party remaining silent when a that silence is so unnatural that it supports an inference that the opposing party adopted the statement. D: A non-party witness who testifies favorably for your opponent.

See Rule 801. Party opponent statements are generally admissible. However, the statement must be attributable to an opposing party in order to be admissible.

A decedent was prosecuted for criminal violations of a hazardous waste disposal act and convicted, in part on the testimony of a witness. After the decedent's death, the plaintiff on whose property the decedent dumped the hazardous waste brought suit to recover the cleanup costs against the executor of the decedent's estate. Because the witness is currently incarcerated in another state and beyond the reach of the court's subpoena powers, the plaintiff seeks to introduce the transcript of the witness's testimony from the decedent's criminal trial. The executor objects to its admission. The court should rule that the transcript is: A: Admissible, because the decedent had a similar motive and opportunity to cross-examination the witness in the criminal trial. B: Admissible, because the transcript of the criminal trial is a public record. C: Inadmissible, because the plaintiff has not shown that the witness is truly "unavailable." D: Inadmissible, because the decedent does not have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the present action.

A is the best answer because the decedent had a similar motive to the prosecutor and opportunity to cross examine the witness against him in the criminal trial. The witness is also sufficiently unavailable in the later civil trial. Thus, the testimony meets the former testimony exception.

In a personal injury case involving a two-car collision, the plaintiff wishes to introduce a deposition taken from a witness who died weeks before the case came to trial. In the deposition, the witness stated that she saw the defendant run a red light at the time of the collision with the plaintiff's car. Both the plaintiff's and the defendant's attorneys were present at the deposition. The defendant objects in the appropriate manner to the introduction of the witness's statement. How should the court rule on the admissibility of the deposition? A: Admissible, because the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the time the deposition was taken. B: Admissible, as a dying declaration. C: Inadmissible, because the statement was not made while the witness was testifying in court. D: Inadmissible, because the defendant has no opportunity to cross-examine the witness at trial.

A is the best answer because the deposition qualifies as former testimony under Rule 804. Thus, C is not the best answer because it is admissible as a hearsay exception. B is not the best answer because nothing suggests the statement was made when the declarant knew death was imminent. D is not the best answer because the opponent must have had an opportunity and motive to cross examine at the former testimony - the deposition - not in court. Contrast this rule with the prior testimony rule where the witness must testify in court.

A defendant is charged with distribution of cocaine. His lawyer offers evidence that his bank account contains no large deposits of money. Is the evidence relevant? A: Yes, because it tends to show that the defendant did not make large profits as you may expect from a distributor of cocaine. B: Yes, because the evidence conclusively proves the defendant could not have distributed an expensive drug like cocaine. C: No, because the defendant could have hidden the money elsewhere. D: No, because defendant's evidence is self-serving.

A is the best answer because the evidence does have some tendency to show the defendant did not make large sums of money. It does not necessarily conclusively prove that, but it need not do so in order for the evidence to be relevant. It need only have ANY TENDENCY to prove that this fact of consequence is more or less probable.

A plaintiff sued her employer for sexual harassment. During the trial, the plaintiff attempted to introduce into evidence written complaints from other employees alleging that they were also sexually harassed by the employer. The defense objected to the admission of the records as hearsay. The hearsay objection is likely to be: A: Sustained, because the records lack trustworthiness and are hearsay not within the business records exception. B: Sustained, because the evidence is improper character evidence. C: Overruled, because the records, taken together, qualify as a statement against interest. D: Overruled, because the records qualify under the business records exception.

A is the best answer because the most likely exception - business records - is not met because there is no indication they were made in the regular course of business and lack trustworthiness as made for the purposes of litigation. Thus, D is not the best answer. B is not the best answer because the objection was to hearsay, not character/propensity evidence. C is not the best answer because the statements were not against the declarants' interests and there is no fact that shows the declarants are unavailable.

A husband and a wife were arrested and charged with distributing obscene materials through the United States mails. When called before a grand jury, the wife refused to say anything, properly invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The husband admitted to the grand jury that he alone sent obscene matter through the mail and that his wife played no role in helping him. The husband then died in a car accident on the way home from testifying. A month later, the wife went to trial and the wife's lawyer offers the entire transcript of the husband's grand jury testimony into evidence. The prosecutor objects on the basis of hearsay. The court should rule that the transcript of the husband's testimony before the grand jury is: A: Admissible as former testimony, because the prosecutor had an opportunity and motive to develop the husband's testimony. B: Admissible as a statement against the declarant's interest. C: Inadmissible, because the declarant is available as a witness. D: Inadmissible as former testimony, because the husband's testimony was not subject to cross-examination.

A is the best answer because the prosecutor did have a motive to develop the now-unavailable husband's former testimony in order to have the grand jury indict both the husband and wife and, in fact, was the only lawyer with an opportunity to do so. B is not the best answer because the exculpatory portion of the transcript, exonerating the wife, was not against the declarant's interest at the time it was made. In other words, that portion admitting wrongdoing and exonerating his wife of wrongdoing would not tend to subject the husband to criminal or civil liability or render a claim he may have as invalid. Note that you could not use the statement against interest exception because the husbandಬs statement ದto the extent it puts all the blame on himself and exonerates his wife ದis not against his interest. In fact, the statement was likely in his interest to protect his wife. It also does not meet 804(b)(3)(B) because the statement tends to exculpate the declarant's

A sportscaster on a local television show interviewed the parent of a child on a high school football team. The interviewee told the sportscaster that the head football coach "openly condones the use of steroids by team members." The coach, who had always conducted a strong anti-drug program for his football players, watched and recorded the show daily. He was outraged when he saw the show, and filed suit for defamation against the interviewee, the sportscaster, and the television station. At the trial of the suit, the coach wishes to testify as to what the interviewee said on the television show. The defense objects. Should such testimony be admitted? A: Yes, because the coach saw the television show. B: Yes, because the evidence is highly relevant. C: No, because a videotape of the broadcast is available. D: No, because such testimony would be hearsay, not within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule.

A is the best answer because the statement has relevance apart from its truth; indeed, in defamation actions the allegedly defamatory statement is allegedly false. Because the coach has personal knowledge of the statement, he can testify as to it because it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Thus, D is not the best answer. B is not the best answer because even relevant evidence may be inadmissible under hearsay rules. C is not the best answer because there is no requirement that any person offer evidence that jurors may consider more reliable.

Which of the following is NOT a claim, defense, or element of damages for which character evidence is admissible to prove an essential element? A: Negligence. B: Negligent Entrustment. C: Negligent Hiring. D: Entrapment.

A is the best answer given B and C. Any other negligence claim unlike B or C will almost certainly rely on an impermissible propensity chain of reasoning. D is expressly on the list of defenses for which 405(b) evidence is admissible.

Which of the following is NOT a claim, defense, or element of damages for which character evidence is admissible to prove an essential element? Question Not Answered A: Negligence. B: Negligent Entrustment. C: Negligent Hiring. D: Entrapment.

A witness who is not the accused testifies in a criminal case for the prosecution. The defense wants to impeach the witness with a prior conviction. The witness was convicted of perjury 15 years ago, served 10 years, and was released from prison 5 years ago. Her conviction is: A: Admissible. B: Admissible, subject to Rule 403's balancing test. C: Inadmissible because the witness was convicted more than 10 years ago. D: Inadmissible because the probative value does not outweight its prejudicial effect.

A is the best answer. B is not the best answer because Rule 403 does not apply to crimes of dishonesty or false statement like perjury. C is not the best answer because the limitation on using convictions to impeach because they are remote convictions applies only if the later of the date of conviction or the date of release from confinement is more than 10 years from the time the witness testifies. D is not the best answer. It uses the balancing test that would be applicable if the crime were not a crime of dishonesty or false statement and instead were a crime punishable by death or more than 1 year imprisonment offered to impeach the accused.

An elderly woman was the only eyewitness to an automobile accident that occurred one block from her nursing home residence. During the ensuing trial, the plaintiff calls the witness to the stand. After a few questions, it becomes clear that the witness remembers having seen the accident, but her memory of the details has grown fuzzy. The plaintiff's attorney wishes to introduce into evidence the contents of some handwritten notes made by the witness when she returned to her room after witnessing the accident. Which of the following is a FALSE statement with respect to the admissibility of the contents of the notes? A: The witness must testify that the notes are accurate. B: It must be shown that the notes were prepared at a time when the witness was under the stress of excitement of the event and had not had time to reflect on the accident. C: The witness must testify she still has insufficient memory, after consulting the notes, to testify fully and accurately. D: The opposing attorney may request to see the entire document and may cross the witness about other information contained in the notes.

A, C, and D are all part of the past recollection recorded exception to hearsay; thus, B is the best answer as it is part of the predicate to establish an excited utterance.

A 54-year-old employee filed an employment age discrimination suit against a corporation, alleging that its personnel director had improperly terminated his employment. In defense, the corporation presents a written report summarizing a meeting between the personnel director and the employee that was prepared directly after the meeting and placed in the employee's personnel file. The report contains several damaging admissions by the employee. Which of the following is NOT among the foundational facts the corporation will have to establish if it hopes to have the report admitted under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule? A: That the report was written while the meeting was fresh in the memory of the personnel director. B: That the report accurately records what was said by the employee. C: That the report was written by the personnel director or adopted by her. D: That the personnel director is not available and cannot be called as a witness at trial.

A-C are all elements of the past recollection recorded hearsay exception, which does not require the witness to be unavailable. Thus, D is the best answer.

A plaintiff sued a chimney sweeping company for personal injury and property damages resulting from an explosion in her chimney the evening after the company had cleaned it. The explosion, which occurred when the plaintiff lit a fire in the fireplace, caused minor damage to the chimney, roof, and to the plaintiff, who was hit by falling bricks. As evidence that she assumed the risk of injury, the company offers to have its foreman testify that he had told the plaintiff not to use the fireplace for 24 hours to allow certain chemicals to evaporate. Is the foreman's proposed testimony hearsay? A: No, because the declarant is testifying as a witness at the hearing. B: No, because the out-of-court statement is not offered for its truth. C: Yes, but it should be admitted as a statement against interest. D: Yes, but it should be admitted under the present state of mind exception to the hearsay rule.

If a juror is called to testify in a trial in which the juror is seated, the Judge must: A: Always prevent the juror from testifying. B: Always give a party an opportunity to object outside the jury's presence. C: Never prevent the juror from testifying. D: Never remove the other jurors before permitting the called juror to testify.

If a witness testifies differently than in a prior statement the witness made and you impeach the witness with the prior statement, you may: A. Not offer the prior statement into evidence. B. Have the prior statement admitted into evidence if it is not a collateral matter. C. Only call a witness to testify to the inconsistent statement. D. Not offer any extrinsic evidence of the prior inconsistent statement.

If you refresh a witness' recollection with a document: A: The document is inadmissible. B: An adverse party may introduce parts of the document related to the witness's testimony. C: The party refreshing the witness's memory is entitled to introduce the entire document. D: The adverse party is entitled to introduce the entire document.

In a homicide case, the prosecution may introduce evidence that the victim had a peaceful character: A: If the accused takes the stand as a witness. B: If the accused offers any evidence that the victim was the first aggressor. C: If the accused calls a character witness to testify that the victim had an untruthful character. D: Never.

Judges may NOT: A: Call witnesses. B: Testify in the trial over which they preside. C: Ask questions of witnesses. D: Invoke "The Rule" regarding exclusion of witnesses.

To invoke Rule 615, the rule regarding excluding witness from the courtroom, you: A: Need not do anything because such exclusion is automatic. B: Must inform the court you are invoking "the Rule." C: Must prove that witnesses are likely to change their testimony in light of the testimony they may hear from other witnesses. D: Must prove that the witness to be excluded from the courtroom is not an expert witness.

Which of the following factors is NOT a factor that distinguishes habit evidence from character/propensity evidence? A: The specificity of the conduct. B: The recency of the conduct. C: The distinctiveness of the situation producing the conduct. D: The regularity of the conduct.

Relevant evidence: A: Must be admitted. B: May be excluded by other rules. C: Cannot be excluded by other rules. D: May only be excluded if it is privileged.

B Relevant evidence is generally admissible but it may be excluded by many other rules. For example, Rule 403 expressly states that otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded under its balancing test. Thus, A, C, and D are not the best answers.

B is the best answer because it meets the special homicide rule, 404(a)(2)(C).

You may ask a witness about specific instances of the witness's conduct that: Question Not Answered A: Bear on truthfulness. B: Bear on truthfulness or violent conduct. C: Are relevant. D: That have any tendency to prove that the witness is acted in accordance with the specific instance of conduct on the occasion in question.

B is the best answer because it tracks Rule 608(b).

During the trial of a personal injury case, the plaintiff calls a witness to testify that he saw the defendant spill a slippery substance in the roadway. Following the testimony of the witness, the defendant calls the witness's neighbor, who testifies that the witness has a poor reputation for truthfulness in the community. The plaintiff's attorney then cross-examines the neighbor, asking her if she had ever committed the crime of obtaining property through false pretenses. The plaintiff's attorney learned that last year, the neighbor had in fact been charged with the felony crime of obtaining property through false pretenses, but has not been convicted. The defendant's attorney objects to this question. The objection will likely be: A: Overruled, because any felony charge is admissible to establish the witness has a poor character for truthfulness. B: Overruled, because the plaintiff's attorney had a good faith basis to believe the witness had committed the crime. C: Sustained, because witness cannot be impeached with this charge, which is an impermissible collateral matter in this negligence case. D: Sustained, because such an inquiry is not proper on cross-examination; rather, this fact must be proved by extrinsic evidence.

B is the best answer because specific instances of conduct that are probative of truthfulness of the witness testifying are admissible under Rule 608(b). Moreover, the questioner must always have a good faith basis for asking the question. Thus, C and D are not the best answers. A is not the best answer because the more demanding Rule 609 evaluation is unnecessary.

A plaintiff sued a defendant for serious personal injuries he incurred when the defendant allegedly drove through a red light and collided with the plaintiff's car. The defendant died shortly before trial. During the plaintiff's case in chief, the plaintiff offers in evidence a certified copy of a court record indicating that, eight years previously, the defendant had been convicted of reckless driving while intoxicated that caused serious personal injury, a felony carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. The trial court should: A: Admit the record as relevant evidence showing the defendant is reckless. B: Admit the record as impeaching the defendant's credibility. C: Exclude the record because the defendant is not a witness. D: Exclude the record because the judgment is extrinsic evidence.

C is the best answer because impeachment by conviction requires the witness to testify. Thus, B is not the best answer. A is not the best answer because evidence to prove propensity is generally inadmissible and convictions are admissible, when they are admissible, only because they are probative of the witness's truthfulness. A is also not the best answer because Rule 405 does not make this evidence admissible as there is no claim such as negligent hiring or retention at issue; thus, the evidence is not an essential element of the particular claim alleged. D is not the best answer because extrinsic evidence is explicitly admissible under Rule 609.

The government is prosecuting a defendant for embezzlement from his employer. At trial, the defendant testifies that he did not take any money from his employer. On cross-examination, the prosecutor intends to ask the defendant to admit that three years ago, he was convicted of misdemeanor perjury. Which of the following statements is most accurate? A: This evidence is admissible to impeach defendant's credibility. B: This evidence is admissible both to impeach defendant's credibility and to help establish that defendant is the kind of person who would embezzle. C: This evidence is admissible to impeach defendant only if the probative value of the evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to defendant. D: This evidence is inadmissible.

A witness was convicted two years ago as an adult of third degree felony sexual assault carrying a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment. The witness was given a suspended sentence and never pardoned. Will the Court likely allow the person who called the witness to impeach the witness with this conviction? Question Not Answered A: Yes, because the conviction is a felony, a serious crime. B: Yes, because the witness was convicted of a felony as an adult and has never been pardoned. C: No, because the crime does not carry a maximum sentence in excess of 1 year imprisonment. D: No, because the party who calls a witness cannot impeach that witness.

C is the best answer because the conviction does not meet any of the standards of Rule 609. It does not matter that it is called a "felony" - the maximum incarceration or the nature of the crime (dishonesty) control.

A witness was convicted two years ago as an adult of third degree felony sexual assault carrying a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment. The witness was given a suspended sentence and never pardoned. Will the Court likely allow the person who called the witness to impeach the witness with this conviction? A: Yes, because the conviction is a felony, a serious crime. B: Yes, because the witness was convicted of a felony as an adult and has never been pardoned. C: No, because the crime does not carry a maximum sentence in excess of 1 year imprisonment. D: No, because the party who calls a witness cannot impeach that witness.

In its lead editorial in the Sunday editon, a suburban daily newspaper characterized a real estate developer as a "common thief." The developer filed suit against the newspaper for defamation. The developer calls a witness to the stand who is prepared to testify that the plaintiff once risked his life to save a fellow soldier in Vietnam. If the newspaper's lawyer objects, the court should rule that the testimony is: A: Admissible, because the plaintiff has a right to introduce evidence of his good character. B: Admissible, because the plaintiff's character has been brought into question by the editorial. C: Inadmissible, because the witness's testimony is not probative of any material issue. D: Inadmissible, because specific instances of conduct are not admissible to prove character.

C is the best answer because the developer's character for valor is not at issue. A, B, and D are not the best answers because they are incorrect statements of the rules regarding character evidence.

A witness was stopped at an intersection when she saw a car run a red light, strike the victim in the crosswalk, and proceed through the intersection. The witness gave a very detailed description of the driver to the police officer at the scene. Based on this description, the police apprehended the defendant and charged him with several criminal counts for the accident. The witness testified at the criminal trial, but the defendant was acquitted. The victim then filed a civil suit against the defendant to recover for her injuries. Before the trial of the victim's suit, the witness died. In her suit against the defendant, the victim offers into evidence the police report containing the witness's description of the driver. The defendant objects. The court should find the report: A: Admissible, because the declarant is unavailable. B: Admissible, because the report falls within the business records exception to the hearsay rule. C: Inadmissible, because the report is hearsay not within any exception. D: Inadmissible, because the report was made by law enforcement personnel for the purpose of prosecuting a criminal case.

C is the best answer because the eye-witness's statement is hearsay, even if the police report were to qualify as a public record. D is not the best answer because it misstates the test for whether police reports may qualify as admissible public records in a civil case. A is not the best answer because the witness's statement was not given under oath. B is not the best answer because public records cannot qualify as business records.

A Defendant is being prosecuted for murder. Defendant testifies that she did not commit the crime. During its rebuttal case, the prosecutor authenticates and offers into evidence a "judgment of conviction" of Defendant for misdemeanor assault, carrying a maximum penalty of 6 months in jail. Defendant has appealed the conviction and the appeal is still pending. How is the court most likely to rule on whether this evidence is admissible? A: The judgment of conviction is admissible to impeach Defendant because the evidence is relevant to show she had a violent character and is more likely to have committed the charged act of violence. B: The judgment of conviction is admissible to impeach Defendant because the conviction is not final due to the pending appeal. C: The judgment of conviction is inadmissible to impeach Defendant because it does not involve a crime punishable by more than one year of confinement and is not a conviction for a dishonest act or false statement. D: The judgment of conviction is inadmissible to impeach Defendant unless the court finds that the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.

C is the best answer because the prior conviction does not meet the requirements of Rule 609. A is not the best answer because Rule 404 generally makes evidence of a person's character inadmissible if offered to prove conduct in conformance with that character trait, which is the only possible relevance of the conviction under the facts given, particularly because the two crimes are too distinct - making the Rule 404(b) exception for proving things like identity inapplicable. B is not the best answer because convictions can be admissible even when the conviction is the subject of a pending appeal under Rule 609(e). D is not the best answer because the special reverse-403 balancing test automatically applies only when the witness is the criminal defendant AND the crime is one punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year.

A defendant is sued for assault and battery after he admitted striking a bartender during a barroom argument. The defendant claimed that he acted in self-defense because the bartender attacked him. At trial, the defendant calls a witness who testifies that the bartender had indeed been the aggressor in the fight. On cross-examination of the witness, the plaintiff's attorney asks, "Isn't it true that when you filed your federal income tax return last year, you failed to report a substantial amount of interest income?" The defense attorney objects to the question and points out that the witness has never been charged with any wrongdoing. The plaintiff's attorney had a reasonable basis for asking the question. Is the court likely to overrule the objection and allow the witness to answer? A: No, because it is not relevant to the issues in the case. B: No, because the witness hasn't been convicted of tax evasion. C: Yes, because filing a false income tax return is an act that bears on the witness's truthfulness. D: Yes, because federal income tax evasion is a crime punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year.

C is the best answer because the question is probative of the witness' truthfulness and is admissible under 608(b). A is not the best answer because a witness' tendency to tell the truth is relevant. B is not the best answer because criminal convictions are not the only acts that may be admissible to impeach a witness. D is not the best answer because the witness has never been charged with wrongdoing; thus, the criminal conviction rule is inapplicable.

A prosecutor offers your testimony that your neighbor's dog barked at 2am. 2am was when the medical examiner determined was the most likely time of the neighbor's death. Is your testimony hearsay? Question Not Answered A: Yes, because it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. B: Yes, because you lack personal knowledge of when the neighbor was killed. C: No, because there is no declarant. D: No, because the barking is not being offered to prove who killed the neighbor.

C is the best answer because the witness's testimony recounts the sounds made by an animal, which cannot be a declarant or statement. A and D are not the best answers because, although true, there is still no declarant or statement to make this hearsay in the first instance. B focuses on the wrong rule (the objection was hearsay) and the witness only needs personal knowledge of the barking and the time - both of which can be easily established in the context of this testimony.

A beneficiary filed a petition in the probate court to contest the validity of a testator's will. The beneficiary contends that the testator was an alcoholic and was incapable of forming testamentary intent. The beneficiary offers an affidavit prepared by the testator's former attorney, which states that the testator asked the attorney to prepare a new will four months before the contested will was executed and that the attorney refused to prepare a new will because the attorney was aware of the testator's chronic alcoholism, which rendered the testator incompetent. Assuming the applicable rules of evidence are the same as the Federal Rules of Evidence, the judge should rule this affidavit to be: A: Admissible, because the attorney's opinion is relevant. B: Admissible, because the testator is unavailable to testify. C: Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. D: Inadmissible, because the attorney's opinion is not relevant.

C is the best answer because there is no hearsay exception or exclusion for the affidavit. The declarant attorney made the statement out of court and it is offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted in the affidavit. A is not the best answer because even if true, the affidavit is still hearsay. B is not the best answer because, while also true, there is no hearsay exception or exclusion that applies. D is not the best answer because the attorney has personal knowledge of the the testator's chronic alcoholism, which is relevant to whether the testator lacked the capacity to create a new will, yet the affidavit would still be inadmissible hearsay.

An internet blogger posted a photo of a public university official with a caption reading, "Embezzles school funds and gets away with it!" The university general counsel captured a screenshot of the blog post and preserved it as potential evidence. The university official ultimately sued the blogger for defamation. At trial, the plaintiff's counsel called the general counsel to the witness stand to ask about the contents of the blog post that was captured and preserved. Defense counsel objects that the witness's testimony is hearsay. Is the witness's testimony likely to be admitted? A: No, because the testimony would be hearsay not within any exception. B: No, because the screenshot does not qualify as a business record. C: Yes, because it is a prior consistent statement. D: Yes, because it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

Even where the witness testifies to the predicate facts necessary to establish a document is a business record, the court can still exclude the document if: Question Not Answered A: The source of the information appears untrustworthy. B: The circumstances of its preparation seem untrustworthy. C: The probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. D: All of the above.

Hearsay is a statement a declarant makes: A. While not testifying at a trial B. While not under oath C. While not testifying at the current trial or hearing D. While not testifying at the current trial or hearing when offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement

If an out of court statement by a declarant is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted and is being offered against a criminal defendant: A: The statement is not hearsay. B: The statement is not testimonial for confrontation clause purposes. C: The statement must satisfy the federal rules of evidence. D: All of the above.

The government prosecutes defendant for bank robbery committed by use of a sophisticated and little-known safe-cracking technique. The prosecution offers evidence that twice before, defendant robbed other banks using the same technique. Defendant claims that he has an alibi; he claims he was in another state when the charged crime took place. Which of the following is the best argument that the evidence is admissible? A: The evidence is admissible to prove the defendant had a motive to commit the charged crime. B: The evidence is admissible to prove the defendant had the intent to commit the charged crime. C: The evidence is admissible to prove the defendant did not mistakenly break into the safe. D: The evidence is admissible to prove the defendant is the one who cracked the safe.

Which of the following crimes most likely involves a dishonest act or false statement: A: Murder. B: Assault. C: Sexual assault of a minor. D: Embezzlement.

Which of the following hearsay exceptions or exclusions is most likely to create a confrontation clause problem? Question Not Answered A: Statements made for the purpose of medical treatment or diagnosis. B: Business records. C: Admissions by a party opponent. D: Public Records.

Which of the following qualifies as a record of a public office? Question Not Answered A: The records of the Republican National Party. B: The records of the New York Times. C: The records of the Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals. D: The records of the justice of the peace court.

Evidence does not include: A: Witness testimony B: Documents C: Expert opinion testimony D: Legal Precedent

D is an example of law, not evidence. Thus, it is not considered evidence for the fact finder to consider. The court decides questions of law and relies on precedent, not the fact finder.

A motorist was struck by a car being taken for a test drive by a mechanic who had repaired the car's brakes. The motorist sued the repair shop that employed the mechanic to recover for his injuries. At trial, the motorist called a bystander to testify that when the mechanic saw that the motorist was injured, the mechanic ran over and said: "I'm really sorry. I guess I didn't fix the brakes as well as I thought." The repair shop's objection to the bystander's testimony should be: A: Sustained, because the mechanic's statement is inadmissible against the repair shop. B: Sustained, because the motorist is offering the statement to prove the truth of the mechanic's assertion. C: Overruled, because it is a declaration against interest. D: Overruled, because it is a statement attributable to a party-opponent.

D is the best answer because it is an admission by a party opponent - particularly an admission by an agent, the mechanic who is an employee of the repair shop. As a result, it is not inadmissible hearsay. Thus, A and B are not the best answers. C is not the best answer because there is no indication that the mechanic is unavailable as a witness.

Circumstantial evidence: A: Proves a fact directly B: Is inadmissible C: Is always admissible D: Requires a chain of inferences to prove a fact

D is the best answer because it is the definition of circumstantial evidence. It is the opposite of direct evidence (like eyewitness testimony that proves a fact directly). It is admissible if it meets the other requirements of the rules of evidence. Thus, D is the best answer.

Which of the following is the most proper question on cross examination of a reputation witness who testifies about the good reputation of the criminal defendant for truthfulness? A: Have you heard that the defendant once held a knife to his sister's throat? B: Have you heard that the defendant stole his neighbor's golf clubs? C: Have you heard that the defendant was convicted of speeding? D: Have you heard that the defendant lied on his resume to get a job?

D is the best answer because the character witness testified as to truthfulness. Thus, D is a question about a specific instance of conduct that is pertinent to truthfulness. The remaining answer choices all deal with traits that are not pertinent to truthfulness.

Which of the follow is NOT a permissible way to show that a witness has an untruthful character: A: Cross examining the witness with specific instances of conduct, other than convictions, that are probative of truthfulness. B: Introducing evidence that the witness was convicted of a crime involving dihonesty or false statements. C: Calling a reputation or opinion witnesses to offer testimony regarding truthfulness of the witness to be impeached. D: Cross examining the witness on specific instances of conduct that tend to prove the defendant steals.

D is the best answer because the conduct is not probaive of truthfulness. A is permitted by Rule 608(b), B is permitted by Rule 609, and Rules 608(a) and 405 make C permissible.

A bicyclist was struck by a vehicle at an intersection. An eyewitness to the collision flagged down a police officer thirty minutes later and said, "I saw a red truck hit a woman riding a bicycle at an intersection thirty minutes ago. I followed the truck to the warehouse on the corner of Madison and Jefferson Streets." The police officer then drove to the warehouse and found a man sitting in a red truck in the parking lot. The bicyclist is now suing the man to recover damages for her injuries. At trial, the bicyclist calls the police officer to testify to the eyewitness's statement to the officer. The defense attorney objects. Is the proffered testimony likely admissible? A: Yes, as a present sense impression. B: Yes, as an excited utterance. C: Yes, as the declarant's then existing state of mind. D: No, because the statement is hearsay not within any recognized exception.

D is the best answer because the elapse of time makes it unlikely the eyewitness' statement is either a present sense impression or an excited utterance. Thus, A and B are not the best answers. B is further not the best answer because the facts do not show that the declarant was still under the stress of an exciting event when the statement was made. C is not the best answer because the statement does not describe the delcarant's then existing internal state or future plan.

A man stumbled into an emergency room and said "help me, my brother just stabbed me." The prosecution calls a person who was in the waiting room awaiting treatment to testify to the man's statement. The defense objects to hearsay. How should the court rule? A: Exclude the entire statement because it places blame. B: Exclude the entire statement because the witness is not a medical professional. C: Admit the statement because it is a statement made for the purposes of medical treatment. D: Admit the statement but order redaction of the portion that places blame upon request.

D is the best answer because the statement was mostly made for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, but the portion placing blame is not reasonably pertinent under these circumstances.

Even where the witness testifies to the predicate facts necessary to establish a document is a business record, the court can still exclude the document if: A: The source of the information appears untrustworthy. B: The circumstances of its preparation seem untrustworthy. C: The probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. D: All of the above.

D is the best answer because trustworthiness is an independent requirement for business records in addition to the predicate facts and Rule 403 applies independently of whether the record is a business record.

Which of the following is NOT true about leading questions? They . . . A: Are typically allowed on cross examination. B: Are typically not allowed on direct examination. C: Suggest the answer the questioner is seeking. D: May not be used during examination of a party's own witness.

D is the best answer. A court may allow leading questions of a person's own witness; thus D is not true about leading questions.

In a civil trial, the plaintiff calls an expert witness to the stand. The plaintiff's attorney conducts a direct examination of the witness that lasts one-half hour. The defense attorney cross-examines the witness for three days and tells the court, when asked, that he plans to spend at least another day in crossexamination to develop testimony brought up on direct examination. The plaintiff's counsel moves that the crossexamination be terminated by the court. What issue is likely to be the most important to the court's ruling on this motion? A: Whether the testimony is relevant. B: Whether the defendant has had an adequate opportunity for meaningful cross-examination. C: Whether the testimony relates to the subject matter of direct. D: Whether the plaintiff's counsel can identify a specific objectionable question from the defendant's cross-examination.

Under Rule 611, a court has wide discretion to control the manner and mode of presenting evidence. However, because cross examination is a powerful tool for seeking the truth and often a right of an opposing party, a court will look most closely at whether shortening cross examination deprives a litigant of the ability to get to the truth. A is not the best answer because the motion was not based on any objection that the cross examination was not relevant; rather, it is simply dragging on. C is not the best answer because the facts provide that the cross is being used to develop testimony elicited on direct. D is not the best answer because Rule 611 still gives courts control even if the questions are not per se objectionable.

When a judge sustains an objection: A: The evidence is admitted B: The evidence is is supported C: The evidence is excluded D: The judge is asking for clarification

When an objection is overruled, the evidence is admitted. When an objection is sustained, the objected-to evidence is admitted. Merely admitting evidence does not mean that the evidence has any special weight. And when the court clearly says sustained or overruled, that is a clear ruling rather than asking for clarification. Thus, C is the best answer.

If a witness testifies differently than in a prior statement the witness made, you may: A: Impeach the witness with the prior inconsistent statement. B: Impeach the witness with the prior inconsistent statement, but only if the statement was given under oath. C: Impeach the witness with the prior inconsistent statement but only by offering the statement into evidence. D: Not impeach the witness with a prior inconsistent statement because doing so uses extrinsic evidence.

When offered for impeachment purposes, any statement may be used. The statement need not be under oath; only statements offered for their truth must be made under oath in the course of a proceeding to be admissible under Rule 801.

Evidence Practice Questions

Kaugnay na mga set ng pag-aaral

algebra 2a - unit 4: exam

Accounting 230 Exam 1- chapter 1

edu ch.10

Sociology Review Quiz

N344: Exam 3: Seizures

Art Quiz #7

Anatomy & Physiology Chapter 1 Test Bank

Fair Credit Reporting Act

M1 Introduction to Computing (CCS0002)

Chapter 24

Chapter 9 Quiz

Psychology

Exam 2- Chpt. 3 &4

National Spelling Bee

Chapter 1 review

NFA 201- Unit 3 Smartbook Making More Nutritious Choices

bio hw 5 mc

SCIENCE FCAT 3

2.2 Por and para: Repaso

Unit #6 - The Firm: Owners, Managers, and Employees