












Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Rebecca Cochran, University of Dayton (OH), Law, Evidence, Exam Fall 2004 Multiple Answer Solution, Mexico Today,evidence,valid response,affidavit ,perjury,admissible,FAA report,expert opinion,testify,evidence,microfilm,luggage carrier,coercive indoctrination.
Typology: Exams
1 / 20
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
On special offer
The defendant, Echostar, to support its counterclaim of fraud, wants to introduce into evidence an exhibit, printouts from a website. The printouts show what TV Mexico’s website looked like at different dates during early 2004. The exhibit would show that TV Mexico continued to advertise the “Mexico Today” program series as available to its viewers, although the contract period that TV Mexico had to broadcast the program with Echostar had already expired at the end of 2003. Thus, the series was no longer available through TV Mexico. The exhibit is accompanied by an affidavit from Molly Davis, verifying that the Internet Archive Company retrieved copies of the website from its electronic archives.
TV Mexico objects to the admission into evidence of the printouts of the website.
Which of the following is a valid response for TV Mexico to make?
[A] The website images are hearsay statements because they are being admitted for the truth of the matter asserted.
[B] The website images are hearsay and do not fall into an exception to the hearsay rule.
[C] The website printouts violate the best evidence rule.
[D] The affidavit is sufficient to satisfy authenticity requirements, but TV Mexico remains free to raise reliability concerns with the jury.
Which of these questions would the trial judge be most likely to sustain an objection to when raised in a timely manner by Olsen’s attorney?
[A] “Weren’t you terminated from your employment at Fifth Third Bank last month because they found that you were embezzling bank money?”
[B] “Isn’t it true that you were under the influence of narcotics, specifically cocaine, at the time you were taking the garbage out to the alley?”
[C] “You were convicted of perjury 12 years ago, weren’t you?”
[D] Yes, because it is a public record.
Hiram objects to Sally’s testimony. Should the trial judge permit Sally to testify?
[A] Yes, because Hiram’s statement, made to Sally, his personal secretary, constitutes an admission by a party opponent and thus may be admitted.
[B] Yes, because prior bad acts may be admitted under an exception to the general rule against admitting character evidence to show conformity.
[C] Yes, because although the acts were allegedly committed eleven years ago, they did not result in a criminal conviction at that time.
[D] No, unless Carlton can produce corroborating evidence to show that Hiram, and not another person, committed the sexual acts.
Should the trial judge let Nancy, the ER nurse’s assistant, testify?
[A] No, because Nancy is not a physician and thus cannot give an expert opinion about whether Bonnessen was conscious or unconscious.
[B] No, unless Bonnessen can convince the judge that Nancy, in her testimony, will give proper opinion testimony as a lay witness.
[C] No, because the physician-patient privilege belongs to both the patient and the caregiver; Bonnessen cannot on her own waive the privilege.
[D] No, because the dispute over Bonnessen’s state of mnind should be left to the trier of fact to resolve based upon the medical records, not Nancy’s testimony.
Which question below should have gotten Teller off his chair and to his feet to object that opposing counsel was leading the witness?
[A] During direct examination of his own client, opposing counsel asked his client: “You reside at 221 Robin Hood Lane in Pittsburgh, PA, don’t you?”
[B] During direct examination of his own client, opposing counsel asked his client: “Isn’t it true you were born on August 23, 1980?”
[C] During cross-examination of Teller’s client, opposing counsel asked Teller’s client: “You used illegal drugs during college, didn’t you?”
[D] During direct examination of his own client, opposing counsel asked his client: “Isn’t it true that you observed that the defendant never slowed down as he approached the intersection?”
On cross-examination, the defense counsel asks Wallace several questions about his limited income and lack of financial resources and suggests Wallace is testifying about the event of the train whistle in exchange for money plaintiff Parkers promised him from any recovery they may achieve.
Plaintiff Parkers now seed to introduce evidence of a statement Wallace made to the ambulance driver who was first on the scene. Wallace told the driver that the train whistle never blew.
Should the trial judge allow Wendall to give this testimony?
[A] Yes, because the testimony of reputation evidence is admissible under these circumstances to establish a character trait.
[B] Yes, because Dover’s character traits were put in issue by the Government when it pursued the assault charges against him.
[C] Yes, because the testimony is hearsay, but falls into a recognized exception for character and reputation evidence.
[D] No, because the evidence being offered through Wendall’s testimony is not relevant to any material issue in the case brought against him.
Should the trial judge permit Agent Allen to testify on these matters?
[A] Yes, because it is a prior identification and thus is non-hearsay.
[B] Yes, because it is a past recollection recorded.
[C] Yes, but only after the Hansen photo in the lineup is properly authenticated.
[D] No, because the testimony is hearsay and does not fall within an exception.
Deaver brings suit and at trial, Deaver introduces photocopies of certain records that she had copied by her assistant; these included dates of sales and prices of antiques located for other purchasers, as well as in previous dealings with Moore. The commission that appears uniformly is 20%.
The evidence that Deaver seeks to introduce is:
[A] Admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
[B] Admissible as a past recollection recorded.
[C] Admissible as a prior identification and thus not hearsay.
[D] Inadmissible because it violates the best evidence rule. P. 53 PMBR
Peterson objects to this testimony. The trial judge should:
[A] Overrule the objection because Donato’s statement is hearsay, but admissible as an excited utterance.
[B] Overrule the objection because Donato’s statement is admissible as a statement of a then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.
[C] Sustain the objection because Donato’s statement improperly implied the cause of his pain and thus cannot be admitted as a statement made for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.
[D] Sustain the objection because Donato’s statement is hearsay and not within any exception.
One day around noon, Joe Wendella received a call from the Coast Guard station at Navy Pier. He learned that one of the Wendella tour boats had collided with a large sailboat and while no one was hurt, the tour boat sank. When he heard this news, Joe Wendella hung up the phone and
[D] Deny production of the bank records because to compel them would violate valid attorney- client privilege that has not been waived
As evidence at trial, the microfilm is:
[A] Inadmissible because it would violate the best evidence rule.
[B] Admissible under the hearsay rule exception of an ancient document because it is over twenty years old.
[C] Admissible as a past recollection recorded.
[D] Admissible to prove the legal description of the property in the 1982 deed.
To establish that the expert witness is unavailable, Patzer must show:
[A] The expert witness has died.
[B] The expert witness is alive, but no longer residing within the court’s jurisdiction.
[C] The plaintiff has made all reasonable and diligent efforts to obtain the presence of the expert witness.
[D] The expert witness has left the country.
At trial, Paulette testified and described these facts. She also identified a quilt as being the quilt that she had taken to the Cleaners. She further stated in court that the quilt still retained horrible wood smoke smell that it had produced when she picked it up after Cleaners had worked on it. Paulette’s attorney offered to introduce the quilt into evidence for the purpose of having the members of the jury smell the quilt. The attorney for the Cleaners objected.
The judge should:
[A] Admit the quilt into evidence based on Paulette’s testimony.
[B] Admit the quilt into evidence but only if Paulette can present extrinsic evidence sufficient to support a finding that the quilt at trial is the quilt that she had cleaned by Cleaners.
[C] Exclude the quilt from evidence because Paulette’s testimony about the quilt has not been impeached on cross-examination.
[D] Exclude the quilt from evidence because it has limited probative value in resolving the dispute and that value would be substantially outweighed by the prejudice that will result from permitting the jury to smell the quilt.
Unfortunately, the judge at trial was singularly unimpressed with Dr. Eden and her expert testimony. After both direct and cross examination for Dr. Eden had been completed, the judge asked Dr. Eden a series of questions. The judge’s questions brought out Dr. Eden’s shabby medical credentials, an M.D. from an unaccredited medical school, and also asked other questions that tended to undermine Dr. Eden’s earlier testimony. Counsel for Dr. Werner objected to the judge’s questioning, but the judge overruled those objections. Dr. Werner’s counsel made a record of the objection and preserved the issue for appeal.
The jury found for the plaintiff Kendall and awarded him a substantial amount of damages. Dr. Werner’s counsel filed a timely appeal. The appeal is based on the assertions that the judge improperly questioned the expert witness, Dr. Eden, and the testimony elicited by those
that the tree that fell was not on his property, but was actually on the vacant lot next to his property.
At trial, Pilsen calls Wendy Witness to testify that soon after the ambulance took Pilsin away,, she saw Donnelly cutting down several trees on the vacant lot adjoining his.
Wendy Witness’s testimony is most likely to be”
[A] Admissible to show that Donnelly owned the lot.
[B] Admissible to show that Donnelly was negligent in failing to take due care of the trees.
[C] Inadmissible because evidence of subsequent remedial measures are encouraged as a matter of public policy; here, to improve public safety.
[D] Inadmissible because the evidence will not prove conclusively that Donnelly owned the lot.
Defense attorney for Davis objects to admitting this offered evidence. The trial judge should:
[A] Exclude the evidence, unless Davis was convicted of the other armed robberies.
[B] Exclude the evidence if Davis has not testified at the trial.
[C] Admit the evidence, unless the court finds that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
[D] Admit the evidence if the Government can establish by clear and convincing evidence that Davis committed the other armed robberies.
Bob Workman, an employee at Computer Re-sales, described the company’s process when a boxed computer was received for re-sale. The clerk opening the box would identify the computer and its components. Then another clerk would record this information in the inventory ledger.
Computer Re-sales wants to enter into evidence the original inventory ledger entry concerning Peterman’s computer. Workman authenticated the ledger entry. The entry indicates that the computer had a disc drive only. Peterman objects to the admission of the ledger entry into evidence.
The trial judge should find that the ledger entry is:
[A] Admissible, because it is a record of a business transaction and Workman does not have any present recollection of the transaction.
[B] Admissible, because it is a regular company practice for Computer Re-sales to record the computer components in its inventory ledger.
[C] Inadmissible as hearsay within hearsay because the employee recording computer component information into the inventory ledger has no personal knowledge of the comuter component information he was recording.
[D] Inadmissible hearsay because the absence of an entry concerning the CD drive cannot be used as proof that no CD drive was in the computer wihin the box Peterman sent to Computer Re-sales.
Therefore, the effect of the judicial notice of the fact is that:
[A] The burden of persuasion has now shifted to the defendant Rollin to prove otherwise as to the fact judicially noticed.
[B] The Government’s burden of production of evidence for the fact that judicially noticed is now satisfied.
[C] The fact judicially noticed is established beyond a reasonable doubt.
[D] The fact judicially noticed is conclusively established.
[C] The jury finds that Patterson is accurately conveying the contents of the writing.
[D] The jury finds that Patterson is inaccurately conveying the contents of the writing.
At trial, Parsons wishes to offer the fact that in the month before his dinner at the restaurant, eight other people, all in separate parties, had become ill after eating at the Lotus Room Restaurant for dinner.
If the defendant objects to this evidence, the trial judge should:
[A] Exclude the evidence because it is hearsay and it is irrelevant.
[B] Exclude the evidence, unless additional evidence is offered to show a much greater similarity between the other events and Parson’s dinner.
[C] Admit the evidence because it is relevant o show how Parsons became ill.
[D] Admit the evidence because everyone else became ill after eating the dinner, just as Parsons did.
After Simpson testifies, Judge Jemson should:
[A] Strike the testimony from the record if Judge Jemson believes that the jury would discredit the testimony.
[B] Inform the jury the Simpson testimony is being struck from the record because Judge Jemson found it questionable.
[C] Allow testimony if Simpson’s testimony is important element of Paul’s defense.
[D] Allow the testimony if Judge Jemson concludes that the Simpson testimony is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Judge: Government, please proffer what the statement Vinson allegedly made was?
Government: The statement Vinson made, which we would like to introduce is: “I can’t believe this! I allowed myself to be shot and by that good-for-nothing Dante!” the statement is a dying declaration.
Defense: Under FRE 804(b)(2), that is not a dying declaration. A dying declaration requires the maker of the statement to be unavailable, the statement be about the circumstances of the death, that the maker believe death was imminent at the time of the statement, and that the statement be made in a homicide or civil case.
Identify the statement below that most accurately describes the admissibility of Vinson’s statement:
[A] Vinson’s statement is direct evidence of Vinson’s death.
[B] The government has an affirmative obligation to offer some evidence that Vinson knew death was imminent before the judge can admit the statement into evidence.
[C] The jury will decide whether Vinson believed death was imminent; therefore, the Government has no further foundational requirements.
[D] The Government must show that Vinson died from the gunshot wound or was unavailable to testify beyond a reasonable doubt.
On cross-examination, Edwin is asked: “Isn’t it true that on the morning in question you were eating at the Old Timer Pancake House and not at the International House of Pancakes?”
[D] Inadmissible if the defendant has had no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant and the statement was made in response to a police offer’s custodial questioning.
On cross-examination, the Government asks Dalton, “Isn’t it true that you were convicted of tax fraud two years ago?”
The Government’s question is:
[A] Permitted to show that Dalton is inclined to lie.
[B] Permitted to show that Dalton is inclined to steal.
[C] Not permitted because tax fraud has insufficient similarity to the crime of attempted murder, the crime Dalton is charged with.
[D] Not permitted because the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
The Government’s evidence is:
[A] Inadmissible act propensity evidence.
[B] Admissible act propensity evidence.
[C] Admissible if the trial judge concludes a reasonable jury could, by a preponderance of the evidence believe that the three earlier incidents happened and involved the defendant as the three women described.
[D] Admissible if the trial judge is convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that the three earlier incidents happened and involved the defendant as the three women described.