Evidence - objective questions

The concept of dual relevancy is used A). In determining the balancing of factors under Rule 403 B). In determining the admissibility of a specific instance of conduct under Rule 404(b) C). In determining the admissibility of hearsay within hearsay under Rule 805 D). In determining the admissibility of impeachment evidence offered to contradict a witness's testimony

D). In determining the admissibility of impeachment evidence offered to contradict a witness's testimony

P is hit by a car driven by D. P is injured in the accident and is taken to the emergency room. P says to the treating doctor, "I was struck by a car that had been driven through a red light by D." P sues D and at trial, the treating doctor is prepared to testify as to P's statement. The statement is offered by P to prove that P was struck by D's car after D drove through a red light. D objects on the basis of hearsay. Under Rule 803(1) . . . A). P's statement is hearsay but the entire statement would be admissible under Rule 803(1) B). P's statement is hearsay and the first and second portion of P's statement, "I was struck by a car that had been driven through a red light", would be admissible under Rule 803(1), but the final phrase "by D" would be excluded. C). P's statement is hearsay and only the first portion of P's statement, "I was struck by a car", would be admissible under Rule 803(1) and the remainder of the statement would be excluded. D). P's statement is hearsay and the entire statement would be inadmissible under Rule 803(1). E). P's statement is not hearsay and is not inadmissible on that basis.

D). P's statement is hearsay and the entire statement would be inadmissible under Rule 803(1).

True or False: Consider the facts in Williamson v. Harris. Assume, as in the actual Williamson case, that Harris does not testify at trial. Assume, however, that Harris did testify at an earlier hearing in the Williamson case conducted to determine whether probable cause existed to charge Williamson. Assume that Harris testified at this hearing consistently with what he had told the police officers at the time of his arrest. Assume that Williamson was present at this hearing and had the opportunity to cross examine Harris as to his testimony. Under these circumstances, would Harris's testimony from this hearing be admissible at trial under Rule 804(b)(1)? Harris's testimony from this hearing would be inadmissible because Harris would not qualify as an unavailable declarant under Rule 804(a).

False

True or False: Consider the facts in Williamson v. Harris. Assume, as in the actual Williamson case, that Harris does not testify at trial. Assume, however, that Harris did testify at an earlier hearing in the Williamson case conducted to determine whether probable cause existed to charge Williamson. Assume that Harris testified at this hearing consistently with what he had told the police officers at the time of his arrest. Assume that Williamson was present at this hearing and had the opportunity to cross examine Harris as to his testimony. Under these circumstances, would Harris's testimony from this hearing be admissible at trial under Rule 804(b)(1)? Harris's testimony from this hearing would be inadmissible under any circumstances because the requirements of Rule 804(b)(1) are not satisfied under the facts presented in this question.

False

True or False: P sues D in a civil action for product liability alleging that the drug which D manufactures causes birth defects. P's expert witness testifies that based on her scientific experiments, the defendant's drug does cause birth defects. Her scientific methodology in conducting these experiments, however, is not generally accepted in the scientific community. Despite this fact, the trial court may admit the testimony of P's expert under Rule 702 provided the court is satisfied that the expert's testimony is based on sufficient facts or data and is the product of reliable principles and methods that are reliably applied to the facts of the case, even though P's methodology is not generally accepted in the scientific community.

True

True or False: The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is not violated by the admission of a hearsay statement against a party if the hearsay declarant testifies as a witness in the case and is subject to cross examination by that party.

True

True or False: The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment only applies in criminal prosecutions and not in civil cases.

True

True or False: The following statement would likely qualify for admission under Rule 406 as habit or routine practice: Automobile accident case. As proof that P was not wearing a seatbelt on the date of the accident, evidence that P regularly drives his automobile without using a seatbelt.

True

True or False: The following statement would likely qualify for admission under Rule 406 as habit or routine practice: Product liability/Failure to Warn case. As proof that D Corporation's drug, Lorax, came with a proper warning sheet about the side effects of this drug, evidence that it was the routine practice of D Corporation to include a warning sheet identifying the side effects of Lorax in its packaging of this drug.

True

True or False: To be admissible under 801(d)(2)(A), the hearsay statement need not be against the interest of the declarant, whereas to be admissible under 804(b)(3), the hearsay statement must be against the interest of the declarant at the time of its making.

True

True or False: W is a truck driver employed by Ace Shipping, Inc. While making a delivery for Ace and driving an Ace truck, W is involved in an accident with P. After the accident, W states to the investigating police officer, "I work for Ace Shipping. The brakes on the truck are bad and they just failed." P sues Ace but not W and W is not a party to the action. In determining whether W was employed by Ace, W's statement could be considered by the court in making this determination, but W's statement alone would not be sufficient to establish that W was employed by Ace at the time of the accident.

True

True or False: W is a truck driver employed by Ace Shipping, Inc. While making a delivery for Ace and driving an Ace truck, W is involved in an accident with P. After the accident, W states to the investigating police officer, "I work for Ace Shipping. The brakes on the truck are bad and they just failed." P sues Ace but not W and W is not a party to the action. At trial, the police officer is prepared to testify to the statement that W made at the scene of the accident. Ace objects on the basis of hearsay. Assume, for purposes of discussion only, that W's statement qualifies as an admission against Ace. Assume this is a correct conclusion. Under these circumstances, W's statement would be admissible to prove that the brakes on the truck were bad and that the brakes had failed.

True

True or False: P, an oil company in the business of delivering fuel oil, sues D for ten fuel oil deliveries for which D has not made payment. D denies that the oil deliveries were made. At trial, P calls its office manager, W, who testifies that P's employees always record each oil delivery in duplicate, giving one copy to the customer and placing the other copy in P's files. W testifies that he is the custodian of these files and that the files are kept as part of the company's regular business practice. These oil company records are admissible over D's hearsay objection to prove the fuel oil deliveries to D, even though W was not involved in these oil deliveries and has no personal knowledge as to whether these oil deliveries were actually made.

True

True or False: When the trial court is required to determine a preliminary question as to the admissibility of evidence, the court is not bound by the rules of evidence, except those with respect to privileges, in making this determination.

True - Rule 104

True or False: Consider the facts in Williamson v. Harris. Harris was given immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony and Williamson was charged alone. At Williamson's trial, Harris refused to testify despite being ordered by the court to do so. The police officers were then permitted to testify as to what Harris had said to them. Williamson objected on the basis of hearsay. The Court only addressed the issue of the admissibility of Harris's statements under Rule 804(b)(3). But what about Rule 801(d)(2)(E)? Assume that the agreement between Williamson and Harris to transport cocaine would have constituted a conspiracy to engage in illegal activity. Harris's statements would have been inadmissible under 801(d)(2)(E) against Williamson because Harris and Williamson were never formally charged with conspiracy.

False

True or False: D is charged with robbery of a store. P offers evidence that D was seen running down the street away from the store immediately after the robbery. D objects to this evidence on the basis of relevance under Rule 401. The judge should sustain D's objection on relevance grounds because this evidence, without more, would not be sufficient to prove that D was involved in the robbery of the store.

False

True or False: In a civil action, W testifies for P and describes the details of an automobile accident witnessed by W. On cross-examination, D's counsel asks W, "Isn't it true that you are having a love affair with P?" Assume that this issue was not inquired into by P on direct examination of W. P objects to the question by D's counsel. The question by D's counsel is improper because it asks the witness about a specific instance of conduct that does not involve the conviction of a crime

False

True or False: In a civil action, W testifies for P and describes the details of an automobile accident witnessed by W. On cross-examination, D's counsel asks W, "Isn't it true that you are having a love affair with P?" Assume that this issue was not inquired into by P on direct examination of W. P objects to the question by D's counsel. The question by D's counsel is improper because it is not relevant to any substantive issues in the case as to how the accident involving P and D occurred.

False

True or False: P and D are involved in an automobile accident. P sues D for negligence. Assume that D was convicted two years ago of vehicular homicide for causing the death of another motorist in an automobile accident. As part of her proofs for her current negligence claim against D, P wants to introduce evidence of D's prior conviction for vehicular homicide. Assume that the court rules that evidence of D's prior conviction is not admissible under any of the above rules. Assume, however, that D's conviction for vehicular homicide was the result of a guilty plea by D. Under these circumstances, D's prior conviction would be admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) and can be properly introduced in evidence by P, even though the evidence would be otherwise inadmissible under Rules 404 and 405.

False

True or False: P is the coach of the high school soccer team. D publishes an article stating that P is " a bad role model and morally unfit to be the coach of the team." P sues D in a civil action for defamation claiming that his reputation as a morally fit individual has been damaged. Assume that D is prepared to call W to testify that on three occasions, he saw P give six-packs of beer to his players after victories. Under the character evidence rules, D may *not* introduce this evidence of specific instances of conduct by P.

False

True or False: To be admissible under 801(d)(2)(A), the party who made the statement must be available as a witness at trial and be subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, whereas to be admissible under 804(b)(3), the hearsay declarant must be legally unavailable as a witness at trial.

False

True or False: W is a witness for P in a civil case. D's attorney wants to introduce evidence that W has a prior criminal conviction for theft by deception. Assume that this offense is punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year. Which of the following circumstances would be a justifiable reason under the requirements of Rule 609 for the court to refuse to allow evidence of this conviction. The below states a justifiable reason for denial: That W was convicted of this offense 12 years ago, but was released from prison for this conviction 2 years ago.

False

True or False: W is a witness for P in a civil case. D's attorney wants to introduce evidence that W has a prior criminal conviction for theft by deception. Assume that this offense is punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year. Which of the following circumstances would be a justifiable reason under the requirements of Rule 609 for the court to refuse to allow evidence of this conviction. The below states a justifiable reason for denial: That W was placed on probation for this offense and never given any sentence of imprisonment.

False

True or False: W is a witness for P in a civil case. D's attorney wants to introduce evidence that W has a prior criminal conviction for theft by deception. Assume that this offense is punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year. Which of the following circumstances would be a justifiable reason under the requirements of Rule 609 for the court to refuse to allow evidence of this conviction. The below states a justifiable reason for denial: That W's conviction for this offense is currently on appeal.

False

True or False: W is a witness for P in a civil case. D's attorney wants to introduce evidence that W has a prior criminal conviction for theft by deception. Assume that this offense is punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year. Which of the following circumstances would be a justifiable reason under the requirements of Rule 609 for the court to refuse to allow evidence of this conviction. The below states a justifiable reason for denial: That W's conviction for this offense was the result of a plea of nolo contendere by W.

False

True or False: With respect to the rules governing trial burdens in a civil action, the term "burden of proof" embraces two related but different concepts known as the "burden of producing evidence" and the "burden of persuasion."

False

True or False: Recall the facts of U.S. v. Abel. Because lying under oath is a crime and because presumably Ehle intended to carry out his threat to lie at Abel's trial, Abel could have offered Ehle's statement under 804(b)(3) as a statement that was against Ehle's interest at the time of its making.

False - Ehle is available at trial

True or False: Recall the facts of U.S. v. Abel. Because Mills was repeating words spoken directly by Ehle, Abel could have offered Ehle's statement as an admission by Ehle under 801(d)(2)(A).

False - Ehle is not a party in the action

Provided a written document or record is properly authenticated under the appropriate provisions of Rules 901-903, the document or record is fully admissible in evidence.

False

P sues D in a civil action arising out of an automobile accident. P calls W as a witness. W testifies that D's car ran the red light. On cross-examination of W, which of the following questions by D would a court likely deem proper under Rule 608(b)? Assume that none of the questions involves the conviction of crime. Assume that D would have a good faith basis for asking each question: 1). Isn't it true that you have had three automobile accidents in the past two years in which you were the cause of the accident? 2). Isn't it true that you were fired from your job at Ace Financial Securities for falsifying the financial records of clients? 3). Isn't it true that you have sold drugs to junior high school students?

1). No 2). Yes 3). No

True or False:

A "conclusive" presumption is also known as a "mandatory" presumption.

P purchases a new car from D, a car manufacturer, in 1999. In 2000, P has an accident with his 1999 car. P alleges that the accident was caused by a defective steering mechanism which malfunctioned. P now sues D for product liability based on design defect. At trial, D contends that the steering mechanism in its 1999 model was safely designed. P seeks to introduce evidence that D changed the design of this steering mechanism in its 2001 model to make it less likely to malfunction. D objects to the admission of this evidence. Under these circumstances, evidence of the design change in the steering mechanism by D would be . . . A). Admissible to prove the feasibility of re-designing the steering mechanism, but only if the court concludes that by contending that the steering mechanism in its 1999 model was safe, D has controverted the feasibility of precautionary measures with respect its 1999 steering mechanism. B). Assuming, as posed in Answer A, that the court concludes that D had controverted the feasibility of precautionary measures, evidence of the design change would also be admissible to prove that the 1999 steering mechanism was defectively designed. C). Both A and B D). Neither A nor B

A). Admissible to prove the feasibility of re-designing the steering mechanism, but only if the court concludes that by contending that the steering mechanism in its 1999 model was safe, D has controverted the feasibility of precautionary measures with respect its 1999 steering mechanism.

D is charged with harassing and threatening V. W testifies for the prosecution that V said to her, "I am afraid of D because he constantly harasses and threatens me." D objects on the basis of hearsay. The court overrules D's objection and admits W's testimony under Rule 803(3). Assume that V's state of mind concerning D is a legitimate issue in this case. Under these circumstances, V's statement would be admissible: A). As evidence that V is afraid of D B). As evidence that D harassed and threatened V C). Both A and B D). Neither A nor B

A). As evidence that V is afraid of D

P sues D in a civil action for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. Assume that under the applicable law, P bears the burden of persuasion to prove, among other things, that D was the person driving the car which caused the accident. Assume that there were several people in D's car and that the issue as to who was driving is disputed. Assume that under the applicable law, there is a rebuttable presumption that if owner of a car is present in the car, the owner is presumed to be driving the car. Assume P establishes that D was the owner of the car and was present in the car at the time of the accident. The presumption now: A). Imposes on D the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut the presumption that D was driving the car. B). Shifts to D the burden of persuasion to prove that D was not the driver of the car. C). Both A and B. D). Neither A nor B.

A). Imposes on D the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut the presumption

P and D are involved in an automobile accident. D says to P "I know that I am completely at fault for the accident and I am very sorry. Please send me your medical bills and I will be sure that they are paid." P now files a negligence action against D for personal injuries arising out of the accident. P claims that D was negligent in the operation of his car. At trial, P offers both sentences of D's statement to prove D's liability for P's injuries. A). Irrespective of whether D's statement is admissible under 801(d)(2)(A), the second sentence is not admissible against D under Rule 409 for the offered purpose. B). Even if the second sentence of D's statement is inadmissible under Rule 409, the second sentence is still fully admissible against D for the offered purpose provided D's statement properly qualifies under Rule 801(d)(2)(A).

A). Irrespective of whether D's statement is admissible under 801(d)(2)(A), the second sentence is not admissible against D under Rule 409 for the offered purpose.

P sues D in a civil action for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. Assume that under the applicable law, P bears the burden of persuasion to prove, among other things, that D was the person driving the car which caused the accident. Assume that there were several people in D's car and that the issue as to who was driving is disputed. Assume that under the applicable law, there is a rebuttable presumption that if owner of a car is present in the car, the owner is presumed to be driving the car. Assume P establishes that D was the owner of the car and was present in the car at the time of the accident. Assume that D does not offer any evidence to rebut the presumption. Under these circumstances, the factfinder in the case: A). Must find that D was the driver of the car. B). May find that D was the driver of the car but is not required to do so.

A). Must find that D was the driver of the car.

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is not violated by the admission of a hearsay statement against a party if the hearsay statement is admissible against the party under a "firmly rooted" hearsay exception, A). Provided the hearsay declarant testifies as a witness in the case and is subject to cross examination in the case by the party. B). Irrespective of whether the hearsay declarant testifies as a witness in the case and is subject to cross examination in the case by the party.

A). Provided the hearsay declarant testifies as a witness in the case and is subject to cross examination in the case by the party.

P sues D in a civil action in January 2002. W is called as a witness by P. On direct examination, W states that "I saw the blue car run the red light." The blue car is D's car. On cross-examination, D elicits testimony from W establishing that W became friends with P on May 1, 2001 and suggests that this is why W is testifying that D's car ran the red light. On redirect examination, P's attorney seeks to introduce a prior statement made by W that the blue car ran the red light. W's prior statement was made on January. 1, 2001. D objects on the basis of hearsay. A). W's prior statement would be admissible over D's hearsay objection under 801(d)(1)(B) to repair W's credibility and as substantive evidence that the blue car ran the red light. B). W's prior statement would be admissible over D's hearsay objection under 801(d)(1)(B) but only to repair W's credibility and not as substantive evidence that the blue car ran the red light. C). W's prior statement would not be admissible over D's hearsay objection under 801(d)(1)(B).

A). W's prior statement would be admissible over D's hearsay objection under 801(d)(1)(B) to repair W's credibility and as substantive evidence that the blue car ran the red light.

W is a truck driver employed by Ace Shipping, Inc. While making a delivery for Ace and driving an Ace truck, W is involved in an accident with P. After the accident, W states to the investigating police officer, "I work for Ace Shipping. The brakes on the truck are bad and they just failed." P sues Ace but not W and W is not a party to the action. At trial, the police officer is prepared to testify to the statement that W made at the scene of the accident. Ace objects on the basis of hearsay. May W's statement to the police officer be introduced by P as an admission against Ace? A). Yes, provided W was still employed by Ace at the time W made the statement, even if W was not authorized by Ace to make such a statement B). Yes, but only if Ace had authorized W to make such a statement C). No, W's statement is not admissible against Ace as an admission.

A). Yes, provided W was still employed by Ace at the time W made the statement, even if W was not authorized by Ace to make such a statement

A memorandum or record prepared solely in anticipation of litigation cannot qualify for use under the hearsay exception for recorded recollection.

False

D is charged with bank robbery. Prior to D's arrest, D is walking down the street with his girlfriend and they meet W. D's girlfriend says to W, "D robbed a bank last night and we are going on vacation to spend the money." W is called as a witness to testify to the above statement by D's girlfriend. The statement is offered as proof that D robbed the bank. D objects on the basis of hearsay. With respect to D's hearsay objection, A). The statement of D's girlfriend is admissible as an adoptive admission because the statement was made in D's presence. B). Answer A is correct but only if under all of the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for D to deny his girlfriend's statement if it had not been true. C). The statement of D's girlfriend is not admissible over D's hearsay objection as an adoptive admission.

B). Answer A is correct but only if under all of the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for D to deny his girlfriend's statement if it had not been true.

Under the FRE, nonassertive, nonverbal conduct is not hearsay. For example, in a problem we did in class, the conduct of the truck driver pulling forward into the traffic light intersection after having stopped at the red light was considered nonassertive, nonverbal conduct and not hearsay. When such nonassertive, nonverbal conduct is admitted as not hearsay, it is admitted A). Only as evidence of the person's belief in the existence of the condition sought to be proved (that is, admitted only to show the truck driver's belief that the light had changed to green) and is not admissible as evidence of the existence of the condition sought to be proved (that is, that the light had changed to green). B). Both as evidence of the truck driver's belief that the light had changed to green and also as circumstantial evidence that the light had changed to green.

B). Both as evidence of the truck driver's belief that the light had changed to green and also as circumstantial evidence that the light had changed to green.

If a party requests a court to take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact and the party supplies the court with the necessary information demonstrating that the adjudicative fact is not subject to reasonable dispute, the court: A). May take judicial notice of the fact B). Must take judicial notice of the fact

B). Must take judicial notice of the fact

Assume that P is taken to the hospital emergency room after an accident with D complaining of a severe neck injury. P says to the treating physician, "My neck snapped back after my car was hit from behind by a car driven by D." At trial, the treating physician is prepared to testify as to P's statement. The statement is offered by P to prove that P's neck snapped back after her car was hit from behind by the car driven by D. D objects on the basis of hearsay. A). P's statement is hearsay but the entire statement would be admissible under Rule 803(4). B). P's statement is hearsay and the first and second portion of P's statement, "My neck snapped back after my car was hit from behind by a car," would be admissible under Rule 803(4), but the final phrase "driven by D" would be excluded. C). P's statement is hearsay and only the first portion of P's statement that "my neck snapped back" would be admissible under Rule 803(4) and the remainder of the statement would be excluded. D). P's statement is hearsay and the entire statement would be inadmissible under Rule 803(4). E). P's statement is not hearsay and is not inadmissible on this basis.

B). P's statement is hearsay and the first and second portion of P's statement, "My neck snapped back after my car was hit from behind by a car," would be admissible under Rule 803(4), but the final phrase "driven by D" would be excluded.

P is the coach of the high school soccer team. D publishes an article stating that P is " a bad role model and morally unfit to be the coach of the team." P sues D in a civil action for defamation claiming that his reputation as a morally fit individual has been damaged. Under the character evidence rules, D may offer, as part of his defense, character witnesses who may testify A). That P has a reputation in the community as a morally unfit individual. B). That in their personal opinion, P is a morally unfit individual. C). Both A and B D). Neither A nor B

C). Both A and B

D is arrested for assaulting V. At the time of D's arrest, V identified D at the police station. V pointed at D and said, "That's the man who assaulted me." Officer Jones was the arresting officer and V made her statement of identification in his presence. At trial, V is called as a witness for the prosecution, but now testifies that D is not the man who assaulted her. The prosecution now calls Officer Jones as a witness. Officer Jones is prepared to testify to V's statement identifying D at the police station. D objects on the basis of hearsay. V's statement was just an oral statement and was not made under oath. A). V's statement is not admissible as substantive evidence under Rule 801(d)(1)(A) as proof that D is the one who assaulted V. B). V's statement is admissible as a prior inconsistent statement but only for the non-hearsay purpose of impeaching V's trial testimony and not as substantive evidence that D is the one who assaulted V. C). Both A and B D). V's statement is fully admissible both as substantive evidence and to impeach the trial testimony of V as a prior inconsistent statement.

C). Both A and B Need 801(d)(2)(A) for 613? (See p. 586)

Assume that W is called by P as a medical expert witness in a medical malpractice case. W testifies that the drug Lorax should not be administered to a patient within 72 hours of surgery. On cross-examination by D's attorney, W admits that a particular medical treatise is a reliable medical authority. D's attorney now wishes to introduce certain passages from this treatise which expressly state that Lorax can safely be administered to a patient immediately after surgery. P objects to the introduction of any evidence from this treatise as hearsay. The passages from the treatise would be admissible, over P's hearsay objection, A). For the purpose of impeaching W's credibility as a medical expert B). As substantive evidence of the matters contained in the passages, i.e. that Lorax can safely be administered to a patient immediately after surgery. C). Both A and B. D). Neither A nor B.

C). Both A and B.

A and B are formally charged in a criminal case with criminal conspiracy. If the prosecutor wishes to introduce hearsay statements of A against B under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), the prosecutor, for purposes of Rule 801(d)(2)(E), must establish the existence of a conspiracy between A and B under the following standard of proof, A). Beyond a reasonable doubt B). By clear and convincing evidence C). By a preponderance of the evidence D). None of the above, admission of hearsay statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) in a criminal case violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

C). By a preponderance of the evidence

P sues C and D in a civil case claiming that C and D engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix prices in violation of civil antitrust laws. If P wishes to introduce hearsay statements of C against D under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), the Plaintiff, for purposes of Rule 801(d)(2)(E), must establish the existence of a conspiracy between C and D under the following standard of proof, A). Beyond a reasonable doubt B). By clear and convincing evidence C). By a preponderance of the evidence D). None of the above, admission of hearsay statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) is not allowed in a civil case.

C). By a preponderance of the evidence

D is charged in a criminal prosecution with robbery. D calls W as an alibi witness to testify that D was with W at W's home at the time of the robbery. Assume that W was convicted of filing a fraudulent income tax return two years ago. Assume that this offense is punishable by a term of imprisonment not to exceed 6 months. The prosecution wishes to introduce this prior conviction of W to impeach W's credibility. D objects claiming that such evidence will unfairly prejudice D's defense. Answer the following multiple choice question with respect to the requirements of admissibility under Rule 609. A). The prior conviction of W may be admitted in evidence under Rule 609 to impeach W if the prosecutor establishes that the probative value of admitting the prior conviction in terms of assessing W's credibility as a witness outweighs its prejudicial effect to D. B). The prior conviction of W is admissible in evidence under Rule 609 to impeach W unless D establishes that the prejudicial effect to him of admitting W's prior conviction substantially outweighs the probative value of admitting the conviction. C). The prior conviction of W is admissible in evidence under Rule 609 to impeach W irrespective of D's claim of unfair prejudice. D). The prior conviction of W is not admissible in evidence under Rule 609 under any showing because it is not punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year.

C). The prior conviction of W is admissible in evidence under Rule 609 to impeach W irrespective of D's claim of unfair prejudice.

P sues D in a civil action in January 2002. W is called as a witness by P. On direct examination, W states that "I saw the blue car run the red light." The blue car is D's car. On cross-examination, D elicits testimony from W establishing that W became friends with P on May 1, 2001 and suggests that this is why W is testifying that D's car ran the red light. On redirect examination, P's attorney seeks to introduce a prior statement made by W that the blue car ran the red light. W's prior statement was made on Nov. 1, 2001. D objects on the basis of hearsay. A). W's prior statement would be admissible over D's hearsay objection under 801(d)(1)(B) to repair W's credibility and as substantive evidence that the blue car ran the red light. B). W's prior statement would be admissible over D's hearsay objection under 801(d)(1)(B) but only to repair W's credibility and not as substantive evidence that the blue car ran the red light. C). W's prior statement would not be admissible over D's hearsay objection under 801(d)(1)(B).

C). W's prior statement would not be admissible over D's hearsay objection under 801(d)(1)(B).

In addition to satisfying the other requirements of Rule 803(6), a memorandum or record only qualifies for admission as a business record under Rule 803(6) . . . A). If the memorandum or record relates to a regularly conducted business activity B). If it is the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum or record C). Either A or B D). Both A and B

D). Both A and B

In terms of Rule 609's requirement of a prior "conviction" of a crime, which of the following would potentially qualify as a "conviction" for purposes of Rule 609? A). A "conviction" of a crime following a full trial and verdict after a plea of not guilty by the defendant. B). A "conviction" of a crime as a result of a guilty plea by the defendant. C). A "conviction" of a crime as a result of a plea of nolo contendere by the defendant. D). A and B are correct. E). A, B and C are correct.

E). A, B and C are correct.

True or False: This question is based on the fact pattern of U.S. v. Pheaster. Recall that in this case Larry, the victim, told his friends that he was going out into the parking lot to meet Angelo, the defendant, to get some marijuana. Angelo objected to the admissibility of Larry's statement against him as hearsay. The only issue addressed by the court was the admissibility of Larry's statement under the state of mind exception. But what about Rule 801(d)(2)(E)? Assume that the agreement between Larry and Angelo to exchange marijuana would have constituted a conspiracy to engage in illegal activity. The statement would have been inadmissible in any event because admitting Larry's statement against Angelo under 801(d)(2)(E) would have violated Angelo's constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him because Larry was not a witness in the case and would not have been subject to cross-examination by Angelo.

False - non testimonial

True or False: Recall the facts of U.S. v. Abel. Because it was undisputed that Ehle and Abel were coconspirators in the bank robbery, Abel could have offered Ehle's statement as a statement by a coconspirator under 801(d)(2)(E).

False - not in furtherance of conspiracy

True or False: The following statement would likely qualify for admission under Rule 406 as habit or routine practice: Medical malpractice case. As proof that D was not negligent in treating P, evidence that D regularly uses due care in treating her patients.

False - not specific enough

True or False: Consider the facts in Williamson v. Harris. Harris was given immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony and Williamson was charged alone. At Williamson's trial, Harris refused to testify despite being ordered by the court to do so. The police officers were then permitted to testify as to what Harris had said to them. Williamson objected on the basis of hearsay. The Court only addressed the issue of the admissibility of Harris's statements under Rule 804(b)(3). Harris's prior statements to the police officers would have been admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(A) provided the statements were made by Harris under oath subject to the penalty of perjury and that the interrogation by the police officers of Harris qualified as an "other proceeding."

False b/c Harris is not testifying

True or False: In a civil action, W testifies for P and describes the details of an automobile accident witnessed by W. On cross-examination, D's counsel asks W, "Isn't it true that you are having a love affair with P?" Assume that this issue was not inquired into by P on direct examination of W. P objects to the question by D's counsel. The question by D's counsel is improper at this particular time because it is beyond the scope of P's direct examination of W.

Flase

True or False: Assume that W is called by P as a medical expert witness in a medical malpractice case. W testifies that the drug Lorax should not be administered to a patient within 72 hours of surgery. On cross-examination by D's attorney, W admits that a particular medical treatise is a reliable medical authority. D's attorney now wishes to introduce certain passages from this treatise which expressly state that Lorax can safely be administered to a patient immediately after surgery. Assuming, for purposes of discussion, that the passages from the treatise are admissible, D's attorney may read passages from the treatise into evidence but the treatise itself may not be received as an exhibit.

True

True or False: A hearsay statement only qualifies for admission under 801(d)(2)(A) if it is made by a party and that party is an opponent of the party offering the statement, whereas under 804(b)(3), the hearsay statement of any person can qualify for admission, irrespective of whether the person making the statement is a party or not.

True

True or False: A memorandum or record prepared solely in anticipation of litigation *and not prepared in the course of a regularly conducted business activity* cannot qualify for admission under Rule 803(6).

True

True or False: Assume that at trial, P makes an offer of proof for the admission of evidence under Rule 803(2). D objects to the admission of this evidence on this basis, but the trial court rules that the evidence properly qualifies for admission under Rule 803(2). After the trial concludes, judgment is rendered in favor of P. D now appeals the judgment arguing that the admission of the evidence in question was not proper under Rule 803(2) and constitutes reversible error. Assume that the trial court's admission of this evidence under Rule 803(2) was in fact erroneous. The appellate court may, nevertheless, affirm the trial court's judgment in favor of P if there is another basis for admitting the evidence in question which is valid and proper, even though this alternative basis for admitting the evidence was never presented or argued to the trial court below by P.

True

True or False: Consider the facts in Williamson v. Harris. Harris was given immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony and Williamson was charged alone. At Williamson's trial, Harris refused to testify despite being ordered by the court to do so. The police officers were then permitted to testify as to what Harris had said to them. Williamson objected on the basis of hearsay. The Court only addressed the issue of the admissibility of Harris's statements under Rule 804(b)(3). But what about Rule 801(d)(2)(E)? Assume that the agreement between Williamson and Harris to transport cocaine would have constituted a conspiracy to engage in illegal activity. Harris's statements would have been inadmissible under 801(d)(2)(E) against Williamson because Harris, even if a co-conspirator with Williamson, did not make the statements in furtherance of the conspiracy.

True

True or False: Even though the issues of whether Ace's drug is unreasonably dangerous and whether the drug is the cause of P's medical problems are the ultimate issues for the trier of fact to decide, W's expert opinion on these issues would be permissible under the FRE.

True

True or False: P and D are involved in an automobile accident. D says to P "I know that I am completely at fault for the accident and I am very sorry. Please send me your medical bills and I will be sure that they are paid." P now files a negligence action against D for personal injuries arising out of the accident. P claims that D was negligent in the operation of his car. At trial, P offers both sentences of D's statement to prove D's liability for P's injuries. With respect to the issue of hearsay only, both sentences of D's statement are fully admissible against D under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) for the offered purpose.

True

True or False: P and D are involved in an automobile accident. P sues D for negligence. Assume that D was convicted two years ago of vehicular homicide for causing the death of another motorist in an automobile accident. As part of her proofs for her current negligence claim against D, P wants to introduce evidence of D's prior conviction for vehicular homicide. Answer the following question as to the Rules cited without regard to Rule 403. P can introduce evidence of D's prior conviction under Rule 404(b) to prove motive and intent.

True

True or False: P and D are involved in an automobile accident. P sues D for negligence. Assume that D was convicted two years ago of vehicular homicide for causing the death of another motorist in an automobile accident. As part of her proofs for her current negligence claim against D, P wants to introduce evidence of D's prior conviction for vehicular homicide. Answer the following question as to the Rules cited without regard to Rule 403. P cannot introduce evidence of D's prior conviction under Rule 404(a).

True

True or False: P and D are involved in an automobile accident. P sues D for negligence. Assume that D was convicted two years ago of vehicular homicide for causing the death of another motorist in an automobile accident. As part of her proofs for her current negligence claim against D, P wants to introduce evidence of D's prior conviction for vehicular homicide. Answer the following question as to the Rules cited without regard to Rule 403. P cannot introduce evidence of D's prior conviction under Rule 405(b)

True

True or False: P is injured in an automobile accident with C. C was driving D's car at the time of the accident. P's sues D on a claim of negligent entrustment alleging that D was negligent in entrusting his car to C knowing that C was a careless driver. Under the character evidence rules, P may offer, as part of her proofs against D, character witnesses who may testify in the form of reputation or opinion evidence that C is a careless driver.

True

True or False: P sues D in a civil action arising out of an automobile accident. Assume that the police officer assigned to investigate the accident examined the accident scene and the vehicles involved, and questioned three eyewitnesses to the accident. Assume that these eyewitnesses are lay people who are not employed by or otherwise connected to the police department. Based on the police officer's investigation, she issues a police report with factual findings about the accident. At the civil trial, P offers the police report in evidence. D objects on the basis of hearsay. Assume that the police officer's report also includes a verbatim recitation of the statements given to the police officer by these three eyewitnesses. The police record of the statements themselves would not be admissible solely under Rule 803(8).

True

True or False: P sues D in a civil action arising out of an automobile accident. Assume that the police officer assigned to investigate the accident examined the accident scene and the vehicles involved, and questioned three eyewitnesses to the accident. Assume that these eyewitnesses are lay people who are not employed by or otherwise connected to the police department. Based on the police officer's investigation, she issues a police report with factual findings about the accident. At the civil trial, P offers the police report in evidence. D objects on the basis of hearsay. Unless the court determines that the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness, the police report would be admissible under Rule 803(8), over D's hearsay objection, even though the police officer's factual findings are based in part on information received from the three eyewitnesses who are not employed by or agents of the police department and are under no business duty to report as part of the police department.

True