Primer 2
An author filed a complaint in federal district court as required by federal law alleging copyright infringement by a corporate publisher. The corporation was incorporated and has its headquarters in the state in which the federal district court is located. Sixty-five days after filing the complaint, the author served the complaint and summons on the secretary for the president of the corporation while she was at her desk in the company headquarters. State law permits process to be served on a corporation by leaving the summons and complaint at the defendant's principal place of business with a person of suitable age and discretion who is employed there. Which of the following would likely serve as the best grounds upon which to challenge the service of process as improper? The author served the process. Federal rules generally do not permit service of process on an employee of a corporation unless the employee is an officer of the corporation or an agent appointed or authorized to receive process. State rules for service of process do not apply when the cause of action is not based on diversity jurisdiction. The service of process was untimely.
Answer choice A is correct. Service of the complaint and summons may be made by any nonparty who is at least 18 years old. Consequently, service of process by the author, who is the plaintiff in this action, was improper. Answer choice B is incorrect because, while FRCP 4 generally requires that service on a corporation in the United States be effected by delivering the summons and complaint to an officer, managing agent, general agent, or agent appointed or authorized by law to receive process, this rule also permits that service of process may be made by following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made. Answer choice C is incorrect because the federal rule that also permit that service of process may be made by following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in state court, is not restricted to diversity actions. Answer choice D is incorrect. Unless service is made in a foreign country, the summons and complaint generally must be served within 90 days after filing the complaint. Here, since the individual effected service 65 days after filing the complaint, service of process was timely.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") managed a reservoir and allocated water from the reservoir between two states. One of the states, dissatisfied with the allocation, sued the Corps in a federal district court. The other state, supporting the current allocation, intervened as a defendant and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, claiming that the United States Supreme Court should hear the matter. The federal district court properly found that the plaintiff-state was seeking relief from the Corps, not from the defendant-state. Based on this finding, the court held that the action did not involve a controversy between two states, and that the federal district court therefore retained original jurisdiction over the action. The defendant-state has challenged this ruling. Is the federal district court constitutionally required to dismiss this action because original jurisdiction lies with the Supreme Court? No, because Congress may and has denied the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over a controversy involving only one state. No, because the Constitution only requires that the Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction over a controversy involving a state. Yes, because the underlying controversy involves two states, even if the second state is not officially a party to the action. Yes, because the action involves a controversy between a state and an entity of the United States.
Answer choice A is correct. While the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. Supreme Court original jurisdiction over, among other matters, a controversy involving a state as a party, Congress may grant concurrent original jurisdiction to lower federal courts. By statute, Congress has granted federal district courts concurrent original jurisdiction over all controversies over which the Constitution granted the U.S. Supreme Court original jurisdiction, except for a controversy between two states. Since the district court properly determined that the current action was not a controversy between two states, the district court is not constitutionally required to dismiss this action. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although the U.S. Supreme Court primarily exercises appellate jurisdiction, the U.S. Constitution provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over "all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls and those in which a State shall be a party." Therefore, this answer choice is a misstatement of the law. Answer choices C and D is incorrect. The U.S. Constitution does provide that the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over, among other matters, a controversy involving a state as a party. However, the U.S. Constitution does not grant the U.S. Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over an action involving a state, an entity of United States, or action involving a controversy between a state and an entity of the United States.
A man suspected a neighbor had slashed his tires. The man wrote the neighbor a letter accusing the neighbor of slashing his tires because the man refused to remove a large pink flamingo decoration from his front yard after repeated requests from the neighbor. The man put the letter in the neighbor's mailbox. The next night, the man received a handwritten note under his door. The note admitted to slashing the tires and confirmed that the act was in retaliation for the "atrocious florescent eyesore" in the man's front yard. The note was signed with the neighbor's name. The man brought a tort action against the neighbor and intends to introduce the note received by the man into evidence at trial. The neighbor objected to the introduction of the handwritten note, claiming that it cannot be properly authenticated. How should the court rule? Admit the note as a self-authenticating document, because it was signed by the neighbor. Admit the note, because it is authenticated under the reply letter doctrine. Exclude the note, unless a handwriting expert can verify that the neighbor wrote the note. Exclude the note, because it was not signed under penalty of perjury.
Answer choice B is correct. A document may be authenticated by evidence that it was written in response to a communication, so long as it is unlikely, based on the contents, that it was written by someone other than the recipient of the first communication. In this case, the man wrote to his neighbor about his slashed tires and the decoration in his yard, and the note in response confessed to the accusation in the letter and contained specific details about the incident, as well as the neighbor's name. These facts indicate that the neighbor, the recipient of the man's letter, wrote the response. Answer choice A is incorrect because the signature does not make this reply a self-authenticating document. Answer choice C is incorrect because in this situation, a handwriting expert is not necessary to verify that the letter was written by the neighbor, as the reply letter doctrine applies to authenticate the note. Answer choice D is incorrect because it is not necessary for the note to be signed under the penalty of perjury to be authenticated.
The plaintiff sued the driver of a car for damages resulting from the driver's failure to yield the right of way to the plaintiff. The driver obtained a photograph taken by a witness to the accident that showed that, contrary to the plaintiff's claim, there was no damage to the right side of the plaintiff's car. At the plaintiff's deposition, the driver's attorney showed the plaintiff this photograph and the plaintiff acknowledged that it was an accurate depiction of the plaintiff's car immediately after the accident. The attorney then asked if the photograph showed any damage to the right side of the plaintiff's car. The plaintiff replied, "No, the picture shows no damage." At trial, the driver's attorney seeks to introduce the plaintiff's deposition testimony regarding the lack of damage to the right side of the plaintiff's car. The plaintiff has objected. Is the court likely to admit the plaintiff's deposition testimony? Yes, because photographs are not subject to the original document rule. Yes, because the plaintiff admitted to the lack of damage at his deposition. No, because the photograph must be introduced into evidence. No, because the plaintiff's out-of-court statement is hearsay.
Answer choice B is correct. Because the plaintiff's deposition statement is based on the contents of the photograph, it is subject to the original document rule, which generally requires that the photograph be introduced or its unavailability be satisfactorily explained. This rule does not, however, require the production of the photograph where its contents are established by an admission, at a deposition, of the party against whom the evidence is offered. Answer choice A is incorrect because the original document rule applies to photographs, as well as writings and recordings. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although the plaintiff's statement is subject to the original document rule, this rule does not require the production of the photograph where the contents are established by an admission of the party against whom the evidence is offered at a deposition. Answer choice D is incorrect because, while the out-of-court statement is being introduced for it truth (i.e., that the right side of the plaintiff's car suffered no damage as a result of the accident), it is admissible nonhearsary as a statement of a party opponent.
A state statute imposes a special tax on the receipts of publishers from the sale of magazines within the state. The statute exempts religious, professional, and trade magazines from this tax. The publisher of a general-interest magazine filed suit in federal court contending that the selective application of this tax was unconstitutional. Is the court likely to hold in favor of the plaintiff? Yes, because publishers enjoy greater First Amendment rights than the general public. Yes, because the selective application of the tax violates the First Amendment rights of the plaintiff. No, because unlike the federal government, a state is not confined to the exercise of specifically enumerated powers. No, because the selective application of the tax is rationally related to a legitimate purpose.
Answer choice B is correct. Due to the exemption granted to religious, professional, and trade magazines, the selective application of the tax constitutes a content-based restriction on the plaintiff's speech. As such, it is subject to strict scrutiny. Consequently, the state is unlikely to be able to establish that it has a compelling governmental interest that the selective tax system is necessary to achieve, and that this system is narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Answer choice A is incorrect because publishers do not enjoy greater First Amendment rights than the general public. A publisher is subject to a generally applied tax to the same extent as any other citizen would be. Answer choice C is incorrect because, while it is true that a state, unlike the federal government, is not confined to the exercise of specifically enumerated power, a state is subject to the constraints of the First Amendment via the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, this rule is not determinative here. Answer choice D is incorrect because, even assuming that the selective application of the tax is rationally related to a legitimate purpose, this is the incorrect standard to apply in assessing the constitutionality of this state action. Instead, because the selective application of the tax is a content-based restriction on free speech, it must instead satisfy the strict scrutiny test.
An expert witness was called by the defendant to testify in a murder trial. The expert was to testify that the defendant was not responsible for his actions due to a specific mental defect. On cross-examination, the prosecutor brought to the expert witness's attention an authoritative book on psychological conditions, judicially noted to be a reliable authority in the field. The book described the symptoms of the mental defect at issue differently than the expert witness had described them, and the prosecutor read the book's description into evidence. The prosecutor wanted the jury to be able to consider the book's description as substantive evidence, but the defendant objected that the description could be used for impeachment purposes only, and not as substantive evidence. The prosecutor further wanted to introduce the book itself into evidence; the defendant objected to this as well. Should the court allow the jury to consider the description in the book as substantive evidence, and should the book itself be introduced as evidence? The description should be considered for impeachment purposes only, and the book should not be introduced into evidence. The description should be considered as substantive evidence, and the book should not be introduced into evidence. The description should be considered as substantive evidence, and the book should be introduced into evidence. The book should be introduced into evidence, though the description may be used only for impeachment purposes.
Answer choice B is correct. Evidence such as this book, while technically hearsay, is admissible under the learned treatise exception to the hearsay rule. A statement contained in published treatises or periodicals on a subject of history, medicine, or other science or art is admissible if (i) the treatise is established as a reliable authority by the testimony of a witness, expert, or by judicial notice, and (ii) an expert relied on it during direct examination or it was brought to the expert's attention on cross-examination. If these requirements are met, the statement contained in the treatise may be read into evidence, and may be used as substantive evidence and for impeachment purposes. The treatise itself, however, is not admitted into evidence. Answer choice A is incorrect because it states that the description may be used for impeachment purposes only. Answer choices C and D are incorrect because they both indicate that the treatise may be introduced into evidence. Answer choice D is also incorrect because it states that the description may be used for impeachment purposes only.
An artist sued a filmmaker for copyright infringement and properly demanded a jury trial. The artist alleged that the filmmaker used a character created by the artist in a film. When the artist attempted to introduce drawings of the character into evidence, the filmmaker objected that the drawings were not the original copyrighted drawings. The filmmaker sought to introduce another set of drawings as the original drawings. The artist, in addition to arguing that the drawings she submitted were the original drawings, asserted that the original document rule does not apply to artwork. Who must determine whether the original document rule applies to works of art, and who must determine which of the two sets of drawings represents the original copyrighted drawings? Answers: The judge must determine whether the original document rule applies to artwork and which of the two sets of drawings represents the original copyrighted drawings. The judge must determine whether the original document rule applies to artwork and the jury must determine which of the two sets of drawings represents the original copyrighted drawings. The jury must determine whether the original document rule applies to artwork and the judge must determine which of the two sets of drawings represents the original copyrighted drawings. The jury must determine whether the original document rule applies to artwork and which of the two sets of drawings represents the original copyrighted drawings.
Answer choice B is correct. The judge as the trier of law bears the responsibility of determining whether the best evidence rule applies to works of art. The jury bears the responsibility of determining which of two works produced at trial is the original. Answer choice A incorrectly places the responsibility of determining which of two works produced at trial is the original on the judge. Answer choice C inverts the responsibilities of the two parties. Answer choice D is incorrectly places the responsibility of determining whether the best evidence rule applies to works of art on the jury
An individual who was a U.S. citizen but had permanently moved to a foreign country returned to the United States for an extended visit with relatives who lived in State A. While in State A, the individual suffered serious injuries when an amusement park ride malfunctioned. The individual filed a negligence action in federal district court seeking $95,000 against the corporation that owned the amusement park in which the ride was located. The corporation is incorporated in State B and has its principal headquarters in State A. The corporation has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Should the court grant the motion to dismiss? Yes, because the corporation is a citizen of the same state where the cause of action arose. Yes, because the individual's domicile is in a foreign country. No, because both the individual and the corporation are U.S. citizens who are not citizens of the same state. No, because the corporation is only a citizen of the state in which is incorporated.
Answer choice B is correct. When the cause of action is based on state common law rather than a federal question as is the case here, subject matter jurisdiction exists on the basis of diversity of citizenship when the plaintiff and the defendant are U.S. citizens as well as citizens of different states. Here, although the individual and the corporation are both U.S. citizens, and the corporation is a citizen of both State A where its principal headquarters is located and State B where it is incorporated, the individual is not a citizen of any U.S. state, but instead, having moved permanently to a foreign country, is domiciled in the foreign country. Therefore, there is no diversity of citizenship because the action is not between citizens of different States. Moreover, alienage jurisdiction is lacking because the individual is not an alien: the facts indicate that the individual has retained his U.S. citizenship. Consequently, subject matter jurisdiction does not exist. Answer choice A is incorrect because, unlike venue, subject matter jurisdiction does not turn on where the cause of action arose. Answer choice C is incorrect because, even though the individual and the corporation are not citizens of the same state, diversity of citizenship does not exist when, even though both the plaintiff and the defendant are U.S. citizens, one party is not a citizen of any U.S. state. Answer choice D is incorrect because a corporation is a citizen where its principal headquarters is located as well as a citizen of the state of its incorporation. In addition, the court should grant the motion to dismiss because, since the individual is not a citizen of any U.S. state, diversity jurisdiction does not exist.
A defendant is on trial for felony assault. Eleven years ago, the defendant was convicted of rape. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment and served the full term. The defendant decided to testify at his current trial for felony assault, and on cross-examination, the prosecution seeks to admit evidence of the defendant's rape conviction to impeach him. Which of the following best states the standard that must be met to determine the admissibility of this conviction? The court has discretion to exclude the conviction if the defense shows that its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The court must exclude the conviction if the defense shows that its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The conviction is admissible only if its probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect to the defendant. The conviction is admissible only if its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.
Answer choice C is correct. A criminal defendant has no obligation to testify under his right against self-incrimination. If he does, however, he is subject to cross-examination and impeachment, which can include questions about his past crimes, under certain circumstances. If more than 10 years have elapsed since the conviction or release from confinement, whichever is later, a conviction is admissible only if the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. In this case, because the defendant was released from confinement only eight years ago, this limitation does not apply. If a felony conviction from the past 10 years does not involve dishonesty or false statement and the witness is a criminal defendant, evidence of the conviction is admissible only if its probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect to the defendant. Therefore, answer choice C states the applicable standard as the defendant was released from confinement within the past 10 years and the crime, rape, does not involve dishonesty or false statement. Answer choice A is incorrect because it only applies to witnesses convicted of a crime not involving dishonesty or false statement who are not also a criminal defendant. Answer choice B is incorrect because it misstates the applicable standard and the burden on the defense. Answer choice D is incorrect because the defendant served his full three-year sentence. Therefore, he was released eight years ago and the standard for a conviction that is more than 10 years old does not apply.
In a retailer's strict products liability action against a manufacturer, the retailer sent the manufacturer a properly served interrogatory asking for information about the manufacturing process it used in making its widgets. The manufacturer replied by identifying the process patent that detailed its manufacturing process, claiming that it followed this process to manufacture its widgets. The retailer wants to admit a properly authenticated copy of the process patent into evidence to establish a possible design defect. Is the copy of the patent admissible? No, because it is hearsay not within any exception. No, because the copy of the patent violates the best evidence rule. Yes, as an adoptive admission by the manufacturer. Yes, as a public record.
Answer choice C is correct. Answers to interrogatories, which are signed and made under oath by a party to the litigation, are nonhearsay admissions. Because an interrogatory by the manufacturer included by reference the content of the identified patent, the patent will also be admissible as an adoptive admission by the manufacturer. Answer choice A is incorrect because, as an adoptive admission, the patent is nonhearsay. Answer choice B is incorrect. Even if the contents of the patent are considered to be at issue in this case, a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless there is a genuine question as to the authenticity of the original, or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate. Therefore, there is no reason on these facts that the admission of the copy of the patent would violate the best evidence rule. Answer choice D is incorrect. Although a patent could arguably fall into the public record hearsay exception, because the patent here is an adoptive admission by the manufacturer, it is nonhearsay. Therefore, no hearsay exception is necessary, and the public record hearsay exception is irrelevant.
A woman took out a loan from a large bank in order to start a new business. After she missed several payments, the bank sued the woman to collect the outstanding balance. In pre-trial settlement negotiations, the woman explained that she was unable to make the payments because her business was struggling. She noted that she should have listened to her boyfriend, who believed that debt would be the downfall of the country and that people should do whatever necessary to destroy big banks. The parties eventually reached a compromise whereby the bank would extend the time to repay the loan, but would retain the right to sue under the original terms if the woman missed any payments. When the woman failed to make the payments, the bank properly reinstituted its suit against the woman. At trial, the woman claimed that the loan contract was invalid because she was heavily medicated at the time she made the contract, and was thus incompetent. The woman has called her boyfriend to the stand to testify to these facts. The bank seeks to introduce the woman's statements about her boyfriend made during the earlier settlement negotiations. Are the woman's statements about her boyfriend likely to be admitted? No, because the statements were made during settlement negotiations. No, because the statements are inadmissible hearsay. Yes, because the statements prove bias or prejudice of a witness. Yes, because the negotiations at issue resulted in a settlement agreement.
Answer choice C is correct. Statements made during settlement negotiations are inadmissible to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim. Such statements may be admitted for other purposes, however, such as to prove the bias or prejudice of a witness. In this case, the bank intends to introduce the woman's statements about her boyfriend to show his bias against banks. Accordingly, they are admissible even though they were made during a settlement negotiation. Answer choice A is incorrect because statements made during a settlement negotiation may be admitted to show the bias of a witness, as in this case. Answer choice B is incorrect because the woman's statements are admissible non-hearsay as statements by a party to the action. Answer choice D is incorrect because, for purposes of determining whether a negotiation statement is admissible, it is irrelevant whether the parties successfully reached an agreement.
A federal statute generally makes age discrimination in the hiring or firing of employees illegal and provides for a civil action for damages against the offending employer. The statute applies to public as well as private employers and contains a clear statement of Congressional intent to abrogate state immunity. In federal court, an employee sued her employer, a state agency, for violation of this statute and sought relief in the form of retroactive money damages. The state agency moved to dismiss the action as constitutionally prohibited. The state employee conceded that the age discrimination that she experienced was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Should the court dismiss the action on constitutional grounds? No, because Congress was acting pursuant to its power under the Commerce Clause. No, because Congress was acting pursuant to its power under the Enabling Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yes, because the Eleventh Amendment prevents the recovery of retroactive money damages by citizens against a state agency. Yes, because the strict scrutiny test must be met for there to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Answer choice C is correct. The Court has interpreted the Eleventh Amendment as barring unconsented private suits against a state for retroactive money damages. Congress may abrogate state immunity from liability if it is clearly acting to enforce rights created by the remedial provisions of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments (i.e., the Civil War Amendments), and does so expressly. Here, Congress is not remedying conduct that violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as age is not a suspect or quasi-suspect class and thus a state's age-based discrimination merely needs a rational basis. That is why answer choice B is incorrect. Answer choice A is incorrect because Congress cannot abrogate state sovereign immunity under the Commerce Clause. Answer choice D is incorrect because the Equal Protection Clause is not implicated. The federal statute at issue applies to all employers equally, whether public or private. Regardless, answer choice D is a misstatement of the law because rational basis review applies in equal protection cases that do not involve a suspect or quasi-suspect class.
Due to the scarcity of post offices in low-income inner-city communities, the few post offices in the communities suffered severe overcrowding, slowing postal service to and from these communities significantly. To address the problem, Congress enacted a statute authorizing the conversion of old, uninhabited buildings in these communities that were owned by the government into post offices. A historical society in one of the affected communities wants to stop Congress from converting the buildings into post offices because they were categorized as historical buildings of cultural value to the community. Is the statute constitutional? Answers: No, because establishing postal services is a power reserved to the states. No, because the statute violates the Takings Clause. Yes, under Congress's property power. Yes, because the properties will be converted for a public use.
Answer choice C is correct. The Federal Property Clause of Article IV, Section 3 gives Congress the "power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." In addition, there is no express limit on Congress's power to dispose of property owned by the United States. Here, Congress has the power to make all needful rules respecting the old buildings owned by the government, including converting them into post offices. Answer choice A is incorrect because it misstates the law. Congress, not the states, has the exclusive power "to establish post offices and post roads" under Article I, Section 8, Clause 7. Answer choice B is incorrect because the Takings Clause does not apply when the government is putting property owned by the government to a use that does not rise to the level of a regulatory taking of surrounding property. Answer choice D is incorrect because there is no limitation under Article IV, Section 3, that Congress can only use properties owned by the government for a public use.
A state department of education has created a fund of a specific amount to be distributed among the public and private elementary schools within the state to provide instructional programs in mathematics. The amount of funds available to a school will be based on the number of students attending the school and the number of schools that elect to receive funds. Concerned that the expenditure of funds will benefit parochial schools at the expense of public schools, parents of public-school children have filed suit against the state secretary of education in federal district court seeking an injunction to block the distribution of these funds to parochial schools as a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as made applicable to the state via the Fourteenth Amendment. How is the court likely to rule in this suit? For the parents, because direct state aid to religious institutions is prohibited by the Establishment Clause. For the parents, because, while aid to religious institutes of higher learning is permitted, any state aid to parochial elementary and secondary schools is prohibited by the Establishment Clause. Against the parents, because the parents lack standing to bring this action. Against the parents, because the funds will be distributed according to religiously neutral criteria and used to purchase secular materials.
Answer choice D is correct. Governmental financial assistance to religious institutions is permitted if the aid is secular in nature; used only for secular purposes; and, when the aid is distributed among secular and religious institutions, the distribution criteria are religiously neutral. Here, the state is distributing funds, which are secular in nature. The funds are to be use for the secular purpose of acquiring instructional materials in mathematics, and the funds are to be distributed on the basis of the number of students in a school and the number of schools that elect to receive the aid, which are religiously neutral criteria. Consequently, the court is likely to uphold this distribution of state funds to parochial elementary schools. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while direct financial aid to religious institutions was at one time forbidden, this is no longer the case. Such aid does not automatically violate the Establishment Clause, but is permitted if the above criteria are met. Answer choice B is incorrect because, while parochial elementary and secondary schools were at one time considered to be so pervasively sectarian that direct aid to them was not permitted, that is no longer the case. Answer choice C is incorrect because the parents do have a concrete interest in the outcome of this case.
A police officer observed a woman threatening to hit a young girl. The woman was waving her arms around, standing very close to the girl, and screaming. The officer arrested her for disturbing the peace and making violent threats. Immediately after arresting the woman and placing her in handcuffs, the officer searched the woman's purse, which she had been carrying on her shoulder. Inside, the officer found an illegal weapon. The woman moved to suppress the weapon. Will the court likely grant the woman's motion? Yes, because the officer did not have a warrant. Yes, because the officer did not have cause to arrest the woman. No, because the officer may search any personal property on an arrestee's person. No, because the officer properly searched the purse.
Answer choice D is correct. The right to search incident to a lawful arrest includes the right to search pockets of clothing and to open containers found inside the pockets. The right also extends to containers "immediately associated" with the person (such as a shoulder bag or purse). In this case, the officer was legally entitled to search the woman's purse incident to her lawful arrest for disturbing the peace and making violent threats. Accordingly, the woman's motion to suppress will be denied. Answer choice A is incorrect because a warrant is not required to search containers "immediately associated" with the person pursuant to a search incident to a lawful arrest. Answer choice B is incorrect. A police officer has a right to arrest without an arrest warrant if either a felony or a misdemeanor is committed in his presence. The woman's conduct and threats to the young girl constituted sufficient cause for the officer to lawfully arrest her. Answer choice C is incorrect. The police may not search all personal property on an arrestee's person; rather, the scope of the personal property searched may be limited. For example, the police may not search a cell phone carried by an arrestee pursuant to a search incident to a lawful arrest.
A man was on trial for bank robbery and felony murder. The prosecution alleged that while the man went into a bank wearing a ski mask and wielding a gun, his getaway driver waited in a car outside. The man shot a bank patron during the robbery then got into the getaway car with the money. In the high-speed chase that followed, the getaway car crashed and the getaway driver died. At trial, the defense called a bartender who talked to the getaway driver the night before the robbery. The bartender testified that the getaway driver had told him that because the man refused to join him in the robbery unless they used a fake gun, the getaway driver had given him a real gun to use and told him it was fake. The court ruled that the statement was admissible as a statement against the getaway driver's interest. The prosecution now wishes to call a woman to testify that the getaway driver had told her a week before the robbery that the man had purchased a gun and was planning on robbing a bank. Is the woman's testimony admissible? No, because the getaway driver had no opportunity to explain or deny the statement. No, because the getaway driver's statement was not made under oath. Yes, under a hearsay exception for an unavailable declarant. Yes, to impeach the getaway driver.
Answer choice D is correct. When a hearsay statement is admitted into evidence, the credibility of the declarant may be attacked (and, if attacked, supported) by any evidence that would be admissible if the declarant had testified as a witness. Here, if the getaway driver had testified in court that he had given the man a fake gun, the woman would have been able to offer testimony of his prior inconsistent statement to impeach him. Therefore, the woman's testimony is proper impeachment evidence of a hearsay declarant, and is admissible for that purpose.
Pursuant to a federal statute, a taxpayer filed a complaint in federal district court against the United States for civil damages. The claim arose from an IRS employee's alleged reckless and intentional disregard of the U.S. Tax Code and related regulations in attempting to collect federal taxes from the taxpayer. The complaint and summons were personally delivered by a 25-year-old relative of the taxpayer to the U.S. attorney for the district in which the action has been filed. The U.S. attorney has challenged the service of process as insufficient. Should the court find that the service was insufficient? No, because process was served by an adult relative of the taxpayer. No, because process was personally delivered to the U.S. attorney for the district in which the action has been filed. Yes, because process was not served on the IRS or its employee. Yes, because process was not also served on the U.S. Attorney General.
Answer choice D is correct. When the United States is a defendant in a civil action, service must be made on the U.S. Attorney General as well as the U.S. attorney for the district in which the action has been filed. A party must send a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the U.S. Attorney General. In this case, although the taxpayer's relative properly served the U.S. attorney, the relative failed to mail a copy of the summons and complaint to the U.S. Attorney General by registered or certified mail. Therefore, service of process was insufficient. Answer choice A is incorrect because the mere fact that the taxpayer's relative, as a nonparty who is at least 18 years old, was entitled to serve process is not enough to make his attempted service sufficient. Answer choice B is incorrect. Although service must be made on the U.S. attorney for the district in which an action against the United States has been filed, service must also be made on the U.S. Attorney General. Answer choice C is incorrect. While the complaint is based on actions taken by an IRS employee, the action was filed against the United States only. Consequently, neither the IRS nor its employee must be served.
