Evidence MC

Michael and Gloria are getting divorced, and both of them are seeking sole custody of their two-year-old son. During the custody proceeding, Michael testifies that Gloria 'frequently flies into a rage' when their son is disobedient and that she once spanked their son with a hot curling iron. Gloria testifies that Michael once admitted to her that he had left their son alone in his car while he attended a graduate school class. If Michael and Gloria each object to the other spouse's evidence, what are the proper rulings? A. Admit all the above evidence to prove the character of Gloria and Michael. B. Admit all the above evidence, but only for impeachment purposes. C. Admit Michael's testimony about Gloria's behavior under Rule 404(b) to prove motive, but preclude Gloria's statement about Michael as inadmissible character evidence. D. Preclude all the above evidence as inadmissible character evidence.

A. Admit all the above evidence to prove the character of Gloria and Michael.

Sarah's body was found at the base of her apartment building; an autopsy confirmed that she died at about 7:00 p.m. on September 14 from injuries sustained in a fall. Sarah's window on the twentieth floor was open, and on a table next to her bed was a note written in her handwriting that said: "I can no longer live with what I have done. I have stolen millions from the family business, and my brother has been falsely accused. Now the entire family faces financial ruin because of me. The only way out is to kill myself." The note was dated "6:45 p.m., September 14."Sarah's life insurance company refused to pay a benefit for Sarah's death because her policy did not cover suicide. The beneficiaries of the policy sued the insurance company, claiming that Sarah fell accidentally from the window. Meanwhile, Sarah's brother Greg comes to trial on charges that he embezzled money from the family business. Sarah's note is: A. Admissible in Greg's trial to prove that Sarah stole money from the family business. B. Admissible in the insurance trial to prove that Sarah jumped, and did not accidentally fall, from the window. C. Admissible in both proceedings. D. Inadmissible in both proceedings.

B. Admissible in the insurance trial to prove that Sarah jumped, and did not accidentally fall, from the window.

Steven is accused of stealing money from Delores, his ex-girlfriend. Delores testifies for the prosecution. In his defense, Steven calls his friend Jill to the stand, who testifies that Delores told her: "I sure got back at Steven for cheating on me. Once the jury hears the story I made up, they'll send him to prison for a long time." The prosecution objects to Jill's testimony as hearsay. The testimony is: A. Inadmissible. B. Admissible only to impeach Delores. C. Admissible to impeach Delores and for the truth of the matter asserted. D. Admissible to impeach Delores, and admissible for the truth of the matter asserted only if the judge determines that the circumstances corroborate the trustworthiness of the statement.

B. Admissible only to impeach Delores.

Which of these assertions is LEAST likely to be appropriate for judicial notice under Rule 201? A. The population of the United States is over 300 million people. B. German Shephards are the most intelligent breed of dogs. C. An ostrich is a flightless bird. D. The movie "The Godfather" has won the Academy Award for best picture.

B. German Shephards are the most intelligent breed of dogs.

Lucy and Ricky are getting divorced, and they are fighting for custody of their twelve-year-old son. Ricky alleges that Lucy once left their son alone in the car for four hours while she was inside a casino gambling and drinking. To prove the allegation, Ricky's attorney calls the child (named "Little Ricky") to the stand, and Little Ricky testifies about the incident. The attorney then shows Little Ricky his diary and asks if he wrote about the incident, if he did so when his memory about the incident was fresh, and if he accurately described the incident. Little Ricky agrees to all this. The attorney then asks the son to read from the diary. A. Inadmissible under Rule 404(a) because it is a prior bad act which is irrelevant to credibility. B. Inadmissible under the hearsay rule because it is an out-of-court statement with no exception that applies. C. Inadmissible because Little Ricky is too young to have capacity to testify. D. Admissible.

B. Inadmissible under the hearsay rule because it is an out-of-court statement with no exception that applies.

In a civil assault case, the plaintiff introduces a blood-stained golf club that she claims the defendant used to beat her. The club is: A. Demonstrative evidence. B. Real evidence. C. Oral eyewitness testimony. D. Stipulated evidence.

B. Real Evidence

Bo Duke is on trial for stealing a Cadillac from Mr. Hogg. The prosecutor alleges that Duke stole the car by dressing up as a valet at Hogg's favorite restaurant and taking the keys from Hogg as though Duke intended to park the car. Duke has three prior convictions: (i) Misdemeanor drug possession from last year (Duke possessed marijuana).(ii) Felony grand theft auto from four years ago (Duke dressed up as a valet outside a restaurant and took the keys from the victim as though he intended to park the car).(iii) Misdemeanor fraud (Duke swindled a widow out of fifty dollars by soliciting money for a non-existent charitable organization).Which of these convictions (if any) are likely admissible against Duke? A.(ii) and (iii) in the case-in-chief, but not (i) under any circumstances. B.(ii) in the case-in-chief, and also (iii) if Duke testifies. C. (ii) and (iii) in the case-in-chief, and also (i) if Duke testifies. D. None in the case-in-chief, and only (iii) if Duke testifies.

B.(ii) in the case-in-chief, and also (iii) if Duke testifies.

On direct examination, the prosecutor asks a witness for information that would violate the attorney-client privilege. Before defense counsel can interject, the witness responds. What type of motion should defense counsel make? A. A motion in limine. B. An objection. C. A motion to strike. D. An exception.

C. A motion to strike

Lou is accused of sexually assaulting his co-worker Mary during the lunch break at their workplace. Mary called the police immediately after the incident. The police arrived at the front door of the office suite ten minutes after Mary's call and one of the secretaries called out: "Hey, look, the police are here!" A minute later, the police entered Lou's office. The office appeared to be empty, but the police searched the office and found Lou curled up under his desk. At trial, the prosecution calls the arresting officer to testify that Lou was hiding under his desk when he was arrested. The defense attorney objects, arguing that there are a number of possible explanations consistent with innocence that explain why Lou might have been sitting under his desk, and that even if he were hiding it certainly does not prove that Lou was guilty, only that he didn't want to be arrested. What is the proper analysis? A. The evidence is irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. B. The evidence is relevant but probably barred by Rule 403. C. The evidence is relevant, and probably not barred by Rule 403. D. The evidence is only admissible if the defendant takes the stand and testifies that he never hid from the police.

C. The evidence is relevant, and probably not barred by Rule 403.

Defendant is being prosecuted for possessing narcotics with the intent to sell. The prosecutor introduces a plastic bag of powdered sugar and asks the police detective on the witness stand to use the sugar to show how the defendant packaged the narcotics. The bag of sugar is: A. Eyewitness evidence. B. Expert evidence. C. Real evidence. D. Demonstrative evidence.

D. Demonstrative evidence

Samuel Drexley, an inmate in the Cansford Maximum Security Prison, is suing the Department of Corrections, claiming that the conditions in Cansford are inhumane. As part of his case, he seeks to introduce a report made by Amnesty International, a private, non-profit organization that conducted an investigation of Cansford last year. Some of the findings in the report include: (i) inmates at Cansford are only given one hour of exercise a week; (ii) the food served is "generally unfit for consumption"; and (iii) the "overall conditions at the prison are severely detrimental to the inmates' mental and physical health."How should the judge rule? A. The entire report is admissible under 803(8). B. Facts such as (i) are admissible under 803(8), but opinions and conclusions such as (ii) and (iii) are not, and need to be redacted from the report. C. Facts and opinions such as (i) and (ii) are admissible under 803(8), but conclusions such as (iii) are not, and need to be redacted from the report. D. The entire report is inadmissible under 803(8).

D. The entire report is inadmissible under 803(8).

Mr. Ingalls made an oral contract to sell one hundred cords of wood to Dr. Baker. When the wood was delivered, Dr. Baker found that it was inferior pine wood, not the oak that he believed they had agreed upon. He immediately called Ingalls to complain, and Ingalls responded: "O.K., O.K., I'll send you oak; just don't sue me over it." Ingalls never delivered the oak he promised, and was sued by Baker for breach of contract. At trial, Baker wishes to admit Ingalls' promise to send him the oak. Will this be admissible? A. No, because of Rule 407 B. No, because the statement is irrelevant to the contract dispute. C. No, because of Rule 408. D. Yes.

D. Yes.

Dozens of women are suing Farnsworth Pharmaceuticals, claiming that its new anti-depressant drug Serenity caused birth defects in their children. Under the applicable state law, Farnsworth is strictly liable for any injuries caused by products that it manufactured, but it claims that the chemicals in the drug could not possibly have been the cause of the birth defects.Which of the following pieces of evidence would be relevant to the case? A. The plaintiffs offer evidence that the CEO of Farnsworth is a member of a White Supremacist group and attended monthly meetings which included a pledge to "protect and advance the interests of the Aryan race." B. The plaintiffs offer evidence that Serenity does not in fact help treat depression. C. The plaintiffs offer evidence that Farnsworth did not conduct any independent tests of the drug before putting it on the market. D. None of the above.

D. None of the above.

With respect to most evidentiary errors, an appellate court will reverse the trial court's judgment only if: A. The trial judge abused her discretion. B. The error affects a party's substantial right. C. The trial judge ruled with specificity. D. The trial judge abused her discretion and the error affected a party's substantial right.

D. The trial judge abused her discretion and the error affected a party's substantial right.

Blair is suing Tootie for battery, alleging that Tootie pushed her down the stairs of the dormitory at their boarding school, causing Blair to break her arm. Before trial, Blair deposes Mrs. Garrett, the headmistress of the school, who was present in the dormitory at the time of Blair's fall. Garrett states in her deposition that the she heard Blair and Tootie yelling at each other upstairs, and then heard Tootie say: 'I'll make you pay!' and then saw Blair come tumbling down the stairs.At trial, Tootie calls Garrett to the stand. Garrett testifies that she never heard Tootie's voice at all before the accident, and she in fact had no idea that Tootie was present at the time of Blair's fall. On cross-examination, Blair's attorney asks Garrett whether she said in her deposition that she had heard Tootie's voice. Garrett admits that she said that in the deposition, but states that she was mistaken. Blair's attorney then seeks to admit that portion of the deposition into evidence. Tootie's attorney objects. The evidence is: A. Admissible for any purpose. B. Admissible, but with a limiting instruction stating it can only be used to impeach Garrett, not for the truth of the matter asserted. C. Admissible if Blair's attorney has offered some evidence that Garrett had a motive to fabricate her testimony, and then with a limiting instruction stating it can only be used to impeach Garrett, not for the truth of the matter asserted. D. Inadmissible for any purpose.

A. Admissible for any purpose.

Debra sued Renew Homes for breach of contract; she claims that Renew Homes installed used roofing tiles on her house instead of new tiles as specified in the contract. Debra deposed Gabriel, a Renew Homes employee who left the company after work was completed on Debra's home. At the deposition, which Renew Homes's attorney attended, Gabriel stated that his boss at Renew Homes ordered him to rip roofing tiles off a house that was being torn down and deliver those tiles to Debra's house for re-installation. Shortly after this deposition, Renew Homes re-hired Gabriel and gave him a position as a site manager, a promotion from his earlier position. Debra's claim has come to trial, and Gabriel refuses to testify against Renew Homes; he persists in this refusal even when threatened by the court with contempt. Debra now seeks to admit Gabriel's statements from his deposition. These statements are: A. Admissible. B. Inadmissible because Gabriel is not 'unavailable' under the 804(a) definition. C. Inadmissible because Renew Homes did not engage in 'wrongdoing' by re-hiring and promoting Gabriel. D. Admissible only if Debra has evidence that Renew Homes re-hired Gabriel with the intent to deter him from testifying.

A. Admissible.

Barney is suing Dr. Spencer for malpractice. Barney claims that he came to Dr. Spencer two years ago complaining of an itchy sore on his arm that would not heal, and that Dr. Spencer told him it was only a mosquito bite. Barney later learned that he had skin cancer and was forced to undergo months of expensive and painful treatment because the cancer had not been detected early enough.At trial, Barney calls Nurse Givens to the stand. Givens worked for Dr. Spencer two years ago and was present at Barney's appointment. Givens says she does not remember what Barney told Dr. Spencer, but that she took accurate notes at the end of every appointment about what the patients complained about and what Dr. Spencer told them in return. Her notes for this appointment state: "Patient Barney complained of a permanent sore that he kept scratching. Dr. S. said it was some kind of bug bite and prescribed an ointment."Barney would like to admit these notes to the greatest extent possible. Which of the following can he achieve with the notes? A. Admit them in evidence in their entirety. B. Ask the nurse to read the notes to the jury, but not admit any part of them. C. Ask the nurse to read the notes to the jury, and admit the first sentence of the notes as evidence. D. Nothing; the notes cannot be read to the jury or admitted into evidence.

A. Admit them in evidence in their entirety.

Zeke Channing was on trial for fraud. During trial, the prosecution asked police officer Thomas Wolfe if he had taken a statement from Scramando. Wolfe replied, "No, I did not take any statement from him, and that's the sort of thing I would recall." The prosecutor asked if he had his investigative file with him, and Wolfe responded, "No, I had it with me yesterday, but I didn't need it to refresh my memory so I just sent it back to the station. I don't keep up with paperwork that well, and I don't need a file to tell me that I didn't take a statement from Scramando." At that point, Channing's attorney requested that the investigative file be produced so he could inspect it and introduce it into evidence. The request of Channing's attorney will most likely be: A. Denied; Rule 612 only permits the adverse party to inspect and admit evidence that has been used to refresh a witness's memory for the purposes of testifying. B. Denied; Rule 612 only permits evidence that has physically been brought into court and used at trial to be admitted into evidence. C. Granted; Rule 612(2) expressly states that evidence used before testifying may also be admissible, therefore the investigative file would have to be produced. D. Granted; a witness cannot choose to rely on their own faulty memory when a written record of the event exists and is readily available.

A. Denied; Rule 612 only permits the adverse party to inspect and admit evidence that has been used to refresh a witness's memory for the purposes of testifying.

MaryAnn is suing Ginger, alleging that Ginger stole her black silk dress when they were roommates. At trial, MaryAnn calls Thurston to the stand, who testifies that he saw Ginger wearing the black silk dress in question at a party two weeks after Ginger moved out of MaryAnn's apartment. The trial ends in a mistrial, and the case is re-tried.At the re-trial, Thurston does not testify. MaryAnn seeks to admit a transcript of Thurston's testimony at the first trial. Ginger objects, and the judge overrules the objection. Ginger then calls Thurston's ex-wife Lovey to the stand. Lovey will testify that she was married to Thurston for forty years and that in her opinion Thurston was a dishonest man who lied about everything. MaryAnn objects to Lovey's testimony, and the judge overrules the objection.Were either of the judge's rulings correct? A. It depends. Thurston's prior testimony is admissible only if Thurston was unavailable. But if the prior testimony comes in, Lovey's live testimony should be admitted. B. Yes, both were correct. Thurston's prior testimony is admissible whether or not he is unavailable, and Lovey's live testimony should be admissible. C. No. Thurston's prior testimony should not have been admitted no matter what. But if the judge admits it, the judge should admit Lovey's live testimony. D. No. Thurston's prior testimony is admissible, but Lovey's live testimony should be precluded.

A. It depends. Thurston's prior testimony is admissible only if Thurston was unavailable. But if the prior testimony comes in, Lovey's live testimony should be admitted.

Leon purchased a Periladder brand telescoping ladder in May 2000. In September 2000 the ladder collapsed while Leon was on it, causing Leon serious injury. After recovering, Leon recommended Periladder to his neighbor Carl, whom he deeply loathed. Carl purchased the same model of telescoping ladder from Periladder in November 2001 and was similarly injured in January 2002. Leon and Carl sued Periladder separately, each bringing a strict liability and negligence claim.In December 2001, Periladder modified the design of their telescoping ladder and began affixing warning labels to them. At trial, Leon seeks to admit the change in the design for the purpose of showing the original was unreasonably dangerous and Carl seeks to admit the new warning labels for the purpose of showing that there was a need for a warning. Periladder raised a Rule 407 objection in both cases. Periladder's objection will most likely succeed (thus precluding the evidence) in: A. Leon's case. B. Carl's case. C. Neither case. D. Both cases.

A. Leon's case.

Artie Griffin, the plaintiff in a trademark action involving college football insignia, asked the trial judge to take judicial notice that Ohio State University's football team won the national championship in 2002. Griffin showed the judge a book titled 'The Official College Football Yearbook, 2002' to document this fact. The defendants offered no response to this request.The judge. A. Must take judicial notice if the Yearbook's accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. B. May take judicial notice if the Yearbook's accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. C. Must take judicial notice if the Yearbook qualifies as a 'learned treatise.' D. May take judicial notice if the Yearbook qualifies as a 'learned treatise.'

A. Must take judicial notice if the Yearbook's accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Andy Taylor is on trial for physically assaulting his 10-year old son Opie. The prosecution calls Aunt Bee, who testifies that two years ago she saw the defendant strike his nephew Danny in the head. The prosecutor also wishes to admit a certificate of conviction showing that Taylor pled guilty to the misdemeanors of assault and child endangerment in that prior case. How is the court most likely to rule? A. Neither Aunt Bee's testimony nor the prior conviction are admissible. B. The prior conviction is admissible, but Aunt Bee's testimony is not. C. The prior conviction is admissible only if Taylor testifies, but Aunt Bee's testimony is not admissible under any circumstances. D. Both Aunt Bee's testimony and the prior conviction are admissible in the case-in-chief.

A. Neither Aunt Bee's testimony nor the prior conviction are admissible.

Tom McManus was fired from his job as a mechanical engineer for MLG Manufacturing and filed suit against his former company under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. During litigation, Tom's old boss, Karen Leahy, asked to meet with him and Tom agreed. 'Listen Tom,' Karen said, 'maybe some of the higher-ups had a problem with your age but I never did. I support you in this lawsuit, but it looks like corporate management is determined to fight you to the end. In the meantime, I'm willing to make some calls to people I know at Acme Manufacturing--I'm sure I can get you a job there with a better salary than you ever got here." Tom replied, 'I don't like the work ethic at Acme--I want my old job back here.' Karen did not have the authorization to re-hire Tom, so he remained unemployed. At trial, Tom attempted to introduce evidence of Karen's statements and her offer in order to prove MLG intentionally discriminated against him. MLG raised a Rule 408 objection to the inclusion of the evidence. A. Overruled, because Karen and Tom were not in compromise negotiations B. Overruled, because the negotiations were not in connection with a claim that was disputed. C. Overruled, because the statement cannot be used to prove liability. D. Sustained.

A. Overruled, because Karen and Tom were not in compromise negotiations

While shopping at House Depot, Shannon Burke noticed a display of Greencut brand gas-powered trimmers piled in a stack. When she approached the display, the stack of trimmers toppled on top of her, causing her serious injury. Shannon sued House Depot for her injuries.During the defense case, House Depot presented evidence that a Greencut sales representative had placed the display there only a few minutes before the accident and had done so without House Depot's consent. In rebuttal, Shannon's lawyer attempted to enter evidence that, following the collapse, House Depot gave one of its employees a written warning for not properly securing the trimmer display. House Depot raised a Rule 407 objection. What is the proper ruling? A. Overruled, but House Depot gets a limiting instruction when the evidence is admitted. B. Overruled, and there need not be any limiting instruction when the evidence is admitted. C. Sustained, because a written warning does not qualify as a "remedial measure." D. Sustained, because the evidence is only relevant to prove that House Depot was at fault.

A. Overruled, but House Depot gets a limiting instruction when the evidence is admitted.

Assume the same fact pattern as above. After the defense attorney called Donovan to attack Fahrmore's character, the prosecutor called Marjorie Pergure in rebuttal. Pergure testified that she had known Fahrmore for many years and found him to be a very honest and forthright person. On cross-examination, the defense asked Pergure: "Were you aware that, from 2002 to 2008, Fahrmore falsified his tax returns by claiming exemptions for charitable donations that he never made?" Patrick's attorney objected to the question. What is the correct ruling in the case? A. Overruled; Rule 608(b) specifically allows such testimony from a character witness on cross-examination. B. Sustained; the event that is being inquired about here is not probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness. C. Overruled; evidence that the witness was convicted of a crime can only be proven by extrinsic evidence using Rule 609. D. Sustained; Pergure never made any statements about Fahrmore's tax returns and so this question is beyond the scope of her direct testimony.

A. Overruled; Rule 608(b) specifically allows such testimony from a character witness on cross-examination.

Fred is on trial for robbing Sam's Electronics. The prosecution alleges that Fred broke into the warehouse behind the store and stole over $10,000 worth of TV's and stereos. To prove the number and value of the items that were stolen, the prosecution calls Gloria, who works as a stock clerk in the warehouse. She testifies that when she came to work the day after the robbery, she noticed that large amounts of inventory were missing. Gloria spent the entire day cataloguing the missing items, and at the end of the day put together a list which included twelve plasma televisions, thirty-two stereo systems, and eighteen digital video recorders. She gave the list to her manager.At trial, Gloria testifies that (1) she is unable to remember exactly what was stolen from the store, and (2) seeing the list would help to refresh her recollection. The prosecutor can: A. Show her the list and then take it away and have her testify from her 'refreshed recollection.' B. Have her read the list to the jury. C. Admit the list into evidence. D. (A) and (B), but not (C).

A. Show her the list and then take it away and have her testify from her 'refreshed recollection.'

Stanley Mancero is 18 years old and is currently on trial for arson. He testified in his own defense at trial, and the prosecution attempted to impeach him with evidence that he had been convicted of burglary two years ago. Mancero's attorney objected to admission of the evidence, and noted that there was a pending appeal from the prior conviction. The judge should: A. Sustain the objection, because evidence that the accused committed a crime as a juvenile is never admissible. B. Overrule the objection if the evidence would be admissible against an adult and the court finds that admission is necessary for a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence. C. Sustain the objection because an appeal of the conviction is still pending. D. Overrule the objection, since burglary is not a crime of falsity.

A. Sustain the objection, because evidence that the accused committed a crime as a juvenile is never admissible.

Sunshine Watersports sued its Orlando franchise for underreporting its annual income. Under the franchise agreement, Sunshine Orlando must pay 20% of its gross income to Sunshine Watersports. The parent company claims that Sunshine Orlando earned $15 million last year, but only reported earnings of $5 million to the parent company. At trial, Sunshine Orlando calls its chief accountant to the stand. Sunshine Orlando's attorney shows him a pile of documents, and the accountant identifies them as "daily tallies," which are kept by the directors at each of Sunshine Orlando's five different locations. The accountant explains that at the end of every shift the location directors receive reports from each of their unit managers; those reports indicate how much money the unit made during the shift. For example, the jetski rental unit may report income of $3,000; the parasailing unit may report an income of $1,500, and so on. At the end of each day, each of the five location directors uses these unit reports to calculate the total income for that location during that day; the director then sends the daily tally to the accounting office.Sunshine Orlando moves to enter the daily tallies into evidence, but Sunshine Watersports objects. What is the proper ruling? A. The daily tallies are admissible as business records. B. The daily tallies are recorded recollections, and can be read to the jury, but not admitted into evidence. C. The daily tallies are admissible as present sense impressions. D. The daily tallies are inadmissible because they are self-serving.

A. The daily tallies are admissible as business records.

Fantasy, Inc. is a multinational corporation that owns hundreds of hotels and luxury resorts around the world. Last December, a tourist at one of Fantasy's resorts died when his paraglider malfunctioned, causing him to plummet two hundred feet into the ocean. The tourist's family is suing Fantasy for negligence.Mr. Roark is the general counsel for Fantasy, Inc. He immediately flies to the resort in question and interviews Tattoo, the Fantasy employee who runs the paraglider operation. Before the interview begins, Roark explains that Fantasy is being sued and needs to know what happened in order to mount an effective defense. He also explains the conversation is privileged and confidential. Tattoo then admits to Roark that he knew the paraglider in question was faulty because it was over ten years old, and that Tattoo had embezzled all the money earmarked for new paragliders and gambled it away. Roark takes notes on the interview.What is the status of the notes that Roark took? A. They are protected by attorney-client privilege, and are not discoverable unless the privilege is waived by Fantasy, Inc. B. They are protected by attorney-client privilege, and are not discoverable unless the privilege is waived by Fantasy, Inc. AND Tattoo. C. They are protected by work-product privilege but not attorney-client privilege; however, they are still not discoverable unless the privilege is waived by Fantasy, Inc. and Tattoo. D. They are protected by work-product privilege but not attorney-client privilege, and they are not discoverable unless the privilege is waived by the appropriate parties OR the plaintiffs can show that they have a substantial need for the information and cannot acquire it by other means without undue hardship.

A. They are protected by attorney-client privilege, and are not discoverable unless the privilege is waived by Fantasy, Inc.

Frederick Dawson is a controversial documentary maker, and his latest piece purported to show evidence that the mayor of the city was having an affair with a sixteen year old girl. The documentary was aired on a local television station which is owned by Steve Keaton. The mayor sues both Keaton and Dawson for libel, and Keaton settles the case before trial. At Dawson's trial, the mayor calls Mallory to the stand. Mallory is Steve Keaton's daughter, and she will testify that the night before Steve ran the documentary, he told Mallory: "You know how our local news ratings have been suffering recently? Well, tomorrow we're running this piece by Dawson that should really get people's attention. Dawson tells me it's all fiction, but I'll run whatever it takes to get people to watch,"Mallory's testimony is most likely: A. Admissible no matter what. B. Admissible only if Steve is unavailable. C. Inadmissible under the hearsay rule. D. Inadmissible under Crawford.

B. Admissible only if Steve is unavailable.

Marcia Brady is on trial for killing her stepfather Michael. In its case-in-chief, the prosecutor introduces a properly authenticated letter from Jan, Marcia's sister. The letter was found in Marcia's possession when she was arrested, and it is dated the day before the murder. In the letter, Jan wrote that Michael had sexually assaulted her numerous times over the past few weeks. The defense objects to this document as hearsay and inadmissible character evidence. The court should rule that the letter is: A. Admissible for any purpose. B. Admissible to prove Marcia's motive for committing the crime. C. Admissible to prove that Michael actually did sexually assault Jan. D. Inadmissible for any purpose.

B. Admissible to prove Marcia's motive for committing the crime.

An oil well exploded in Western Colorado, killing three workers. The well was owned by Denver-Carrington, a large multi-national oil company. The families of the workers are suing Denver-Carrington, claiming the company was negligent in maintaining the oil well. In its defense, Denver-Carrington offers two documents. The first is a monthly maintenance report filled out by the company's regional safety inspector, indicating that the oil well was inspected and found to be in good working condition every month from the day it was built until the day it exploded. The second is an e-mail, written by the same inspector to the CEO of the company, which was written a few hours after the incident and provides a physical description of the damage to the pump and the surrounding area. The plaintiffs object to both documents as hearsay. The judge should: A. Preclude both documents. B. Admit the monthly maintenance report but not the e-mail. C. Admit the e-mail but not the monthly maintenance report. D. Admit both documents.

B. Admit the monthly maintenance report but not the e-mail

Plaza Hotel sued Plaza House Hotel for infringement of its trade name. To establish a likelihood of name confusion, Plaintiff Plaza Hotel calls a records custodian to lay a foundation for a series of memoranda which the company had asked its employees to prepare at the end of each day listing instances during the day in which telephone callers, cab drivers, customers, and others had confused the two names. Plaintiff began asking for these memoranda after it filed the lawsuit against the defendant.The memoranda should be: A. Excluded, because they are more unfairly prejudicial and confusing than probative. B. Excluded, because they are hearsay not within any exception. C. Admitted, because they are records of regularly conducted business activity. D. Admitted, because they are past recollection recorded.

B. Excluded, because they are hearsay not within any exception.

A lion escaped from its enclosure in the San Diego Zoo and injured seven people in the vicinity. Pursuant to its statutory authority, the California Department of Parks ("CDP") sent an investigator to determine the cause of the incident. The investigator examined the enclosure, spoke to over a dozen individuals who witnessed the escape, and interviewed a number of zookeepers who helped care for the lion. The investigator submitted a report to CDP that included the following three statements: I. A four-foot hole had been ripped in the fence surrounding the enclosure. II. It appears the lion tore open the hole, which was possible because of a weakness in the fence due to improper maintenance by the San Diego Zoo personnel. III. One of the witnesses to the escape told me that he saw the lion scratching at the weak spot on the fence for ten minutes before the lion escaped.One of the injured parties sued the San Diego Zoo for negligence and wishes to enter the CDP report into evidence. Which, if any, of the statements in the report is admissible? A. I only. B. I and II only. C. I, II, and III. D. None of them.

B. I and II only.

Steve Houston owned a national chain of art galleries specializing in high-end original paintings. Customers became concerned about the authenticity of Houston's merchandise when pieces entitled The Shriek, The Arnold Feeney Marriage, and Lunch Out On the Grass did not appear to be painted by artists they were attributed to. The Federal Trade Commission brought a civil suit against Houston, and after it was discovered that all of his paintings were 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 paintings were fake, but I figured the buyers knew also'they were getting them so cheaply.'As soon as his trouble with the FTC was over, however, Houston sold an 'original' painting, Cloudy Night, to a college student looking to add class to his dorm room. 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 paintings were forgeries. Houston's lawyer raised a Rule 408 objection to the evidence. Houston's objection will likely be: A. Overruled, because the prior settlement agreement occurred before the current claim had arisen. B. Overruled, because the FTC is a public agency and was exercising its regulatory authority. C. Sustained, because the government is attempting to introduce evidence from a civil settlement into a criminal trial. D. Sustained, because the evidence is being offered for a prohibited use under Rule 408(a).

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

Charles was wheeled into the emergency room on a stretcher. He was bleeding badly from the head and coughing up blood. When a nurse came over to examine him, Charles grabbed her by the sleeve and asked, 'Am I going to survive?' The nurse looked grave and replied: 'We'll do all we can.' Charles became very calm and serious. He looked the nurse straight in the eyes and said: 'I understand what you're saying. I don't have very much time left. You need to know this. My wife hit me with the car in the garage'I was at my tool chest and she gunned the gas; I was pinned up against the back wall.' Charles then lost consciousness. Luckily, Charles survived the ordeal, and the government prosecuted his wife for attempted murder. The prosecutor tries to admit Charles' statement to the nurse. How is the court most likely to rule? A. The entire statement is inadmissible regardless of whether Charles is available. B. Part of the statement is admissible regardless of whether Charles is available. C. The entire statement is inadmissible regardless of whether Charles is available. D. The entire statement is admissible, but only if Charles is unavailable.

B. Part of the statement is admissible regardless of whether Charles is available.

David was working as an employee at McGraw Manufacturing when he his arm got caught in a machine on the assembly line. The foreman on the floor ran over to David, shutting down the machine and wrapping the mangled arm in a tourniquet. The foreman yelled for another employee to call 911, and told David: "We'll get you to a hospital right away. We'll get that arm fixed up." David shook his head, saying: "That arm's a goner, Ted—I don't have any insurance, so who's gonna pay to fix it up?" The foreman replied: "Don't you worry about that; McGraw will pay for everything. That's our policy, especially if one of our machines malfunctions like that."David ended up losing his arm. He sued McGraw, claiming that the injury was a result of their machine malfunctioning. McGraw claimed that their machine worked just fine, and that David negligently put his arm too close to it. David wants to admit the foreman's statement: "Don't you worry about that; McGraw will pay for everything. That's our policy, especially if one of our machines malfunctions like that." McGraw objects, citing Rule 409. How should the judge rule? A. The entire statement is inadmissible B. Part of the statement is admissible, but part of it is inadmissible. C. The entire statement is admissible. D. The entire statement is inadmissible only if McGraw did in fact pay for David's medical care.

B. Part of the statement is admissible, but part of it is inadmissible.

Jenny, a school principal in Chicago, has been sued for employment discrimination. The plaintiffs claim that she has promoted white teachers ahead of more qualified non-white teachers. The plaintiffs' attorney wants to admit evidence that Jenny's husband is active in a white supremacist group. Is this evidence admissible? A. Definitely not. Her husband's involvement has no bearing on her actions at the workplace and this evidence will unfairly portray her as a racist. B. Perhaps, but only if the trial judge concludes that the probative value of the evidence as to proving Jenny's racial bias is not substantially outweighed by its unfair prejudice to Jenny. C. Perhaps, but only if the trial judge concludes that the evidence does not unfairly prejudice Jenny. D. Yes, because her husband's involvement in a racist organization makes it at least a little more likely that she is biased against non-white teachers and would base her promotion decisions based on that bias.

B. Perhaps, but only if the trial judge concludes that the probative value of the evidence as to proving Jenny's racial bias is not substantially outweighed by its unfair prejudice to Jenny.

After having most of their products removed from nationally-recognized hardware stores, Periladder began selling their telescoping ladders on the Home Consumers Network ("HCN"). Erin McCain, an employee of HCN, was demonstrating the telescoping ladder during a November 2001 live broadcast when it collapsed, seriously injuring her. HCN had to run nine more shows in which they needed to demonstrate the ladder, and so in December 2001 HCN engineers reinforced the ladder so that the product could be safely demonstrated by other employees. Also in December 2001, Periladder made its own modifications to the design of the ladder. Erin sued Periladder for negligent product design. At trial, Erin attempted to introduce evidence of HCN's modification to show that the product was unreasonably dangerous before the accident, and also evidence of Periladder's subsequent modifications in order to prove that a safer design was feasible. Periladder did not contest feasibility in the case.Periladder raised a Rule 407 objection to the admission of both remedial measures. Periladder's Rule 407 objection will most likely succeed (thus precluding the evidence) with regard to: A. HCN's modification. B. Periladder's modification. C. Both modifications. D. Neither modification.

B. Periladder's modification.

Doris is a prosecution witness in a bank robbery/murder trial. She testifies that she saw the defendant enter the bank and yell for everyone to get down on the floor. She then testifies that as she was lying on the floor with her head down, she "heard a noise that sounded like a gunshot." When she looked up, she saw the security guard lying on the ground nearby bleeding from the chest. The defense attorney objects to this evidence.Should the judge allow Doris to testify that she heard "a noise that sounded like a gunshot?" A. Yes. B. Probably, but the judge may require evidence that Doris has heard a gunshot in her life on some prior occasion. C. Yes, but only if Doris first qualifies as an expert. D. No, because Doris is not certain that the noise was a gunshot.

B. Probably, but the judge may require evidence that Doris has heard a gunshot in her life on some prior occasion.

Louie De Palma is accused of killing Latka, one of his employees, by hitting him on the head with a blunt heavy object. No murder weapon is ever recovered, so the prosecutor seeks to introduce into evidence a tire iron that was found in the garage where De Palma works. There is no evidence that DePalma ever possessed this tire iron, and no evidence that a tire iron was the murder weapon (though it might have been). The prosecution's tire iron is: A. Irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. B. Relevant but probably barred under Rule 403. C. Relevant but probably barred because it is circumstantial evidence. D. Definitely admissible.

B. Relevant but probably barred under Rule 403.

Brian Lindemann, a member of the city council of Summerfield, was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The news shocked the small town, as Lindemann had a reputation in the community as an honest and moral citizen. Despite this, Lindemann refused to take the stand and testify about any of the allegations. The prosecutor, who was concerned about what prejudicial effect Lindemann's reputation in the community might have on the jury, called Liz to the stand, who will testify that she works closely with Lindemann and believes "he isn't a man you can trust." Lindemann's attorney objects to the testimony. The objection will be: A. Overruled; while evidence of a truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness has been attacked, evidence of an untruthful character has no similar restriction. B. Sustained; Rule 608(a) applies only to witnesses, and Lindemann has not taken the stand. C. Overruled; Liz's testimony does not constitute character evidence, since she is speaking from personal experience. D. Sustained; Liz can only testify about specific instances where she has seen Lindemann say or do dishonest things; broad statements about whether he can be trusted are inadmissible.

B. Sustained; Rule 608(a) applies only to witnesses, and Lindemann has not taken the stand.

Phineas Patrick, the chief financial officer of Drugs-n-Stuff pharmacies, is on trial for embezzlement. The prosecution calls Michael Fahrmore, an employee of the company, as a witness in order to testify about fraudulent financial documents he had uncovered. Later, Patrick testifies in his own defense and denies any wrongdoing; however, he does not specifically mention Fahrmore or the allegedly fraudulent document.On cross-examination the prosecutor asked Patrick, "Were you aware that Michael Fahrmore is so honest, he was once cited in the Oldstown Weekly for returning an elderly gentleman's wallet that he found?" The defense attorney objected to the question. Most likely, the objection will be: A. Overruled; the defense is not attempting to introduce extrinsic evidence, they are merely inquiring about such evidence, and this is permissible under Rule 608. B. Sustained; under Rule 608, specific instances of a fact witness's conduct (such as the returning of a wallet), cannot be inquired into on cross-examination of a fact witness. C. Overruled; Rule 608 permits a party to inquire, on cross-examination of a fact witness, about specific instances of the conduct of a fact witness for the purpose of providing evidence of that witness's character for truthfulness. D. Sustained; Rule 608 strictly prohibits the introduction of extrinsic evidence of specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness's character for truthfulness.

B. Sustained; under Rule 608, specific instances of a fact witness's conduct (such as the returning of a wallet), cannot be inquired into on cross-examination of a fact witness.

Dr. Gordon was the anesthesiologist during a routine tonsillectomy when the patient suddenly went into cardiac arrest and died. As it turns out, the patient suffered from an unusual heart condition, which made him susceptible to cardiac arrest if a certain kind of anesthetic was used. Dr.Gordon claimed that she had no way of knowing about this unusual heart condition, since the patient had not told her about it and it did not appear anywhere in the patient's chart.The patient's family sued Dr. Gordon, claiming that the patient had in fact informed Gordon of the heart problem, and that the information had been on the chart, but that Dr. Gordon had gone back and altered the chart after the patient's death in order to protect herself. During the trial, Dr. Gordon offered to admit that she is fully insured for medical malpractice, and that if she was indeed responsible for the death, the insurance company will pay for any and all damages. What is the proper ruling? A. The evidence is probably barred by Rule 411. B. The evidence is probably not barred by Rule 411 because it shows that Dr. Gordon had less of an incentive to alter the chart after the death. C. The evidence probably not barred by Rule 411 because it is being offered to show ownership or control. D. The evidence is probably not barred by Rule 411 because it is relevant to show bias on the part of Dr. Gordon.

B. The evidence is probably not barred by Rule 411 because it shows that Dr. Gordon had less of an incentive to alter the chart after the death.

An injured taxi passenger files a negligence claim against both the taxi driver and company. At trial, the passenger offers evidence that is admissible against the driver but not the company. The trial judge admits the evidence, and the company's lawyer requests a limiting instruction. Which of the following is correct? A. The judge should require an offer of proof before giving the instruction. B. The judge must give the instruction. C. The judge has discretion to give the instruction. D. The judge should not give the instruction because these instructions do more harm than good.

B. The judge must give the instruction.

Same fact pattern as in the previous question. Assume that the judge rules that the car driver's prior statements are inadmissible under 804(b)(1). Can LVM invoke any other hearsay exception to admit the driver's prior statements for the truth of the matter asserted? A. No, they can only be used to impeach the car driver. B. Yes, they are admissible under 801(d)(1)(A) as a prior inconsistent statement. C. Yes, they are admissible under 803(5) as a recorded recollection. D. They are admissible under both 801(d)(1)(A) and 803(5).

B. Yes, they are admissible under 801(d)(1)(A) as a prior inconsistent statement.

Numerous parents are suing Blocko Toys, Inc. in a class action lawsuit, claiming that its Junior Blocko set contained poisonous amounts of lead, which made their children ill. The parents want to admit evidence that (i) immediately after the children's illness became publicized, Blocko sent a letter to all of its retailers, telling them to pull all Junior Blocko sets from the shelves; and (ii) at the same time, Blocko sent a letter to all of the customers who had purchased Junior Blocko sets, stating: "Enclosed please find a full refund for the product." Along with the letter was a check which reimbursed the customer for the purchase price of the Junior Blocko set. What is the correct ruling? A. Neither (i) nor (ii) are admissible. B. (i) is admissible, but (ii) is not. C. (ii) is admissible, but (i) is not. D. Both (i) and (ii) are admissible.

C. (ii) is admissible, but (i) is not.

Steve Austin, a gold-medal sprinter in the 2008 Olympic Games, is now on trial for illegally possessing performance-enhancing steroids in 2007. The prosecution's star witness is Austin's trainer, Dr. Wells, who testifies that he sold Austin thousands of dollars worth of Detrimin, an illegal steroid, in 2007. Austin took the stand in his own defense and admitted that he bought and used the Detrimin but claimed that he did not know what it was; that he trusted Dr. Wells and that Dr. Wells told him Detrimin was a nutritional supplement.In rebuttal, the prosecution calls Oscar Goldman, an old friend of Austin's who testifies that while the two men were training for the 2004 Olympics together, Austin showed Goldman a pill bottle marked 'Detrimin' and said: 'These are some steroids I've started using. You should try some; they've really improved my training regimen.' Austin has never been charged nor convicted of using steroids in the year 2004.Goldman's testimony is: A. Inadmissible hearsay. B. Not barred under the hearsay rule but still inadmissible for any purpose. C. Admissible to prove that Austin had knowledge that he was taking steroids in 2007. D. Admissible to prove Austin has a propensity to use steroids when training.

C. Admissible to prove that Austin had knowledge that he was taking steroids in 2007.

The furnace in Donald's basement exploded, destroying the house and severely burning Donald. Donald sued the manufacturer of the furnace, Steamfast Furnace, for unsafe design. Steamfast's defense is that the contractor who installed the furnace five years ago did so improperly, placing the furnace in a room that was far too small. Steamfast also claims that Donald knew about the improper installation and assumed the risk of any explosion. The contractor's president, Edward, died last year and the company went out of business; neither Edward nor the company is a party to the lawsuit.At trial, Steamfast offers a letter written by Edward to Donald just before the furnace was installed. The letter says: "I have advised you not to install a Steamfast furnace because your basement is too small to handle that product. The furnace won't have adequate space to vent, and the whole thing could explode. We're violating municipal code standards by doing this. But it's your money and your house, so we'll go ahead and install the furnace you've insisted on." The letter is properly authenticated, but Donald's attorney objects to it as hearsay. The letter is: A. Inadmissible for any purpose. B. Admissible to show knowledge on the part of Donald, but inadmissible to show that the installation was improper. C. Admissible to show both knowledge on the part of Donald and that the installation was improper. D. Admissible to show knowledge on the part of Donald, and admissible to prove that the installation was improper only if circumstances corroborate the trustworthiness of the letter.

C. Admissible to show both knowledge on the part of Donald and that the installation was improper.

Ralph Kramden is on trial for assaulting his wife Alice; she suffered two broken ribs when Ralph's fist connected with her stomach. Ralph claims that he hit Alice accidentally while he was flexing his arm to improve his bowling swing.The prosecutor wants to call Ed Norton, one of Ralph's neighbors, who will testify that one week before the alleged assault, he was in the Kramdens' apartment and saw Ralph go up to Alice, shake his fist in her face, and say: "One of these days I am going to strike you so hard you'll end up on the moon!" The judge is most likely to rule that this testimony is: A. Inadmissible. B. Admissible to prove the defendant has a propensity to be violent. C. Admissible under Rule 404(b). D. Admissible to impeach the defendant if he testifies.

C. Admissible under Rule 404(b).

Aragorn and Sauron signed a contract in which Sauron agreed to sell Aragorn 20 precious rings in exchange for a payment of $100,000. When Aragorn received the rings, he found them to be of inferior quality and he asked for his money back. Sauron refused, and Argorn sued. One month before the trial, Sauron called Aragorn on the phone and said: 'Listen, this has gone way too far; this lawsuit is really damaging my reputation. I'm not admitting to anything, but it's possible I accidentally used an inferior alloy in making the rings. Give me two weeks and I'll make you twenty more rings that I promise you'll be satisfied with. I'll also give you $10,000 back for all the trouble. If I do that, will you drop the lawsuit?' Aragorn replied, 'Would you go to $20,000?' and Sauron hung up the phone.At trial, Aragorn wants to testify to Sauron's statement: 'I'm not admitting to anything, but it's possible I accidentally used an inferior alloy in making the rings.' This evidence is: A. Admissible. B. Barred by the hearsay rule. C. Barred by Rule 408. D. Barred by both the hearsay rule and Rule 408.

C. Barred by Rule 408.

Same fact pattern as above. Assume that the prosecutor calls Cynthia to testify about the morning of December 19. Cynthia does not claim the Fifth Amendment or any other privilege, but she answers "I don't recall" to every question the prosecutor asks about December 19, John, or any other subject. Which of the following pieces of evidence does Rule 801(d)(1) now allow the prosecutor to introduce? A. Bill's testimony that, 'After John disappeared, Cynthia told me that she looked out our window at 8:00 a.m. on December 19 and saw John leaving his house.' B. The police report noting that, during questioning after John's disappearance, Cynthia reported that she saw John leaving his house at 8:00 a.m. on December 19. C. Cynthia's testimony to a grand jury, under oath subject to the penalty of perjury, that she saw John leave his house at 8:00 a.m. on December 19. D. Cynthia's grand jury testimony, but only if she acknowledges in the courtroom that she remembers appearing before the grand jury. E. None of these.

C. Cynthia's testimony to a grand jury, under oath subject to the penalty of perjury, that she saw John leave his house at 8:00 a.m. on December 19.

A group of veterans from the Korean War are suing the United States government for exposure to Code Blue, a chemical defoliant used by the United States Army during that conflict. The veterans claim that their exposure to Code Blue caused them to develop lung cancer. The United States concedes that the veterans were exposed to Code Blue, but argues that there the chemical was perfectly safe and could not possibly have caused the injury.The veterans intend to call Dr. Benjamin 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 or not they cause cancer. This test has only been accepted by a handful of researchers around the country, but the judge is convinced that it is reliable, since it has undergone peer review and has very low error rates. Dr. Pierce has not personally tested Code Blue, 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 Code Blue can in fact cause lung cancer.What is the proper ruling governing Pierce's proposed testimony? A. His testimony should be barred entirely because the technique he is relying upon has not been accepted by most of scientists practicing in the field. B. His testimony should be barred entirely because he bases his conclusions on hearsay data. C. 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 in assisting the jury to evaluate his opinion substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect of the hearsay data. D. His testimony about his conclusions AND the description of the underlying data should be allowed on direct examination.

C. 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 in assisting the jury to evaluate his opinion substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect of the hearsay data.

Under which of the following conditions would reputation evidence of an individual's character NEVER be admitted? A. In a criminal assault case, to prove the peaceful nature of a defendant. B. In a torts case, to prove that a witness has a tendency to be untruthful. C. In a contract dispute, to prove that the defendant is known for breaking contracts. D. In a libel case, to prove that the plaintiff actually is a crook, as was alleged by the defendant in the statement that gave rise to the cause of action.

C. In a contract dispute, to prove that the defendant is known for breaking contracts.

After they were in a car accident, Brianna sued Chris for negligence. At trial, Chris called Devon as a witness. Devon's character for truthfulness was not questioned on cross-examination, but after her testimony Brianna called Lorraine to the stand. Lorraine will testify that she knew Devon well and that he had personally lied to her on three different occasions—twice about whether he was employed, and once about whether he owned a car. Chris objects to Lorraine's testimony. Lorraine's testimony is: A. Inadmissible because Devon's character was not bolstered or attacked on cross-examination, so Brianna was not allowed to call a witness to testify about his character. B. Inadmissible because the lies that Lorraine will testify to have nothing to do with whether or not he might lie on the stand. C. Inadmissible because Rule 608 only permits general reputation or opinion evidence, not testimony about specific dishonest acts. D. Admissible.

C. Inadmissible because Rule 608 only permits general reputation or opinion evidence, not testimony about specific dishonest acts.

A small software company sues three larger competitors, claiming that they violated price-fixing laws by intentionally agreeing to sell products at the same price. The small company introduces pricelists distributed by the three competitors. The three pricelists each advertise fifty different products at varying costs; each product, however, carries the same price on all the three lists. The three pricelists are: A. Real evidence that provides direct evidence of an intentional agreement to fix prices. B. Demonstrative evidence that provides direct evidence of an intentional agreement to fix prices. C. Real evidence that provides circumstantial evidence of an intentional agreement to fix prices. D. Demonstrative evidence that provides circumstantial evidence of an intentional agreement to fix prices.

C. Real evidence that provides circumstantial evidence of an intentional agreement to fix prices.

Jackson Lipscomb, who is thirty years old, was convicted of felony mail fraud eight years ago, but was pardoned by the governor three years later. Lipscomb has had a clean record ever since, with the exception of a misdemeanor for disorderly conduct. Subsequently, one of Lipscomb's former associates, Melissa Reed, was also charged with mail fraud, and the prosecutor called Lipscomb as a witness. At trial, Reed's attorney attempted to introduce evidence of Lipscomb's former crime to impeach him, and the prosecuting attorney objected. Most likely, the objection will be: A. Sustained; a crime committed eight years ago is too distant to have any substantial probative value, therefore the prejudicial effect will significantly outweigh it and make the evidence inadmissible under Rule 403. B. Overruled; the crime in question is a felony involving dishonesty, therefore under Rule 609(a)(2) it is admissible regardless of the Rule 403 balancing test. C. Sustained; the witness has received a pardon and under Rule 609(c) evidence of that conviction is inadmissible. D. Overruled; because the witness has been convicted of a subsequent crime the pardon does not preclude the possibility of impeaching Lipscomb with this evidence.

C. Sustained; the witness has received a pardon and under Rule 609(c) evidence of that conviction is inadmissible.

Dr. Pierce is an expert who testified on direct that in his opinion the defendant's defoliant, known as "Code Blue," caused the cancer which the plaintiff was suffering from. On cross-examination, the defense attorney asks Dr. Pierce if he is familiar with 'A Study of the Causes and Treatments of Cancer,' a medical textbook written by Charles Winchester. Pierce says he has and he agrees that Winchester's book is well-respected in the medical field. The defense attorney then directs Pierce's attention to a footnote in Winchester's book which states: 'It is well-known that most defoliants, such as Code Blue and Undertaker, pose absolutely no danger of cancer due to the inert molecular structure of their ingredients.' The plaintiffs object to any reference to the Winchester book. What is the proper ruling? A. The passage in the textbook is inadmissible for any purpose. B. The passage in the textbook may be used to impeach the witness, but not considered for the truth of the matter asserted. C. The passage in the textbook may be read to the jury, and considered for the truth of the matter asserted, but the book itself may not be admitted into evidence. D. The book may be admitted into evidence and considered for the truth of the matter asserted.

C. The passage in the textbook may be read to the jury, and considered for the truth of the matter asserted, but the book itself may not be admitted into evidence.

George bought an 'original Ansel Adams photograph' from Wendy on eBay. As part of the deal Wendy wrote: 'If you are not satisfied with the item, just send it back and ask for your money back within 30 days of delivery and I'll give you a full refund.' Two weeks after George received the photograph, he sent Wendy an e-mail that said: 'I am so angry with you I feel like throwing things against a wall!!! I did some tests on this photo last week and I discovered it is just a cheap reproduction of an Ansel Adams picture! I am demanding my money back and I am going to destroy your seller rating!' Later that day, George returned the photo.Wendy never refunded George's money, and he sued her for breach of contract. At trial, George offered his e-mail as evidence that (1) the Ansel Adams photograph is not an original; and (2) he demanded his money back within the two-week time frame. Wendy objects to the e-mail as hearsay. What is the proper ruling? A. The entire e-mail is inadmissible. B. The section of the e-mail in which George states that the photo is a cheap reproduction is admissible, but the rest of the e-mail is not. C. The section of the e-mail in which George demands his money back is admissible, but the rest of the e-mail is not. D. Both the statement that the photo was a cheap reproduction and the statement in which George demands his money back are admissible.

C. The section of the e-mail in which George demands his money back is admissible, but the rest of the e-mail is not.

Charles Murphy died from an overdose of sleeping pills. The insurance company claimed that Charles committed suicide, and refused to make payment on his life insurance policy. Charles's wife argued that the overdose was accidental, and sued the insurance company for non-payment. At trial, the insurance company called Dr. Mears, a clinical psychiatrist who was a close friend of Charles. Dr. Mears never examined Charles as a patient, but she did have lunch with Charles two days before he died. The insurance company did not attempt to qualify Dr. Mears as an expert. Mears testified that on the day she saw Charles, he "seemed very depressed; in fact, it appeared to me that he displayed all the symptoms of bipolar affective disorder." Charles's wife objects to this testimony. How should the court rule? A. None of the testimony is admissible, because Mears was not qualified as an expert. B. None of the testimony is admissible, because it has very little probative value and a high risk of unfair prejudice. C. The statement "He seemed very depressed" is admissible, but the rest of the statement is not. D. The entire testimony is admissible, because Mears has the technical and scientific expertise to make such a diagnosis.

C. The statement "He seemed very depressed" is admissible, but the rest of the statement is not.

Betsy Hisser won a verdict in a sex discrimination suit against her former employer, the Prince & Spaulding law firm. Hisser's verdict rested on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which applies only to establishments that employ 15 or more people. At trial, Hisser offered no evidence about the number of people working for Prince & Spaulding.Prince & Spaulding noted this lack of proof as one issue on appeal. In response, Hisser urged the court to take judicial notice that Prince & Spaulding employs hundreds of workers. She referred the court to Martindale-Hubbell, a directory of the legal profession, which lists more than 400 lawyers employed at Prince & Spaulding. The court: A. Will not take judicial notice that Prince & Spaulding employs at least 15 workers, because it is too late to take judicial notice on appeal. B. Will take judicial notice that Prince & Spaulding employs at least 15 workers only if Hisser shows that the probative value of that evidence substantially outweighs any unfair prejudice to the firm. C. Will take judicial notice that Prince & Spaulding employs at least 15 workers if the court concludes that Martindale-Hubbell is a source whose accuracy cannot be questioned. D. Will not take judicial notice that Prince & Spaulding employs at least 15 workers, because this is a 'legislative fact' related to a federal statute.

C. Will take judicial notice that Prince & Spaulding employs at least 15 workers if the court concludes that Martindale-Hubbell is a source whose accuracy cannot be questioned.

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

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

Michael Cameron, the owner of a successful restaurant chain, gave all of his restaurant managers and head chefs generous employment contracts which offered long-term employees health benefits 'for life.' Cameron's restaurants began to fail, however, and it was soon apparent that they would have to close. Cameron met with all of his employees receiving benefits, told them about the closings, and offered them a lump sum payment in lieu of their health benefits. All of the employees declined. After closing the restaurants, Cameron stopped paying health benefits, explaining that continued operation of the restaurants was an implicit qualification in the contract. During trial for breach of contract, the employees attempted to introduce evidence of the lump sum offer to prove that Cameron had agreed with their interpretation of the contract and therefore Cameron and the employees had a "meeting of the minds" that the lifetime health benefits would continue even if the store closed. Cameron's lawyer raised an objection under Rule 408. Will Cameron's Rule 408 objection be overruled? A. No, because the offer was made during compromise negotiations and proves liability. B. Yes, because it impeaches Cameron. C. Yes, because there was no dispute at the time of the offer. D. Yes, because the evidence is not being offered to prove liability, the amount of a claim, or to impeach a witness.

C. Yes, because there was no dispute at the time of the offer.

Chris is on trial for robbing a jewelry store. Three days before his trial is set to begin, an unknown hit-and-run driver kills the jewelry store security guard who would have been a key eyewitness against Chris. The prosecutor wishes to admit the security guard's grand jury testimony against Chris at trial. Is this permissible? A. Yes, since the grand jury testimony was given under oath at a prior proceeding. B. Yes, but only if the prosecutor can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Chris was the hit-and-run driver and that he intended to make the guard unavailable. C. Yes, but only if the prosecutor can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (i) Chris either was the driver or acquiesced in the driver's act, and (ii) in doing so, Chris intended to make the guard unavailable for Chris' trial. D. No, the security guard's former testimony is inadmissible hearsay.

C. Yes, but only if the prosecutor can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (i) Chris either was the driver or acquiesced in the driver's act, and (ii) in doing so, Chris intended to make the guard unavailable for Chris' trial.

After Michele Wilde attempted to sell cocaine to an undercover government agent, she was indicted on charges of drug possession with intent to distribute. At trial, Wilde's attorney asked DEA officer Lance Malfease if he had relied on any documents to help refresh his memory before trial. "Sure," Malfease replied, "I looked over quite a few investigators' reports and a few other documents." Wilde's attorney then invoked Rule 612 and requested to review the documents that Malfease used to refresh his memory and have them introduced into evidence. The trial judge denied this request, saying, "I know what you're trying to do here, and I won't let you drag out this trial unnecessarily by requesting that all of these documents be admitted. There are other ways of impeaching this witness." Was the ruling correct? A. No; a criminal defendant has a right to see every document that the witness used to refresh his recollection, and the judge's refusal to order that the documents be turned over is an abuse of discretion. B. No; Rule 612 expressly states that if a witness uses a writing to refresh memory for the purposes of testifying that an adverse party is entitled to inspect it and introduce it into evidence. C. Yes; despite the fact that the officer relied on the documents to refresh his memory, the trial court judge may use his discretion to decide that producing the documents was unnecessary, and his refusal to do so was not an abuse of discretion. D. Yes; Rule 612 only applies to documents used to refresh recollection during trial.

C. Yes; despite the fact that the officer relied on the documents to refresh his memory, the trial court judge may use his discretion to decide that producing the documents was unnecessary, and his refusal to do so was not an abuse of discretion.

Sergeant Joe Friday arrests Dutch under suspicion of committing an armed robbery. Friday reads Dutch his Miranda rights and Dutch states that he understands his rights and waives them. Dutch then gives Friday an alibi for the crime. Friday responds: 'Look, both you and I know that story isn't true. You really should be honest with me. Things will go better for you if you cooperate." Dutch then gives Friday a full confession. The prosecution later tries to admit the confession at Dutch's trial, and the defense attorney objects. The confession is: A. Irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. B. Inadmissible under Rule 410. C. Admissible only if Dutch takes the stand and testifies to facts inconsistent with the statement. D. Admissible.

D. Admissible.

An oil well exploded in Western Colorado, killing three workers. The well was owned by Denver-Carrington, a large multi-national oil company. The families of the workers are suing Denver-Carrington, claiming the company was negligent in maintaining the oil well. At trial, Denver-Carrington calls Davidson, the foreman of the crew that was working on the oil well before it exploded. Davidson testifies that he has been working as a foreman for five years, and part of his duties as a foreman include personally conducting a safety check on the oil pump every morning before the crew change. The safety check is an eight-step process, including inspection of all of the moving parts of the oil pump.Davidson will further testify that he has performed this check on every oil pump he has worked on every morning since he became a foreman, so he is sure he did it the morning of the accident, although he admits he has no specific recollection of that particular morning. The plaintiffs object to this testimony. The judge should: A. Preclude the testimony, since Davidson has no specific recollection of the morning in question. B. Preclude the testimony, since Davidson is an employee of the company and therefore has an incentive to lie. C. Preclude the testimony under Rule 403. D. Admit the testimony.

D. Admit the testimony.

Ritchie Cunningham was walking to school when he was suddenly struck by a motorcycle that had ridden up on the sidewalk. The motorcycle then speeds off. Ritchie hits his head on the cement and blood starts coming out of his ears and mouth. About ten minutes later, Ritchie's friend Warren 'Potsie' Weber is walking by and sees Ritchie bleeding on the sidewalk. He runs over to Ritchie, who sits up with the last of his strength and grabs Potsie, saying in a clear and calm voice: 'Potsie, I don't think I'm going to make it. Tell everyone that Arthur Fonzarelli hit me with his motorcycle.' Ritchie then passes out. Potsie is overwhelmed by the tragedy, and starts crying uncontrollably. When the ambulance arrives, he is still sobbing and he screams hysterically at the paramedic: 'Ritchie told me it was Fonzarelli that did this! He said he hit him with a motorcycle!' Ritchie dies on the way to the hospital.Fonzarelli is arrested later that day and is now charged with murder. Potsie does not testify at trial. Instead, the prosecutor calls the paramedic to testify as to what Potsie said at the scene. What is the most likely ruling? A. All of Potsie's statements are inadmissible hearsay. B. Potsie's second statement is admissible to prove that the injury was caused by a motorcycle, but the first sentence (describing who was driving the motorcycle) is not admissible. C. All of Potsie's statements are admissible only if the prosecution can prove that Potsie is unavailable D. All of Potsie's statements are admissible for any purpose.

D. All of Potsie's statements are admissible for any purpose.

After the New York Knicks won the NBA championship, a riot broke out in the streets of New York surrounding Madison Square Garden. The riot was observed by Felix Unger, who was watching the tumult through the window of his sixth-floor apartment. A few hours later, knowing that the police might later need assistance in investigating what happened, Unger wrote down notes about what he had seen, e.g. "Man in green coat smashed out window of sporting goods store," and "Man with red hat set the black Honda on fire." Unger delivered the notes to the police department the next day and indicated his willingness to testify if needed.The police identify Vinnie as one of the rioters, and he is charged with setting fire to a black Honda Accord beneath Unger's window. At trial, the prosecutor presents evidence that Vinnie was present at the time of the riot and was the only one on the street wearing a red hat. Which of the following statements is true about Unger's notes? A. If Unger testifies, but is unable to remember what he saw that night and states that the notes he wrote would help him remember, he can look at the notes to refresh his recollection. B. If Unger testifies, but is unable to remember what he saw that night, and he states that the notes were accurate when he wrote them and that he wrote them when his memory was fresh, he can read the notes to the jury. C. If Unger testifies for the defense that he never saw anyone with a red hat on the street, the prosecution can admit Unger's notes to impeach his testimony. D. All of the above.

D. All of the above.

Harry Bentley picked up his dry cleaning from Jefferson Cleaners and found that a hole had been burned through the collar of his favorite tweed jacket. He sued Jefferson Cleaners for damage to the jacket. Jefferson's defense was that the hole in the jacket already existed before it was dropped off at the cleaners. Which of the following pieces of evidence is LEAST likely to be admitted? A. The laundry ticket for the jacket in question, properly authenticated, filled out by the Jefferson Cleaners worker who accepted the jacket for cleaning. There is a box on the ticket which states: 'Clothing damaged when received by cleaner?' inside the box someone has written 'Small hole in collar.' The ticket is offered into evidence by Jefferson, and it is introduced by a Jefferson employee who testifies that it is company policy that every worker fill out the form completely and accurately when clothing is dropped off. B. A memo, properly authenticated that was sent from the Vice-President of Jefferson Cleaners to all the workers at the company one week after the jacket was burned. The memo states that 'all tweed jackets should hereby be hand-pressed, since using the automatic press carries a risk of creating holes in the material.� This memo is offered in rebuttal by Bentley after the CEO of Jefferson testified in his own defense that �Our methods of processing clothing at the time of this incident posed absolutely no risk of damaging clothes. In fact, we have not even seen fit to change our methods since this unfortunate incident arose.� C. An excerpt from the deposition of Thomas Deenan, a friend of Bentley's. Attorneys for Jefferson Cleaners conducted the deposition, and Bentley's attorneys were present as well. Deenan said in his deposition that he went out to dinner with Bentley a month before Bentley dropped the jacket off at Jefferson's Cleaner's, and during the dinner Deenan noticed a hole in the collar of Bentley's jacket. Sadly, Deenan was hit by a bus and killed a week before the trial. Jefferson Cleaners now wants to admit this portion of the deposition in its case-in-chief. D. Bentley's girlfriend, who will testify that the night after Bentley picked up the jacket, he told his girlfriend over dinner: "Jefferson Cleaners burned a hole in my favorite tweed jacket." Assume that Bentley also testifies at the trial and is thus available for cross-examination regarding this statement. This is offered by Bentley in his case-in-chief.

D. Bentley's girlfriend, who will testify that the night after Bentley picked up the jacket, he told his girlfriend over dinner: "Jefferson Cleaners burned a hole in my favorite tweed jacket." Assume that Bentley also testifies at the trial and is thus available for cross-examination regarding this statement. This is offered by Bentley in his case-in-chief.

Rob Petri is on trial for raping his wife Laura. The prosecution wishes to call Sally, a former co-worker of Rob's, who will testify that one year ago Rob attempted to rape her in the office after hours. No charges were ever filed in that case. The defense attorney objects to Sally's testimony.The defense attorney wishes to call Buddy, one of Rob's friends, to testify about Laura's behavior on the night of the alleged rape. Buddy will testify that he went out to dinner with Rob and Laura that night and that Laura was "very forward" with Rob—she spontaneously kissed him at least three times and as they were getting up to leave she grabbed his buttocks and squeezed them. The prosecution objects to Buddy's testimony. How is the judge likely to rule? A. Sally's testimony is barred by Rule 404, and Buddy's testimony is barred by Rule 412. B. Sally's testimony is admissible, but Buddy's testimony is barred by Rule 412. C. Sally's testimony is admissible, but Buddy's testimony is irrelevant. D. Both Sally and Buddy's testimony are admissible.

D. Both Sally and Buddy's testimony are admissible.

At 3:15 p.m. on December 12th, Delores telephones Gloria to set up a tennis date. Gloria's husband Frank answers the phone and Delores asks to speak to Gloria. Frank says: 'Gloria's not in the apartment right now, I'll have to ask her to call you back.'At precisely the same time across town, a woman driving a black Mercedes runs a red light and strikes a young child, killing him. The Mercedes drives off without stopping. An eyewitness is able to read the first three numbers on the license plate, and the police track the car to Gloria, who owns a black Mercedes with the same three numbers on the license plate. Gloria is prosecuted for vehicular manslaughter and leaving the scene of a fatal accident.At trial, Gloria's attorney calls Frank to the stand. Frank testifies: 'I was home all day on December 12th, and Gloria was with me there the whole time.' On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks Frank whether he ever told Delores that Gloria was not home. Frank denies making the statement. The prosecutor then calls Delores, who will testify about Frank's statement to her on the phone. The defense objects to this proposed testimony. What is the proper ruling? A. Delores cannot testify about Frank's statement, because her testimony would be extrinsic evidence about a collateral matter. B. Delores cannot testify about Frank's statement, because she did not see him make the statement in person and so could not evaluate his credibility. C. Delores can testify about Frank's statement, but her testimony is admissible only to impeach Frank's earlier testimony, not for the truth of the matter asserted. D. Delores can testify about Frank's statement, and the testimony is admissible both to impeach Frank and for the truth of the matter asserted.

D. Delores can testify about Frank's statement, and the testimony is admissible both to impeach Frank and for the truth of the matter asserted.

Darla was running the Las Vegas Marathon ("LVM") when a car turned onto the marathon course and struck her, breaking both of her legs. Darla sued the car driver for negligence and LVM (the marathon sponsors), for failing to block off the cross-streets on the marathon course. When Darla's attorney deposed the car driver, the driver conceded that there were numerous pylons blocking off the marathon course, but that he thought the marathon was over and was in a hurry to get where he was going, so he turned onto the marathon course anyway. Darla settled with the car driver and called the driver to the stand during the trial against LVM. The car driver testified that he never saw any pylons marking off the marathon course. During LVM's defense case, LVM offered the car driver's deposition testimony in its entirety to prove the fact that there were pylons in place. The prior statement is: A. Admissible under 804(b)(1). B. Inadmissible under 804(b)(1) because statements in a deposition do not count as "testimony." C. Inadmissible under 804(b)(1) because Darla had no chance to cross-examine the car driver during the deposition. D. Inadmissible under 804(b)(1) because the driver testified at the trial.

D. Inadmissible under 804(b)(1) because the driver testified at the trial.

Steve Kopel was charged with traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. At trial, the prosecution called Catarina Gonzalez as a witness. Gonzalez testified that Kopel told her about his plan to have sexual relations with an underage girl. Kopel's attorney attempted to impeach Gonzalez with evidence that three years ago she was convicted in Florida of issuing a bad check for $75. In Florida, anyone who issues a check for less than $150 knowing that there are insufficient funds in their account is guilty of issuing a bad check, which is a misdemeanor. The prosecution objected to the inclusion of this evidence under Rule 609.The trial judge should: A. Sustain the objection. The crime is a misdemeanor that does not involve dishonesty evidence of the crime must be automatically excluded. B. Overrule the objection if the judge determines that the evidence passes the Rule 403 balancing test. C. Overrule the objection if the judge determines that the probative value outweighs the possibility of unfair prejudice to the prosecution. D. Overrule the objection, Under Rule 609(a)(2) the evidence of Ms. Gonzalez's crime is automatically admissible.

D. Overrule the objection, Under Rule 609(a)(2) the evidence of Ms. Gonzalez's crime is automatically admissible.

Martin Rinker notified local law enforcement officers that he suspected his former friend and coworker, Greg Marietta, of drug trafficking. Rinker subsequently agreed to work with police in gathering evidence concerning Marietta's activities, and on several occasions Rinker recorded phone conversations with Marietta in which the two discussed a potential transaction. Marietta was indicted, and at trial the prosecution asked Rinker, "Do you recall the details of the phone conversation that occurred between you and Marietta at 7:00 p.m. on the evening of June 5, 2005?" When Rinker responded in the negative, the prosecution asked Rinker if hearing a portion of the audiotape from that conversation would help to refresh his memory. (The entire taped conversation was over half an hour long, and had already been provided to Marietta's attorney). Rinker responded that hearing the tape would indeed help refresh his memory, and he used headphones to privately listen to a one minute portion of the tape. After hearing the audiotape, Rinker testified about details of the conversation that were not on the tape. Marietta's attorney objected the use of the tape. This objection will most likely be: A. Sustained; Rule 612 refers explicitly to a "writing" that is used to refresh memory, therefore other forms of media are not permitted for this purpose. B. Sustained; a witness cannot claim that they are using a writing to refresh their memory and yet testify about matters that were not included in the writing. C. Overruled, because the witness did not testify about the material that he actually heard, so this was a legitimate use of Rule 612. D. Overruled; the fact that the audiotape is not a "writing" in the traditional sense is immaterial, and Rule 612 permits a witness to use such material in the way the prosecution did.

D. Overruled; the fact that the audiotape is not a "writing" in the traditional sense is immaterial, and Rule 612 permits a witness to use such material in the way the prosecution did.

During a professional football game, Monus Lynch intentionally struck Holt Johnson in the back of the head with his forearm, causing Johnson serious injury. Johnson subsequently brought an action against Lynch and his football team for battery and negligence. During trial, the plaintiff introduced referee Ryan Chiaveroli as a witness. On direct examination, Chiavoroli testified that he did not see Lynch strike Johnson during the game in question. The plaintiff's attorney then asked Chiaveroli, "Mr. Chiaveroli, do you usually wear glasses or corrective lenses?" Chiaveroli answered yes. The plaintiff's attorney then asked: "Were you wearing your glasses or corrective lenses on the day of the game in question?" Mr. Lynch's attorney objected to the question. Most likely, the objection will be: A. Sustained, because Johnson cannot impeach a witness that he himself has called to the stand. B. Sustained, because a party cannot ask leading questions on direct. C. Overruled; a party generally cannot impeach his or her own witness, but a question about whether a witness was wearing glasses is not a question of impeachment. D. Overruled; this is an impeaching question, but parties are allowed to question their own witness's credibility.

D. Overruled; this is an impeaching question, but parties are allowed to question their own witness's credibility.

Shelly accused Graham of assault and battery. Shelly called Thaddeus to the stand, and Thaddeus testified that he saw bruises on Shelly's body the day after the alleged assault. On cross-examination, Graham elicited the fact that Thaddeus and Shelly were co-workers at the same company in order to show bias.Shelly now wants to call Erin to the stand. If allowed to testify, Erin will say that she has known Thaddeus for many years, and that he "would never tell a lie." Graham's attorney objects to this testimony. The objection should be: A. Overruled; Erin's testimony is in response to an attack on Thaddeus's character for truthfulness, and only presented evidence of Thaddeus's reputation for having a truthful character. B. Sustained; Rule 608 only allows evidence of opinion or reputation for honesty, and Erin's comment fell outside of those bounds. C. Overruled; once a witness has testified, his or her character for truthfulness may be attacked or supported by either side. D. Sustained; Rule 608(2) requires that the character of the witness for truthfulness first be attacked, and that has not occurred.

D. Sustained; Rule 608(2) requires that the character of the witness for truthfulness first be attacked, and that has not occurred.

Same fact pattern as above. Assume the defense called Gail Donovan as a character witness, and she testified that she had worked at Drugs-n-Stuff for many years knew that Michael Farhrmore very well, and that in her opinion Fahrmore was a very dishonest man. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Donovan: "Did you know that Mr. Farhrmore gave generous annual donations to Amnesty International?" The defense objected to the question. Most likely, the objection will be: A. Overruled; Rule 608(b) specifically allows such testimony from a character witness on cross-examination. B. Sustained; by mentioning that Fahrmore specifically donates to Amnesty International, the defense is attempting to introduce extrinsic evidence about a specific instance of conduct. Except for Rule 609's exception, such extrinsic evidence is inadmissible. C. Sustained; the question the prosecutor asked Donovan is about a habit of Mr. Fahrmore's—his practice of annually donating money to a human rights organization—and not about a "specific instance" of conduct. As such, it is impermissible under Rule 608. D. Sustained; the specific instance of conduct that the prosecutor inquired about was not probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness.

D. Sustained; the specific instance of conduct that the prosecutor inquired about was not probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness.

Tina, a tenant in a large apartment building, slipped in the lobby and broke her hip when she fell. It was a rainy day and other tenants had tracked water into the lobby, making the floor slippery. Tina sued Gateway Enterprises, her landlord, claiming that the company should have installed rubber mats to absorb water and reduce the risk of falls.While Tina's suit was pending, a group of tenants in the building pooled their money and purchased rubber mats for the lobby. They were concerned about falls and did not want to wait for Gateway Enterprises to act. Tina filed a pretrial motion, seeking permission to introduce evidence of the tenants' remedy. Gateway objected under Rule 407, which bars admission of subsequent remedial measures.The trial judge had to decide whether Rule 407 bars evidence of third-party repairs, an issue that the court of appeals in his circuit had not addressed. The judge ruled that third-party repairs do not fall within rule 407, so Tina could introduce the evidence. As part of his memorandum opinion, the judge wrote: "I take judicial notice of the importance of tenant associations in remedying dangerous situations. Our legal system should encourage these self-help organizations."Gateway filed a motion for reconsideration, objecting to the judge's taking of judicial notice as improper under Rule 201. What is Tina's best response to that objection? A. Rule 201(c) gives the judge discretion to take judicial notice. B. The importance of tenant associations is not subject to reasonable dispute. C. Rule 201(f) allows the judge to take judicial notice at any time. D. The importance of tenant associations was not an adjudicative fact.

D. The importance of tenant associations was not an adjudicative fact.

The Internal Revenue Service prosecuted Tony Trump for failing to pay sufficient tax on the sale of his Happy Donut stock. To show the original cost of the stock, Trump introduced a letter written by his father on April 6, 1980. The letter read: "Dear Tony, I am transferring all of my Happy Donut stock to you. You can consider this a gift equal to the current value of the stock. I checked the stock market ticker this morning and that value is $1.24 per share. It may never be worth more than this, but it is all I have. Your loving father, Fred."Assume the trial is occurring today. What is the best argument for admitting the letter to prove the value of the Happy Donut stock on April 6, 1980? A. The letter is admissible as the father's state of mind. B. The letter is admissible as a business record. C. The letter is admissible as a present sense impression. D. The letter is admissible as an ancient document, which refers to a market report.

D. The letter is admissible as an ancient document, which refers to a market report.

Eddie Haskell goes on a drinking binge and, in a drunken stupor, runs out of his house and jumps onto the hood of his neighbor's car, slamming it with his foot and denting it badly. The next morning he writes a letter to Ward, the owner of the car, in which he states: 'I am the person who jumped on your car. I am really sorry. If I pay for the damage, will you promise not to press criminal charges against me? Thanks! Eddie Haskell.' Ward hands the letter over to the police, who arrest Haskell later that day. Haskell is now being prosecuted for damaging the car, and the prosecutor seeks to admit the letter. What is the proper ruling? A. The letter is inadmissible hearsay. B. The letter is inadmissible hearsay but admissible for a non-hearsay purpose. C. The letter is admissible under the hearsay rule but barred by Rule 408. D. The letter is admissible for the truth of the matter asserted.

D. The letter is admissible for the truth of the matter asserted.

Harry Sherman had too much to drink one night at a college party, and in a drunken rage, he threw a chair out of a dormitory window. The police were called and Sherman was arrested for criminal damaging. At arraignments, Sherman pled guilty to the charge.The next week, the college sued Sherman for the damage done to the window and the chair. At trial, the attorney for the college wants to admit Sherman's guilty plea for the incident. Sherman objects. What is the proper ruling? A. The prior plea is barred by Rule 410. B. The prior plea is barred by Rule 403, since it is of very little probative value and would unfairly prejudice the jury. C. The prior plea is not barred by Rule 410, because this is a civil case, and Rule 410 only applies to criminal cases. D. The prior plea is not barred by Rule 410, because it is a completed plea.

D. The prior plea is not barred by Rule 410, because it is a completed plea.

Cynthia is a witness in a kidnapping trial. The prosecutor wants to prove that John, the victim, left his house on at around 8:00 AM on December 19th. The prosecutor call Cynthia to the stand to testify about the morning of December 19, but Cynthia claims the Fifth Amendment and refuses to answer any questions. Which of the following pieces of evidence does Rule 801(d)(1) now allow the prosecutor to introduce? A. Bill's testimony that, 'After John disappeared, Cynthia told me that she looked out our window at 8:00 a.m. on December 19 and saw John leaving his house.' B. The police report noting that, during questioning after John's disappearance, Cynthia reported that she saw John leaving his house at 8:00 a.m. on December 19. C. The police report, but only if Cynthia signed her statement under penalty of perjury. D. Cynthia's testimony to a grand jury, under oath subject to the penalty of perjury, that she saw John leave his house at 8:00 a.m. on December 19. E. None of these.

E. None of these.