Evidence Final for 2Ls

The federal rules state that an attorney may impeach her own witness, even on direct, if the judge has found the witness to be a hostile witness. In light of this, Answers C and D are clearly incorrect.B is wrong as Clyde's attorney is not seeking to refresh Bonnie's memory, but to admit testimony from the preliminary hearing in order to impeach her.

Recall that an out-of-court statement offered for the purpose of proving knowledge on the part of the listener is not deemed objectionable hearsay. Furthermore, the evidence may be admitted as an admission by silence on the part of Dumaine. In light of the correct answer, A is clearly wrong.B is wrong. The state of mind exception only applies if an out-of-court statement is introduced in an attempt to prove the declarant's state of minD) Here, that is clearly not the case, making this exception inapplicable.C is wrong. The business record exception does not apply to phone calls made during work hours, only to work product that is generated in the course of business (i.e., charts or documents).

Here, we have classic hearsay, namely, an out-of-court declaration offered for its truth, and there is no applicable exception that may apply. In light of this, D is correct.A is wrong as a dying declaration requires that the declaration concern the immediate circumstance causing Thornton's deadly injury. (Thornton stating that the truck that hit him ran a red light, for example.)B is also wrong. Excited utterance only applies to a situation where the statement is given immediately after seeing the startling event. Here, too much time has clearly passeD)C is incorrect. First, it is unclear whether the EMT shares doctor/patient privilege with Thornton. Even if she did, the privilege would only extend to info given in the course of Thornton's treatment. Thornton's statement concerning the elderly man's accident is well beyond the course of his treatment and, therefore, unprotected.

The testimony relating to the showing of pain in a witness falls within the hearsay exception of a present physical impression. In light of this, Answer A is incorrect as we are within a hearsay exception.B is wrong. The testimony is not offered to show that Kendra suffered a sprained muscle, which would require an expert opinion, but rather to show that Kendra was in pain.C is wrong. This statement can be admitted to show Kendra's current physical condition, even without a showing of medical evidence to support it.

By definition, impeachment is the casting of an adverse reflection on the truth or veracity of a witness. Impeachment can come during cross-examination, or can occur by putting another witness on the stand to testify counter to the first witness's testimony (as is happening here).A is wrong since credibility of a witness is always an issue. Furthermore, the proposed evidence offered by the second witness is clearly relevant, as it is addresses a matter at issue in the case.C is wrong. We are not dealing with a collateral matter.Note: Impeachment based on a collateral matter is generally not permissible, wherein collateral matters are those that are not relevant.Here, however, we are clearly dealing with a matter that is of great relevance.D is wrong since impeachment evidence does not need to completely contradict a prior statement. It only needs to cast doubt as to the prior witness's truth or credibility.

Bruce's privilege to prevent his ex-wife from testifying is applicable if he confided in her while they were marrieD) Note that both spouses have the privilege to not disclose and either spouse can also prevent the other person from disclosing. Further note that this only applies if the communication was made while they were still married, and in reliance upon that confidential married relationship. Divorce does not serve to terminate this privilege retroactively.A is wrong for failing to address Bruce's privilege to prevent his ex-wife from testifying.B is incorrect. Spousal privilege does, in fact, extend to civil cases. Note that when dealing with criminal cases the concept at hand is spousal immunity, wherein a married person may not be compelled to testify against his or her spouse, and vice versA) Spousal immunity, however, stops upon divorce or annulment.D is incorrect for stating an answer that is too broaD) Bruce cannot prevent his ex-wife from being called as a witness at trial. All that Bruce can do is prevent his ex-wife from testifying relating to matters that he revealed during their marriage.

Here, Gertrude's statement is not being offered for truth, but rather to show the effect on Strauss, regarding his assumption of risk. Thus, in a negligence case, where knowledge of a danger is at issue, a statement like this can be admitted for the very limited reason of showing knowledge or notice on the part of a listener. The statement is not hearsay because it is not offered to prove that it was, in fact, dangerous for Strauss to start walking across the bridge without a hard hat.A is the right outcome for the wrong reason, as it states that this is not hearsay simply because Gertrude is testifying. This is meaningless as any out-of-court statement offered for its truth is hearsay in most jurisdictions, regardless of whether the declarant is testifying. The fine point you MUST pick up on here is NOT the fact that the declarant (Gertrude) herself is testifying, but rather the fact that the statement is not being offered for its truth.B is wrong for stating that we are dealing with hearsay, which is wrong since Gertrude's statement is not being offered for its truth. The category of res gestae exceptions to the hearsay rule includes the following: 1) present state of mind; 2) excited utterances; 3) present sense impression; and 4) declarations of physical condition. Gertrude's testimony fails to fall under any of these.C incorrectly characterizes the testimony as hearsay. Furthermore, even if the statement washearsay, the present state of mind exception is not applicable. Recall that the present state of mind exception allows for admissibility of evidence regarding a declarant's existing state of mind at the time of controversy only when the declarant's state of mind is directly in issue and material to the controversy. Here, Gertrude's state of mind at the time of Strauss's injury has no relevance to the matter at hanD)

Here, we clearly have inadmissible hearsay as the transcript of Blathe's grand jury testimony is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein and Blathe is unavailable for cross-examination. Furthermore, this testimony does not fall within a hearsay exception.A is wrong for stating an inapplicable hearsay exception. The former testimony exception only applies to testimony of an unavailable witness, which was given at another hearing and taken in accordance with law, if there is a sufficient similarity of parties and issues, and both parties in the prior hearing had a chance to develop cross-examination plans of attack. Recall that grand jury proceedings do not afford an opportunity for cross-examination, making this exception inapplicable.B is incorrect because Blathe's testimony is clearly hearsay and does not fall within any exception.C is incorrect. Rehabilitation of a witness (Carla) can only be accomplished by using prior consistent testimony statements of that witness, not statements of another witness that would have been consistent. An introduced statement from Carla could be admitted both to bolster her testimony and as substantive evidence of the truth of its contents.

Kylie's attorney is free to introduce the remaining information contemporaneously with Samir's introduction based on a fairness argument.Note: This is one of the few times that a FAIRNESS-based argument will, in fact, be a correct answer. Remember the particulars of this fact pattern, as generally speaking fairness based answers are incorrect.A is incorrect. It is not necessary for Kylie's attorney to lay any sort of foundation. A fairness argument allows this to just come in.C is incorrect because the standard here is one based on fairness, not relevance.D is incorrect. This is permissible hearsay under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

Here, we have a clear case of hearsay as this is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, which does not fall within any of the hearsay exceptions.A is incorrect. A present sense impression applies only to situations in which a witness expresses his perception of an event, either while it is happening or immediately after. Here, the time frame is too removeD)B is incorrect. Regardless of the statement's relevance, it is hearsay not within an exception to the hearsay rule.C is incorrect. Generally speaking, circumstantial evidence is admissible unless there is a reason for excluding the evidence. Here, no reason is stated.

Here, we have a hearsay statement that falls within the declaration of intent to do a future act exception. Therefore, it is permissible. In light of this, Answer D is incorrect.B is wrong. A verbal act is an out-of-court statement that when spoken has a legal significance. Here, we are not dealing with a verbal act.C is wrong since the trip could provide an alibi defense and, therefore, is deemed relevant to the case at hanD)Louis is helping Emmett change his oil. As Emmett is jacking up the car, the jack collapses crushing Louis under the engine block. Louis's wife sues Emmett for wrongful death for $10 million dollars. Emmett seeks to testify that he had a conversation with Louis's wife in which she said, "Pay the bills and set me up with a condo in South Beach and I won't sue." Her attorney objects. How should a judge rule on the testimony?A) Inadmissible, because it is hearsay.B) Inadmissible, because it was an offer of compromise.C) Admissible, because it falls under an exception to the hearsay rule since it is a statement against interest.D) Admissible, because it is relevant to show that Louis's wife intended to blackmail Emmett into setting her up with a condo, since she really didn't have an applicable claim to sue on.The evidence here is deemed an admission that is made by, and offered against, a party. This makes Answer A clearly incorrect. Answer C is wrong as a statement against interest is not applicable, since Louis's wife is here to testify. Answer D could possibly be found to be relevant, but it can also be viewed as an offer to compromise. Under a public policy analysis, an offer to compromise or settle a case is generally viewed as beneficial, since it cuts down on nasty court battles, the court's time etc . . .

Since we are dealing with a criminal case, the accused is free to introduce character evidence to support a finding that she acted in accordance with her character. Therefore, Answers C and D are wrong for misstating the law.A is wrong. The mere fact that evidence is not hearsay cannot be a reason to admit it.

Mindy's statement is hearsay, as it is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserteD) It is admissible, however, under a hearsay exception: namely, the former testimony exception. Under this rule, prior testimony of an unavailable witness (dead Mindy) from a deposition taken in accordance with the law, is admissible in a subsequent trial as long as there is a sufficient similarity of parties and issues discussed, such that the parties had an opportunity to develop a cross-examination during the deposition. In light of this hearsay exception, the present testimony is permissible.B is incorrect. This is not a dying declaration, as Mindy did not believe that her death was imminent, nor did her statements concern the cause or circumstancesof what Mindy believed to be an impending death.C is incorrect. The former testimony rule does not require that a statement be made in court to qualify. A deposition falls within the recognized types of declaration.D is incorrect. The defendant's attorney does not need to have the opportunity to cross-examine Mindy at trial, but only to have had an opportunity to develop Mindy's testimony at the prior proceeding (i.e., the deposition).

Jeanette's testimony would be deemed hearsay if she tries to offer it as prove that Carry stole the body scrub samples and, thus, inadmissible. By definition, hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserteD) Here, Jeanette's statement is within the definition of hearsay, no exceptions to the hearsay rule apply, and the statement is inadmissible. Note: The statement against interest exception to the hearsay rule applies to statements from a person who is unavailable as a witness and are made against that person's pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interest In the present case, we are not dealing with a statement against interest of the declarant Kara, regardless of the fact that Kara may be deemed unavailable (as she is refusing to testify). The statement of Kara in the present case is against the interest of Catty.Impeachment refers to the undermining of a believed truthfulness of a witness, which shows that a witness has (on another occasion) made statements that are inconsistent with a material part of her present testimony. Here, Kara is merely stating that she does not recall seeing Catty steal or noticing any body-scrub samples missing from the store, and has not made a contradictory statement in a prior proceeding. Generally speaking, Kara's testimony directed toward a lack of memory will generally not be considered to be an inconsistent statement. B is a potentially correct answer (depending on the jurisdiction) if a court believes that the witness is deliberately being evasive in her testimony. Note, however, that D is a better answer that addresses all jurisdictions and is, therefore, the correct answer to the present problem.C is incorrect. Jeanette's testimony is clearly relevant as it tends to make the existence of any consequential facts to the determination of an action more probable than it would be without that evidence. Even though this evidence is relevant, it runs afoul of the hearsay rules and, therefore, cannot be admitteD)A is wrong as a statement against interest, because the statement was not made by Catty, thereby, making the statement against interest exception inapplicable.

Alec is free to authenticate Julie's voice if he is now familiar with it, as voice authentication can be by any person, as long as they are familiar with the original voice.B is wrong. An ordinary non-expert can freely authenticate a voice as long as they are initially familiar with it. An expert witness is only required in situations dealing with highly technical or scientific subjects.C is incorrect. By definition, hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of a matter asserteD) Here, Alec is not going to be testifying to an out-of-court statement and is solely testifying on whether a recording heard in court is Julie's voice.D is incorrect since Alec's only need is to be familiar with Julie's voice in order to testify. When he acquired that familiarity, is meaningless.

Here, the police officer is the only person without: 1) personal familiarity with Carl's handwriting, 2) a basis for forming an evaluative opinion of the handwriting derived from specialized knowledge; or 3) a particular fact-finding function, such as that assigned to the jury.A and B are incorrect. An expert witness or the jury can decide on the genuineness of a writing sample when presented with the question of whether or not it is a forgery. Note that the police officer is neither an expert witness nor a trier of fact, making Answer C incorrect.D is incorrect. A lay person with familiarity of Carl's handwriting can be called upon to testify whether the handwriting in question is a forgery.

Generally speaking, a Dead Man Act provides that an interested party, or their successor in interest, cannot testify to a communication with the deceased person when that testimony is offered against the representative or successor in interest of the deceaseD) Here, Nick is neither a representative, nor a successor in interest of Jen (e.g., an executor, administrator or heir). Therefore, Nick is not a protected party for purposes of the Dead Man Act. Additionally, Ramon's testimony is not being offered against a representative or successor-in-interest for Jen. The Dead Man Act is inapplicable.A is partially correct, but for the wrong reason. While the Dead Man Act applies only to civil cases, the simple fact that there is a civil action does not instantly result in the applicability of a Dead Man Act. As set forth in the correct answer,the inapplicability of the Dead Man Act relates to the absence a protected party.B is wrong. Regardless of the fact that Ramon is a interested party, the Dead Man Act requires both an interested part and a protected party. As set forth in the correct answer, Nick is not a protected party.D is incorrect for stating that the Dead Man Act does not apply to civil cases. In reality, the Dead Man Act ONLY applies to civil cases, not criminal cases.

Here, we have an admission which is non-hearsay under the federal rules. By definition, an admission is a statement that amounts to a prior acknowledgment by a party to a relevant action or fact in issue. Such a statement would ordinarily be deemed hearsay, but a court will permit its introduction on the theory that if the party said or did something that now turns out to be inconsistent with her contentions at trial, she should be stopped from preventing the earlier statement's admission into evidence.A is incorrect. It is impossible to impeach a witness before they have testifieD) Here, Summer and Ryan have yet to present their case, and Summer has not yet testified, making her impeachment impossible.C is incorrect. Lack of personal knowledge does not absolutely result in the exclusion of a party's admissions.Note: Summer may try to discredit the statement during Ryan's case in chief, on the basis that she lacked any knowledge when the statement was made. The introduction of the statement cannot, however, be absolutely preventeD)D is incorrect. Whether the party knew they were speaking to a potential trial opponent at the time of the admission, has no bearing on the statement's admissibility by a party-opponent.

Here, we have an admission of a party-opponent which is admissible under the federal rules. By definition, an admission is a statement made or an act done that amounts to a prior acknowledgment by one of the parties to a relevant action or fact. Note: An admission statement need not be against an interest at the time that it is made. In the present situation, the statement of a bystander is being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted (namely, that Bear failed to properly fix the brakes) and would ordinarily be inadmissible. However, this statement was made by Bear himself while working as an agent for the dealership in regards to a matter within the scope of Bear's duties. Therefore, the introduction of the statement, as an admission by a party-opponent relating to the negligence in the repair of the brakes, is admissible.A is wrong. Bear's statement is admissible against the dealership as a vicarious admission.B is wrong because it is irrelevant to the issue of whether the bystander's testimony is admissible. Boyd's failure to stop has no relation to Bear's admission of the bystander's statement.C is wrong. The statement against interest exception to the hearsay rule only applies when the declarant is not available as a witness. Bear is available as a witness. Furthermore, a statement is admissible as an admission by a party-opponent even if not against interest when made. This means that Bear's against interest admission is admissible even if it does not negatively effect the dealership at the time that it was made.

Testimony of Officer Copper is admissible. Since Kirsten's statements were made while she thought death was imminent, they qualify under the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule. Statements regarding the cause of death (or potential cause of death) are admissible, under the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule, when faced with a statement (by a now unavailable declarant) made while the declarant believed she was in danger of imminent death;Note: The actual death of the declarant is not absolutely necessary, only fear of imminent death at the time the declarant made the statement in question. Under the dying declaration rule, the declarant does not need to be dead at trial, just unavailable for questioning. In light of this, Answer A is clearly incorrect.B is incorrect for stating the traditional rule of dying declaration, wherein a dying declaration was only applicable in homicide cases. The federal rules, unlike the traditional rule, allows declaration in both civil cases and homicide prosecutions.C is incorrect. Kirsten's statement is not awarded protection under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, as a present sense impression relates to a comment made while watching a non-serious event that is neither shocking, nor exciting. Here, getting run over by a car is clearly shocking and exciting.

The testimony is only admissible if Stern can be found to be an expert in accident reconstruction such as this, regardless of his racing mechanic backgrounD) When faced with a situation where technical or other specialized knowledge is required to render an opinion, a court will only allow expert testimony and will prevent testimony from a layperson. Experts require a showing of special knowledge or expertise in the facts at hanD) Since Stern is going to testify about the speed of the vehicle based on the spin of the wheels, he is acting in the capacity of an expert. To testify as an expert, Stern musty possess special knowledge regarding accident reconstruction. Being a racing mechanic is probably not enough and, unless Stern is found to be an expert, his testimony is not acceptable.A is incorrect. If Stern is not found to be an expert in accident reconstruction, his opinion is just an opinion and not the testimony of an expert. Opinion is not admissible in the present case.B is incorrect. Again, unless Stern is an expert, his opinion based on the personal observation of the spinning wheels will not be permitted to come into the case.D is incorrect because the presence of a witness at the scene of events to which his testimony relates need not be corroborated by another witness.

Amita's answer is unresponsive to the question asked and the court should strike it. When dealing with an unresponsive answer, the examining counsel can strike, but the opposing counsel CANNOT. Here Davidson's attorney asked a pointed question requiring a detailed answer. Amita, in return, answered the question but added additional info not requested (i.e., was unresponsive). Since Davidson's attorney asked the question, she is free to motion to strike the unresponsive portion of Amita's response.B is wrong for two reasons. First, Amita's comment regarding the speed of the cars should be struck as unresponsive, even if Amita was a skilled expert on vehicle speeD) Furthermore, Amita's response as a pedestrian could be permissible to show the speed; a lay person is free to provide an estimate as to vehicle speed so long as one can establish that the lay person has some understanding and experience regarding relative speeds of vehicles. If we can establish that Amita has this experience, testimony directed to speed of the vehicle would be permissible.C is incorrect for misstating the "opening the door" concept. "Opening the door" relates to one who introduces evidence on a subject. A defendant or plaintiff cannot complain if their adversary goes on to offer more evidence on the same subject, or questions the witness on the same subject (absent an objection related to something other than relevance), if that defendant or plaintiff originally introduced the subject during their own line of questions. The motion to strike is based solely on the unresponsive answer; not based on Keystone's attorney opening the door.D is incorrect as a prejudicial answer that was non-responsive is NEVER the basis for a motion to strike. While most examining attorneys will strike an answer as unresponsive because it is prejudicial to their side, the move to strike an unresponsive answer is based solely on the unresponsive nature of the answer and not on the prejudicial factors associated with it.

The state court will unlikely take judicial notice of a Polish law, as taking judicial notice of a foreign law is unlikely.A and B are deemed notorious facts (facts known by the community) and are permissible.C is a manifest fact that can easily be verified by using easily obtained sources that are readily accessible and verifieD) Both manifest and notorious facts are appropriate for judicial notice, and under the federal rules.Note: If a party requests notice of these facts, a court MUST take notice.

Joe's testimony will not be admitted as it offers no probative value related to a material issue in the case (i.e., whether Bobby, Jr. is actually a "smelly alcoholic"). At best, Joe's testimony offers up the fact that Bobby is heroic and brave, but does not relate to the "smelly" or "alcoholic" claim made by the Somerville Daily Mail.A is incorrect. Character evidence can only be admitted when a person's character is directly an issue, but the evidence must be relevant to the particular character,traits in issue (i.e., smelliness and alcoholism).B is incorrect for the same reason as Answer A) In order for evidence to be admissible, the evidence must be relevant.D is incorrect because a court will allow proof of specific instances of a person's conduct in situations where their character is directly in issue.

The testimony sought is both relevant and admissible as admissible evidence is such that it tends to make the existence of a material fact more probable or less probable than it would be without that evidence. This question will make it less or more probably that Hudson was the dog that bit Marshal, making this evidence relevant. Relevant evidence is admissible unless there is some rule against its admission (e.g., hearsay). Here, there is no relevant rule preventing it.A is wrong because character evidence relates to human traits, not to character traits of animals.B is incorrect since the direct examination was related to the dog that bit Marshal, and this question is clearly related to that same issue. A party can cross-examine on any matter that came out during the direct examination, or any inference drawn from a matter that came out on direct examination. The inference, here, was that Hudson was the dog who bit Marshal. On cross examination, Micah's attorney is simply trying to show that it was not Hudson, as Hudson has a gentle demeanor.C is wrong since the simple mention of the dog on direct does not mean that anything dog related can be brought up on cross examination. On cross examination, the questions must be relevant and related to the matter brought out during direct examination.

When suing for personal injuries, a patient cannot invoke the doctor/patient privilege as the patient has put his personal injury at issue in the case.A is wrong, even though it is usually the patient who decides when to invoke the doctor/patient privilege. As mentioned, the privilege is not applicable once the patient, has put his personal injury at issue through suit and cannot, therefore, prevent the introduction of personal injury information form Dr. Vigus.B is wrong. Dr. Vigus's testimony is relevant since the evidence she has to offer may determine whether an action of fact in question is more probable than it would be without her evidence. In other words, Dr. Vigus's testimony would tend to help ascertain if Barnard did, in fact, receive a back injury from the accident.D is incorrect. The doctor/patient privilege does not only stem from a patient and existing physician relationship. It stems from any patient/doctor examination, regardless of whether the physician was the patient's doctor before the exam.

The jeans are admissible as relevant, as they were offered in an unobjectionable manner that is not in violation of one of the rules of evidence. As the jeans make it more probable that Jack committed the murder; they are relevant and admissible.B is incorrect since spousal immunity or privilege only applies to prevent the forcing of a spouse to testify against the other in a criminal proceeding. Based on the facts, that is clearly not the case. The marital communications privilege does protect statements made between married partners in confidence, but here we have no communications between married partners. Additionally note that these privileges are testimonial privileges, which probably would not prevent the casual turning over of evidence from Mrs. Ripper when asked by the police for Jack's jeans.C is incorrect. The jeans cannot be viewed as a statement under the hearsay rules, and the hearsay rules only apply to statements offered for the truth that are made outside of court.D is wrong for two reasons. First, this privilege against self-incrimination only applies to testimony, not the handing over of evidence. Second, the pair of jeans turned over by Mrs. Ripper does not incriminate her, but rather incriminates Jack.

Here, Henry's credibility was never an issue, so there is no reason to allow Cruz to testify regarding Henry's credibility. Bolstering a person's credibility is only permissible when the credibility of a person has been questioned via an impeachment of that person.B is incorrect. There appears to be no hearsay issue based on the given facts. By definition, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of a matter asserteD) Here, Cruz would not be testifying to an out-of-court statement, but rather to Cruz's known opinion of Henry.C is wrong. A witness's credibility can be supported (or attacked) based on opinion evidence regarding the witness's honesty. If Henry's honesty was under attack, Cruz's opinion could be introduced into evidence.D is incorrect since a witness's reputation for truthfulness can, in fact, be introduced into a civil case for impeachment purposes. It is character that generally cannot be introduced into a civil case, unless character itself is in issue in the case.

Here, we do have a potential hearsay problem, but the FAA report falls clearly within the public records exception to the hearsay rule. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserteD) The public records exception to the hearsay rule states that records, or reports from a public agency, are admissible if they set forth: 1) the activities of the office or agency; 2) matters observed pursuant to a duty imposed by law or 3) factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law in civil actions, and against the government in criminal cases. Here, the FAA report can be viewed as hearsay as it is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserteD) However, we are dealing with the result of an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, contained within a public agency compiled report, allowing applicability of the public agency exception.B is incorrect. The FAA report can come in as either substantive evidence or evidence to impeach.C is incorrect. The report is admissible as a hearsay exception. The fact that the pilot cannot testify is meaningless, as it has no bearing on the fact that the report can be admitteD)D is wrong since the Best Evidence Rule does not apply to the present facts. Best evidence applies to a situation where one is proving the terms of a writing where the terms are in question, therefore, the writing itself must be supplieD) Best evidence does not apply to a situation, such as this, where the fact to be proved (material fact in the writing) exists independent of the writing. The intended fact to be proved (pilot negligence) does not depend on the FAA report for substantive support.

The photograph is not admissible unless a proper foundation is laid, such as identification by a witness that that the photos represent the accident scene. For example, a witness familiar with Easy Street would need to be called to verify the scene and lay the proper foundation.A is incorrect. Photos taken by one other than a police officer for an official report are, in fact, admissible assuming the proper foundation is laiD)B is incorrect because the photographer is not needed to authenticate the photos. Any witness familiar with the scene can authenticate.D is incorrect. The Best Evidence Rule does not apply here, as the Best Evidence Rule states that in proving the terms of a writing where the terms are material, the original writing must be produceD) The writing, here, can be viewed as the photos. Secondary evidence, under the Best Evidence Rule, is only permitted when it is shown that the original is unavailable. Here, a copy of the photo is not being offered, making the Best Evidence Rule inapplicable.

The email is admissible as evidence of Alissa's intent to go to Massachusetts on December 4th, but nothing more. By definition, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserteD) Alissa's email is an out-of-court statement, and it is being offered to prove its truth, making the email hearsay. However, an exception to the hearsay rule, namely a state of mind declaration, is applicable. Under the state of mind declaration, the email can be admitted as a showing that the declarant may have carried out the stated intent (i.e., permissible circumstantial evidence).B is wrong for applying the incorrect hearsay exception. A present sense impression is a comment made while an ordinary event is occurring, wherein the event occurring is neither exciting nor dramatic in any way. This is not the case in the present fact situation, making this exception to the hearsay rule inapplicable.C is wrong. The email is relevant, as any evidence that tends to make the existence of a material fact more probable than it would be without the evidence is deeded relevant by a court of law. Here, Alissa's location on December 4th is certainly relevant to the pending case.D is wrong in light of the correct answer, as the letter falls within the state of mind exception for the hearsay rule of law.

The court should allow the question, as it is applicable to a showing of bias or interest on the part of the witness. Such a showing tends to illustrate that Franz has a interest in lying about the case due to his bias. One can show a bias by cross-examination, extrinsic evidence or both. Since Franz is being tried for the same crime, it is correct to admit this question to show Franz's interest in the pending case.A is wrong. Any witness can be impeached, and evidence introducing facts relating to truthfulness or veracity of the witness is always allowed to come in.C is wrong. A showing that one has convicted a crime is not a prerequisite for a showing of bias or interest evidence. Showing that a person has been convicted of a crime or felony, is an entirely separate way to impeach the witness (or show bias).D is wrong since answering the question does not incriminate Franz, but only shows that he is being charged elsewhere. If somehow answering the question could tie Franz to the crime, he has the right to refuse to answer under his Fifth Amendment rights. The question itself,however, is permissible.

Testimony by Dorothea is proper opinion testimony by a lay witness and is admissible. Lay opinion testimony is admissible when: 1) it is rationally based on the perception of the witness; 2) it is helpful to a clear understanding of her testimony or to the determination of a fact in issue; and 3) it is not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Here, Dorothea is simply being asked to describe Gait's appearance and consciousness. Such an opinion is not specialized or technical and any ordinary person can answer. Therefore, lay testimony such as this is permissible.B is wrong. Expert testimony is not applicable, here, as Dorothea is simply testifying to the general appearance of Gait, which can be done by an non-expert witness. Expert witness testimony is often required when dealing with a highly technical fact pattern, but such a situation is not applicable here. All we are asking is if Gait was conscious or not, which any lay person can answer.C is wrong. Dorothea's testimony at minimum helps the jury, rather than hinders the jury, in the determination of a disputed fact.D is wrong. The Best Evidence Rule applies to a situation where the terms of a writing, which is material, is in dispute. In such a situation, the Best Evidence Rule requires that the original writing be produceD) Here, we have no writing, just testimony of what Dorothea saw.

Bribery evidence such as this is clearly admissible against Bugzy. By definition, an admission is a statement made that amounts to a prior acknowledgment by one of the parties of one of the relevant facts. Party admissions are never deemed hearsay. Conduct such as this bribery, is traditionally viewed as an expression of guilt by a party and in the present case Bugzy's expression of guilt should be permitted as an admission of a party-opponent.B is wrong in light of the correct answer as this is an admissible admission of a party-opponent and not admissible as an impeachment. Additionally, a specific act of misconduct used to impeach can only be used on cross-examination. Here, we have no facts indicating that Bugzy has ever been on the stand to testify.C is wrong. The bribery offer is certainly relevant, as it tends to make the existence of a fact of consequence to the action more probable than it would be without that evidence. As set forth above, bribery tends to indicate guilt and is clearly relevant to the present case.D is wrong. The simple fact that the evidence is misleading or prejudicial is not reason enough to prevent its admission. Admissibility of potentially prejudicial evidence is weighed by the judge who has discretion over whether to allow the evidence to be introduced into testimony. The judge weighs the evidence's prejudicial nature vs. it's benefit in relation to the case when making his decision.

The federal rules state that judgments of felony convictions are admissible, but define felony convictions as crimes that are punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. We are, therefore, not dealing with a felony and Roxy's conviction is inadmissible hearsay as proof of the fact asserteD)A is incorrect. By definition, a public record is a record, report, statement, or data compilation of a public office or agency setting forth: 1) the activities of the office or agency; 2) matters observed pursuant to a duty imposed by law; or 3) factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law. Here, we are not dealing with such a record, making the public record based answer incorrect.B is incorrect. A final judgment that is offered to prove the facts of the present controversy could be admitted, as long as it is a felony under the federal rules (over 1 year of imprisonment or death).D is incorrect since a properly authenticated copy of the court report is the best evidence. The Best Evidence Rule states that, in proving the terms of a writing where the terms are material, the original writing must be produceD) Duplicates are admissible under the Best Evidence Rule unless: 1) the authenticity of the original is challenged; or 2) circumstances exist that would render it unfair to admit the duplicate in place of the original. In light of this, a properly authenticated photocopy of the prior judgment would be permissible and not violative of the Best Evidence Rule.

The rule of present recollection refreshed allows a witness to refer to any writing which serves to refresh his memory of an event.B is wrong. Past recollection recorded requires a proper foundation for introduction and only applies to the admissibility of the contents of a writing. It is inapplicable here.C is an obviously wrong answer. What exactly is this supposed to mean given the present facts? Every once and a while, the test-makers will include a totally bogus choice like this one. Be thankful and instantly rule it out.D is wrong as the shopkeeper is testifying to the recollection of the accident, not to the contents of the writing he put together at the time of the accident.

Arabella's testimony is probative evidence which relates to the issues of the case and, therefore, should be admitteD) Since the question of Alexander's location is an issue, and Arabella's testimony makes his location clear, it should clearly be admitted as requisite testimony in the case as it is relevant.A is incorrect. Although true that Alexander has not put his character in issue, the testimony of Arabella is not being offered to prove Alexander's bad character, but rather to show his whereabouts near the location of the crime. Therefore, Arabella's testimony is, in fact, admissible.B is wrong. First: prior crimes can be used to show more than bad character and a criminal character. They can be used to show intent, opportunity, or a plan. In light of this, Alexander's offer of money for sex is not instantly prevented from introduction. Second: Arabella's testimony is not being offered to show bad character, but rather to place Alexander in proximate location to the scene of the crime, rather than far away in the North Atlantic as he claimeD) In light of this, the testimony is permissible.D is incorrect. Evidence illustrating a defendant's criminal disposition and that alone, is generally not admissible. However, as mentioned, testimony offering to show more than this could, in fact, come in.

The prosecutor's question is permissibie to illustrate a bias, and that Fred has a motive to lie. Here, the prosecutor is trying to impeach Fred; namely, to cast an adverse reflection on Fred's veracity. Bias (or an inference of it) can be shown by examining a family relationship. Here, the prosecutor may potentially be trying to show that due to a familial relationship between Fred and Barney's wife (i.e., brother and sister?); Fred might be inclined to lie for Barney.A correctly states that Fred's truth and veracity is attacked, but not all methods of attacking a witness's truth and veracity are admissible. In light of this, Answer B is a better answer since it specifically states the exact method the prosecutor is using to impeach the witness.C is incorrect because evidence relating to a witness's credibility is in fact relevant.D incorrectly states that an answer by Fred would result in a prejudice that would outweigh its probative value. The federal rules state that evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. Note that only the unfair prejudice is addresseD) Here, the prosecutor's question will readily result in an answer as to whether Fred has a motive to lie (e.g., a family relationship) and, therefore, is not unfairly prejudicial.

Judy should be allowed to testify as the evidence is probative of a material issue in the case. Note: Evidence is material if it relates to an issue in the case, and it is probative if it tends to prove the fact for which it is offereD) Evidence is competent if it does not violate a specific exclusionary rule. We have an issue of whether Astro started the fire. If we assume that diesel was used to start the fire and Astro was found to smell like diesel, there is a likelihood that he was involved in the fire, so the proffered evidence is material and relevant. Addressing the competency question, opinion testimony is admissible when: 1) it is rationally based on the perception of the witness, and 2) it is helpful to a clear understanding of her testimony or to the determination of a fact in issue. Courts have traditionally allowed something as simple as smell testimony to be allowable testimony by a lay witness. In light of this, Answer A is incorrect.B is incorrect. The Best Evidence Rule requires that the original document be produced, only when the terms of the document are material and sought to be proveD) Here, the fact to be proved is that diesel was used, which stands independent of any document. Therefore, the Best Evidence Rule is inapplicable.D is incorrect since expert testimony requires special knowledge or skill level. Here, we have a simple question of smell, and anyone who has ever pumped gas or gotten gas knows the smell of diesel fuel. There is nothing special about this knowledge.

The fact that Hillside Avenue is a north/south running street is the most appropriate item for the judge to take judicial notice of, because it is a matter of common knowledge in the community. A judge will generally take judicial notice of an issue not subject to reasonable dispute if it is: 1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, or 2) capable of accurate and ready determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioneD) In light of this, B is the best answer.A is incorrect. A judge cannot take judicial notice of a fact simply because he has personal knowledge of that fact. To take notice, as set forth above, we must be dealing with a fact known by members of the community.C is incorrect. The fact that Steve's brakes were faulty is subject to a reasonable dispute, since a person of common knowledge would not absolutely know whether the brakes in Steve's car were faulty. In light of this, the judge cannot take judicial notice of the faulty brakes.D is incorrect. Because the speed at which Steve was driving is subject to reasonable dispute, and is not a common knowledge of all in the community at the time of the accident; it is improper to take judicial notice of this fact.

Here, we have an admission by a party-opponent. Generally, evidence is admissible if it is relevant and, here, the proposed testimony is clearly relevant as it makes it more likely that the defendant committed the acts that Sybil alleges. The testimony is not counter to any rule of evidence and is, therefore, competent. We are not dealing with hearsay, since hearsay is not applicable to a party-opponent.A may be a true statement in that past instances could be used to impeach a witness, but it is the wrong answer as it focuses on impeachment. Here, we are not dealing with impeachment of a witness, making this an incorrect answer.C is incorrect since a Best Evidence Rule application is incorrect for the present facts. The rule requires that when the contents of a writing are sought to be proved, the writing itself should be admitted if it is available. Here, Sybil is not trying to prove that her stepfather has been convicted (thereby, requiring a copy of his conviction), but rather that her stepfather made an admission 15 years ago.D is incorrect. Generally speaking, under the federal rules a conviction older than 10 years cannot be used to impeach a witness. The problem with Answer D is that Sybil's attorney is not trying to impeach Sybil's stepfather, but to prove that her stepfather made an admission. In light of this,Answer D is incorrect

Savage's testimony is only applicable if the conditions of his test were similar to the conditions at the time of the accident. Relevance is evaluated based on how similar the test is to the actual case in point. The experiment is quite relevant and admissible if it is performed under the same conditions of temperature, humidity, etC)... If it is vastly different, however, this might not be a relevant experiment.A is incorrect since an adverse party does not need to be present during a test under the federal rules. Note, however, that Jamie's attorney can cross exam Savage to determine if this is, in fact, an applicable test and experiment.C is incorrect for the same reason: Jamie's attorney can cross-examine Savage without the plaintiff's side having conducted their own experiment relating to the floor.D is incorrect. The person conducting the experiment need not be an independent observer. If Savage was, in fact, a SpadeHardware employee, Jamie's attorney could introduce evidence relating to his potential bias.

Relevant opinion testimony from an expert witness is admissible, since an expert can base her opinion on facts not known solely to herself, but which are based on facts determined by other experts. Such facts need not be admissible in evidence as long as the facts are of a kind reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular fielD) In light of this, Answer D is clearly incorrectB is incorrect. Whether this analysis is negligent is irrelevant. When the plaintiff has a chance to cross-examine Minnie, they can bring out any cases of negligence in her analysis.C is incorrect. The federal rules allow the trier of fact Qudge) to oversee the admittance of testimony relating to the ultimate issue of the case.

The testimony proposed is clearly relevant as evidence that there were no illegal drug sales to be covered up, which might have given Dumaine a motive to kill Hansel.B and C are both wrong as the introduction of this evidence has no end results that serve to effect Oliver's credibility.D is a generally bad answer for a number of reasons. First, the objection here is based on relevance and the test set forth is not related to relevance (Rule 403 test). Additionally, even if the recited test were applied, it is highly unlikely that the evidence would be rejected under that test.

The court should rule that Statement 1 ("It was all my fault I'm SO sorry I ran the red llghtr) is admissible as an admission by a party-opponent and Statement 2 ('77/ pay for all your medical expenses") is inadmissible as an offer to pay medical expenses. By definition, an admission is a statement made, or an act committed, that amounts to a prior acknowledgment by one of the parties to an action of one of the relevant facts. James acknowledged running the red light (Statement 1) and that the injuries were his fault. This is a clear acknowledgment of relevant facts and is, therefore, deemed an admission by a party-opponent. Under the federal rule, a statement to pay a parties medical bills is not admissible as an admission of liability for the injuries, since the payment offer may simply be because James is a nice guy or otherwise.A, C and D are all subsequently wrong because, as explained above, Statement 1 is admissible and Statement 2 is inadmissible.

A hearsay exception exists for any prior inconsistent statement made by a declarant in a situation where the declarant is either under oath, or under penalty of perjury if she lies. A preliminary hearing is such a situation. Therefore, the evidence may be admitted, both to impeach as well as to offer substantial evidence in Clyde's defense. This correct answer then makes, Answer A and C incorrect.D is wrong as it offers an answer that only applies to a hearsay situation, namely, the unavailability of a witness. As set forth in the correct answer, this statement falls within a hearsay exception.

Here, the testimonial privilege belonging to the spouse of a witness, wherein the spouse can prevent testimony of another, would be applicable. Since we are not dealing with a privileged communication between husband and wife, the choice to testify is up to Kaleem and Answers B, C, and D are, therefore, incorrect.

Here, Nina never testified, and she is at trial for a crime of violence. Her honesty and loyalty traits are not at issue and cannot (and should not) be introduced, since those are completely irrelevant. Therefore, C is incorrect.A criminal defendant may offer evidence of character relevant to the charges, and so Answer A is wrong.D is a misstatement of law.

Under the Federal Rules, this prior inconsistent statement originally offered by Ducky can be used to impeach him and may further be used as substantive evidence. A prior statement made under oath during a deposition will not be deemed hearsay. Therefore, A is incorrect.B is incorrect because the Federal Rules permit a party to impeach its own witness, even if not "surpriseD)"C is incorrect because it is too narrow. ConvoyTrucking can use the testimony to impeach and also as substantive evidence.

Evidence of repairs made after an accident is inadmissible to prove negligence. This is for public policy reasons, such as encouraging a person to fix a lingering problem on their car and hence prevent further possible accidents. Boyd's attorney is not permitted to introduce such evidence to prove negligence.A is wrong in light of the correct answer, as subsequent repairs cannot be used to show Bear's negligence.B is wrong because Bear's state of mind is not in issue. Additionally, the intended evidence does nothing to prove anything related to Bear's state of mind at the time of the accident.C is wrong. Even if the brake adjustment was deemed an assertive conduct, it is not hearsay if it is viewed as a statement and is, therefore, an admission by the agent of a party-opponent. Additionally, it is unlikely the court will deem the readjustment of the brakes assertive conduct, as assertive conduct is conduct intended to be a substitute for words. Here, Bear is not trying to convey anything in lieu of a statement by readjusting the brakes.

Under the federal rules of evidence a prosecutor cannot inquire into a crime or prior conviction that relates to dishonesty, if it is more that 10 years old, as a court deems this too remote. In light of this, A is correct: an objection to this question would be sustaineD)B is permissible. It relates to Helen's ability to perceive what was going on and would be a legitimate question on cross-examination.C shows a possible bias on the part of Helen.Note: Bias is a basis for impeachment of a witness. Therefore, this question is permissibleD relates to a prior bad act that shows dishonesty in Helen. Such acts may be asked about on cross-examination of the witness.

When dealing with video evidence, it is necessary to first properly authenticate the evidence such that it is admissible. Absent a proper foundation, this evidence cannot be admitted into trial.A is wrong because the tape constitutes an admission and, therefore, is not hearsay.B is wrong. The privilege against self-incrimination can only be applied to the testimony of a person. The police film is not testimony.D is a bogus answer that appears to be based on nothing concrete. Note: AVOID THESE ANSWERS LIKE THE PLAGUE.

When dealing with a case of a defendant proving his innocence, the defendant is free to introduce testimony relating to his good character tied to the trait involved in the case (pacifism vs. the alleged murder). Evidence such as this, is not restricted to impeachment purposes only. Therefore, B and D are incorrect.Additionally, under the federal rules the witness (Brown) can both testify to the defendant's reputation for the trait in question (pacifism) as well as give his opinion of the defendant, making Answer C incorrect.

Prior case law states that in a situation such as this, the defendant's state of mind is admissible into evidence to show that the declarant (Steve) acted in conformity with his expressed declaration.A is wrong since this is hearsay. Note, however, that this falls within a hearsay exception, as set forth in the correct answer.C is wrong. While we are dealing with hearsay, we are further within a hearsay exception.D is wrong. We are dealing with Steve's alibi, which is highly relevant.Note: An alibi will always be relevant, and, therefore, there is no basis for denying theintroduction of Steve's alibi.

Note that we have no facts indicating that Theo is incompetent to testify. A witness will be deemed incompetent based on age or mental incapacity, but both are viewed in light of the ability of the witness to understand the oath and the need to testify truthfully. Therefore, A and B are incorrect. Answer C is further wrong since we have no predefined age at which a person is deemed competent or incompetent. It is based solely on the ability to understand the oath and the need to testify truthfully.

A judge must determine that the document is unavailable in order for the testimony to be admissible, as the contents of a document are sought to be proven and the document is not collateral.B is wrong because, as stated, the document itself must be produced unless it is not available.C and D are wrong because the judge, not the jury, makes these types of determinations.

The question tips us off that this may, in fact, be an executed utterance due to the exclamation points. If David was under the excitement and stress of the situation, his testimony is allowed to come in because an excited utterance is an exception to the hearsay rule. In light of this, Answer C is clearly wrong.A is wrong since one can only introduce a prior inconsistent statement to rebut a charge that a person is lying. Here, we have no reason to believe that David is lying for any reason.D is wrong. A lay witness opinion can, in fact, be admitted if based on the perception of the witness and NOT based onscientific or expert knowledge.

D is the correct answer, as questions A, B and C are allowable based on their situations. Question A deals with a preliminary matter that is not in dispute. Question B takes place on cross-examination. Question C is during the examination of a young chilD) In each of these situations, guiding questions are generally permissible. On direct examination of a non-interested witness, however, guiding questions are not permitted, making Question D "leading."

Under the federal rules an offer to pay medial bills cannot be introduced into testimony, but an admission by a party-opponent associated with this offer is, in fact, admissible. Here, we clearly have an admission by Donald and this admission can be introduceD) In light of this, Answer B is wrong.A is wrong because the statement is an admission, and all admissions are deemed NOT to be hearsay.D is wrong because we have no applicable offer to compromise. Donald's message concerning ApocalypseExtermination simply states that they will pay all bills, and seek nothing in exchange.

Relevance is based on whether evidence helps decide an issue in dispute. The issue in dispute, here, is whether Cristos ran over Choy, and the bigger engine in Cristos' car will likely be found irrelevant. While Answer B may seem questionable as a 100% correct answer, it remains the least objectionable.A is wrong. Had the question been asked by Cristos' attorney on cross-examination it would not be leading. Choy's attorney asking on direct examination, however, would clearly be considered leading the witness.C is wrong. Evidence of a character trait, such as an irresponsible nature, would be inadmissible.D is wrong. The question at hand concerns whether the evidence is relevant and Answer D addresses whether this evidence should be under the Best Evidence Rule. Note: When choosing an answer, be sure to choose one that answers the question askeD)

Since Nick testified that there was a written agreement in effect, in order to prove the terms of that agreement the Best Evidence Rule states that Nick must either produce the written agreement or somehow explain the absence of the agreement. Nick has done neither.A is wrong. This out-of-court agreement can be found to be a "legally operative fact," thereby making it NOT hearsay.B is wrong because Nick never mentions that this is a will. He just mentions that he had an agreement.C is wrong. Because Nick is testifying that there was a written agreement, a Statute of Frauds violation is not pertinent, as the Statute of Frauds concerns contacts not reduced to writing.

Once a defendant takes the stand, they put their credibility in issue. During an impeachment procedure by the prosecution, any instances of prior felony convictions can be addressed in an effort to impeach the witness.A is wrong. The question asks about how the judge should rule, not on whether Kathy is obligated to answer.Note: Be sure to answer the question askeD) Don't be tricked into choosing correct answers to other questions.C is wrong. Numerous questions asked by the prosecution will be deemed "prejudicial" from the defendant's point of view.D is wrong. A party is not prohibited on cross-examination from inquiring into a witness's credibility.

A person who has an interest in the outcome of a suit is not instantly disqualified from testifying. They may serve as witness in a trial and do not need to be acting in the role of personal representative of the deceased's estate. This makes Answer A incorrect.C is wrong since Louis's wife is testifying to what she saw, not an opinion.D is wrong because the theory of common law spousal incapacity is no longer applicable.

This is not hearsay as it is an admission by a party-opponent, and the admission of a party-opponent, namely, a party's own statement offered against him, is admissible. As this statement is admissible and not hearsay, Answer D is obviously wrong, wrong, wrong.B fails to offer a valid way by which the statement could come in. Arguments based on speedy trail or expediting the process are usually wrong.C is wrong since having a rational basis for a statement is not a prerequisite. If the statement is made by a party, and is relevant and offered by the opponent to the party making the statement; it will come in as a non-hearsay statement.

When dealing with a criminal trial, the defendant is always free to introduce evidence relating to his good character. This is valid regardless of whether the defendant takes the stand, making Answer B incorrect.A is wrong since the defendant's evidence of good character can only be established by reputation evidence and not by instances and fact. Here, the defendant does, in fact, provide the proper reputation instance and not specific facts.D is wrong. There is no such rule and the testimony is not questionable.

On cross-examination, a person is always allowed to attempt to impeach the witness. One means by which to impeach a witness is to show bias. By asking about a familial relationship, the prosecutor is essentially asking whether Zed is, in fact, biaseD)B is wrong. A relative can clearly testify in a case such as this, as long as the relative (i.e., the witness) has personal knowledge and declares that they will testify truthfully.C is wrong. While attempting to impeach a witness, a party can go beyond the scope of the direct examination.D is wrong. When dealing with a potential bias charge, evidence that comes about during cross-examination is never deemed to be collateral in nature.

We clearly have circumstantial evidence and are asked to draw an inference that the costume and beard belong to Jake, who is also a Little Person like the bank robber, based on the proven fact that the clothes were found in a dumpster at his condo complex.B is incorrect. Direct evidence is evidence that when believed by a jury, serves to establish by itself one of the questions of the case without the need for an inference.C is incorrect. Finding a costume in Jake's condo complex, similar to the one used in the robbery, serves to make it more probable that he was responsible for the crime.D is incorrect for misstating the applicable standarD) Answer D states the standard for proving guilt, not the standard regarding the admissibility of evidence.

Here, Fisher's evidence relates to habit and is admissible. Habit evidence describes a person's action when faced with a similar set of circumstances. Evidence of habit can be used to prove that a person acted in accordance with their habit. In light of this, Fisher's testimony relating to Boyd's habit of running red lights is admissible and the objection should be overruleD)A is incorrect. The Best Evidence Rule is inapplicable, as it relates to a situation where the terms of a writing are material and require that one must provide the writing. Here, we have no writing and, therefore, no application of the Best Evidence Rule.B is incorrect since the proposed testimony is not character evidence, but rather relates to habit. Character evidence relates to a persons traits or ordinary behavior. Habit evidence, as we have here, relates to a person's continual performance when faced with certain situations (e.g., red lights at intersections) and is admissible.D is incorrect. The fact that the objection is self-serving is meaningless. When viewed from afar, all objections are self-serving to the party making them.

Here, A is the only answer that can be viewed as correct. In light of this, it is easier to explain the wrong answers first.B is incorrect since the opinion here was based on Lulu's perception and her opinion would, in fact, be helpful to determine if Chad was negligent in his actions.C is wrong because Lulu is not a party to the present case. Admissions only relate to parties in the case, not outsiders like Lulu.D is wrong. We have no indication that Chad has testified, therefore, we cannotview this statement as a prior inconsistent statement. Here, we have a statement that is clearly hearsay, but could potentially fall within the excited utterance exception. There is, however, no answer offering excited utterance as a choice. Because of this, you must go with A as the correct answer.

Dr. Patel's testimony can come in, but Donald's attorney needs to establish a link between the medicine Donald and other patients took, and the subsequent clots that developeD)A is wrong as we are dealing with the perceived opinions of a witness who is on trial and available for further cross-examination.B is wrong. The Best Evidence Rule only applies to a situation in which one party is attempting to prove the contents of a writing. The plaintiff attorney is not trying to do this, but rather is introducing testimony of Dr. Patel regarding her patients. The Best Evidence Rule requires a showing that the patients are unavailable before letting the doctor testify as to their condition.D is wrong since Dr. Patel is not acting as an expert witness, which would require her to be qualified as an expert. Rather, she is providing an opinion testimony.

Here, Samir's attorney has introduced a part of the contract, the bill of lading. In light of this, Kylie's attorney is free to either cross-examine regarding this portion of the introduced contract, or in the alternative can introduce additional portions of the writing to make the entire writing understooD) In light of this, A is the correct answer.B is an incorrect statement of the law and is clearly incorrect. Such brazen and broad answers are generally incorrect.C is incorrect. The introduction of this evidence serves to make it more probable that Kylie has, in fact, complied with the contract. Not allowing the introduction of this evidence makes it seem more likely that Kylie has not complieD)D is incorrect since we are not dealing with a situation of hearsay. Here, the contract is a legally operative fact.

The grand jury statement may be admitted for two reasons: to impeach and as substantive evidence. A hearsay exception exists for any prior inconsistent statement made under oath at a prior proceeding or deposition. Impeachment allows one to submit that the witness's credibility is lacking due to statements that are inconsistent with some material part of his present testimony. Generally speaking, statements such as these (i.e., those made by the declarant other than while testifying at the trial or hearing) are generally found to be hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, allowing the statement only to be admitted to impeach. Here, however, Blathe's statement was made under oath at a prior proceeding, and is admissible nonhearsay (i.e., substantive proof of the facts stated).A states an outdated rule of law wherein prior inconsistent statements were limited to impeachment, regardless of the situation under which they were made. This rule has given way to the one explained in the correct answer.B is incorrect since it fails to address the availability of the grand jury statement for impeachment purposes. A prior inconsistent statement may always be used to impeach the credibility of a witness.D is wrong for two reasons. First, a prior inconsistent statement is always admissible to impeach the witness. Second, because the prior inconsistent statement occurred during a grand jury proceeding, it is admissible nonhearsay.

While a party is always awarded the right to cross-examine a witness, the presiding judge has discretion as to the length of that cross-examination. If the judge feels that an attorney's lengthy examination is no longer properly utilizing the court's time, or if she feels that a witness is being harassed by an attorney, she may terminate continuation of that examination. Note: Cross-examination content is limited to: 1) matters brought out on direct examination or related to direct and 2) matters affecting the credibility of the witness. Whether a line of questioning meets these criteria is also at the discretion of the judge.B is wrong. The court is free to terminate a cross-examination at any time (even if the line of questioning is relevant to the case) in order to avoid wasting the court's time or to avoid harassing the witness.C is incorrect in a similar vein. The court retains the privilege to terminate even if a line of questioning relates to matters brought up on direct. In light of this, it is wrong to say that if the questioning has any relation to the direct examination, then the court cannot cut you off. It can.D is incorrect even though it sounds "fair." Due process only requires that one is awarded the opportunity to cross-examine, not an unlimited opportunity to cross-examine. Let the law be your guide, not fairness-related principles. Due process concerns are clearly important, but assuming that there has been time for some cross-examination and the judge has ruled that the questioning has strayed too far in scope or too long in length, due process has not been infringed upon by a termination.

Relevant evidence is any evidence that tends to make the existence of any fact of consequence to an action more probable than it would be without that evidence. Here, this evidence does just that and is, therefore, relevant. The paint can is circumstantial evidence of fact, as it is used as the basis for an inference that another fact is true; the fact that it is the same brand and color may prove that Morrow dropped it.Note: Direct evidence serves to prove a fact about the object as well as serve as an end in itself (i.e., the fact that the paint can said "Strait Bridge gold" proves that the paint was the same brand). The paint can is not hearsay since hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserteD) This is not the case.A is incorrect. As set forth above, the paint can is not being introduced to prove that the can was a "Strait Bridge gold" brand can (hearsay), but rather to form the basis for an inference that it was dropped by Morrow. Thus, there is no hearsay problem.B is wrong since the paint can is only circumstantial evidence, rather than direct evidence that it was dropped by Morrow and hit Strauss.C is wrong to conclude that the paint can is irrelevant. The fact that the can is the same "Strait Bridge gold" tends to make it more likely that it was Morrow who dropped it. On this point, the can is clearly relevant. Answer C states an incorrect test for relevance. A relevance test is not a "more likely than not" test. In order to be relevant, there only needs to be a showing that the evidence in question makes things more probable with the evidence than without it.

Here, we have admissible nonhearsay. Since Pammy's statement that the couch was loose is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that the couch was loose), it is not hearsay. Instead, Barnard's attorney is seeking to introduce Pammy's statement as evidence to illustrate the statement's effect on its recipient. In other words, Barnard's attorney is showing that the driver had notice and is not introducing the statement to show that the rope was, in fact, loose (the matter asserted). In light of this, B is the right answer. Showing such knowledge by the listener is applicable in a negligence case where knowledge is in issue. In light of the correct answer, C is clearly incorrect.A is incorrect. Since this statement comes in because it is nonhearsay, we have no need to look into the hearsay exceptions in order for it to be admitted into evidence.D is wrong on 2 counts. First, the statement is not being introduced to prove the matter asserted (i.e., a hearsay application) but rather to show that driver had notice. This is clearly not opinion testimony. Second, Answer D incorrectly infers that any sort of opinion evidence is inadmissible. This is clearly NOT the case as opinion evidence may be admitted when it is: 1) rationally based on the perception of the witness; 2) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness's testimony or to the determination of a fact in issue; and 3) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.

The doctor/patient privilege does not apply to a situation where the patient knows that the alleged doctor is, in fact, not a doctor at all. The person must be a licensed doctor in order for the privilege to apply. Therefore, in Situation D, no privilege exists at all. Regardless of jurisdiction, a patient needs to relieve a doctor of the doctor/patient confidence in order for them to be allowed to testify.A is incorrect for stating a requirement for the privilege to exist, instead of answering the question. In light of this, A yields an answer that is MOST likely to result in the application of the privilege, not the LEAST likely. READ what they are asking you.B is a totally irrelevant answer. Marriage has no effect on the doctor/patient privilege.C is wrong. The privilege is in the hands of the patient who has control over the privilege. The prior disclosure by the doctor to the police has no bearing on the court's subsequent decision on whether to grant the privilege.

Cami's testimony does not violate the Parol Evidence rule for hearsay. Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserteD) The introduction of Cami's statement is not hearsay as it is not being introduced to prove the matter asserted, but rather to show the effect of the statement on Cami. (Cami relied on the statement when entering the contract for the sale of the boat.) The Parol Evidence Rule states that if an agreement is reduced to a writing, all prior negotiations or agreements are merged into the written agreement and you cannot use extrinsic evidence after the agreement is written. Note however, that the Parol Evidence Rule does not prevent the admission of parol evidence to show that the alleged contract is no contract at all and is, in fact, a void or voidable contract. Parol evidence can be used to disprove a contract based on a claim of fraud, duress, or undue influence which resulted in the consent of the other contracting party. In light of this, parol evidence is permissible in the present case.A is wrong. The Parol Evidence Rule is not violated as explained in the correct answer.B is wrong. The evidence is not hearsay, as it is not being offered for the truth, but rather for a secondary reason as set forth in the correct answer.C is wrong for claiming that we have hearsay. As set forth, this is not a hearsay at all.

Admissible photos must be identified by a witness as accurately portraying relevant facts to the case at hanD) A witness familiar with the scene of the crime is sufficient. Generally, it is not necessary to call the photographer of the shots to the stand in order to get a statement that she took the photos. The relevant question here is the actual appearance of the intersection where the accident happened, and Meena is in the best position to answer this.A is wrong. Generally speaking, a photographer's testimony is not necessary to authenticate a photo.C is incorrect because, as stated above, we have no need to call the photographer. D is incorrect because the photograph is admissible if properly identified by MeenA)

The federal rules state that a known treatise can be used both to impeach and as substantive evidence. To impeach, one can cross-examine an expert on statements from a publication that is held as authoritative. Treatises are also admissible as substantive evidence under a federal rule exception to the hearsay rule if: 1) the expert is on the stand and it is called to his attention, and 2) it is established as a reliable authority. Dr. Cargo's treatise is authoritative and MenAtWork's lawyer can use this to attack Dr. Hay's knowledge in the fielD) Additionally, we can read this treatise as substantive evidence because it has been brought to the attention of Dr. Hay and it was he who established it as a reliable authority. Furthermore, it was read into evidence while Dr. Hay was on the stanD)A appears correct as it recites the traditional view, but it fails to include that the federal rules allow the use of a statement in a treatise as substantive evidence.B is incorrect for failing to recognize the ability to use this statement to impeach.D incorrectly infers that the law would not allow introduction of the statement for either impeachment or substantive evidentiary purposes.

Bill's is an excited utterance, a hearsay exception. Excited utterance requires that a declaration made during or soon after a startling event is admissible if the declaration was made under the stress or excitement of the startling event. Here, we are dealing with an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of that which is asserted (hearsay), but it falls within an hearsay exception.A is wrong for misapplying the Best Evidence Rule. Best Evidence only relates to a situation where a party is trying to prove a writing. Here, we have no writing, just oral testimony.C is wrong. This may be hearsay on its face, but it is within an exception and in turn is admissible.D is wrong since we don't need any foundation to be laid in the present case.

Bernie may invoke the attorney/client privilege even though a 3rd party, Otto's father, was present. This doe not serve to extinguish the privilege. Attorney/client privilege protects any privileged communication made by a client while seeking the professional services of the attorney, even if it is before the lawyer has decided whether or not to take the case. Privileged communications are those that by definition are not disclosed to a 3rd party. If made in the presence of a stranger, the communication cannot be privilegeD) However, here we have a 3rd person whose presence is reasonable and understandable (a father helping his minor child), allowing the privilege to continue.A is wrong. Attorney/client privilege does not depend on whether the client hires the attorney or the attorney agrees to take the case, but simply that the client was seeking that attorney's professional advice.B is wrong since the person who was the attorney can, in fact, claim the privilege on behalf of the client, absent any evidence to the contrary.C is wrong since the privilege exists, absent any sort of payment for services.

Under the federal rules judges are free to call witnesses and may further question already called witnesses as they see fit.The only boundary a judge may not cross is showing partisanship or preferential treatment to one side.

Here, we have a matter that serves to prove or disprove the credibility of a witness. Therefore, it is relevant and should be admitteD) Specific "bad acts" that relate to deceit and serve to show that a witness cannot be trusted, are clearly probative of the witness's honesty and integrity. A false insurance claim is clearly such an act. The question should be admitted and Dr. Dray compelled to answer.A is incorrect since it is perfectly fine to inquire into a witness's prior "bad acts" for impeachment purposes, even if the witness was never convicteD)C is incorrect. The federal rules allow for inquiry into specific acts of misconduct, as long as they are related to the honesty of the witness. Event then, the inquiry is at the court's discretion and the use of extrinsic evidence is not permissible.D is incorrect because the question relates to truthfulness, and a witness's credibility is always relevant.

Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserteD) Here, we have a negligence case where knowledge of a danger is in issue. The statement of the third party customer, therefore, is applicable as an out-of-court statement offered to show that the store's owner had notice. In light of this, it should be admitted as an exception to the general hearsay rule.A is wrong as it misstates an exception to the hearsay rule. If Daisy's attorney was trying to introduce that the elevator was broken and used the statement to prove this as fact, then it is not a statement by a customer against that customers' interest, making this exception incorrect.C is incorrect since, as set forth in the correct answer, we are dealing with admissible nonhearsay. The fact that the declarant, Sally, is unavailable is meaningless. Unavailability only applies to certain hearsay exceptions like statements against interest. Here, the statement is only being used to show that the owner had notice.D is wrong as the customer's statement is not being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that the elevator was broken), but rather simply to prove that the owner was on notice of a problem.

Here, we are dealing with a best evidence question, so a party must either produce the original document or come up with a valid reason for not doing so. Loss of the original document is deemed a valid reason for failing to produce it. The status of the letter as lost however, is a question to be addressed and determined by the court, not the jury, making Answer B correct and Answer C wrong.A is wrong and a totally bogus rule of law. There is no need to lay a foundation of truthfulness in order to admit this witness.D is wrong. There is no rule of law requiring a witness to recall the exact contents of a document without needing to reference another document.

The federal rules will, in fact, allow cross-examination that is related to prior bad acts, if the court finds that the line of questioning is probative of truthfulness. In light of this, we can instantly rule out Question A as improper. It may be askeD)B is incorrect. A showing of a monetary interest which may result in a bias on the part of a witness is always relevant and admissible in a trial.D is incorrect. The federal rules do allow questions relating to prior crimes involving dishonesty if they are less than 10 years olD)Having ruled out all the other answers, the question relating to drug abuse, which may result in an inability of the witness to remember things form the past, is only marginally relevant to the matter at hand and will likely be found to be improper by the court.

Under the federal rules a hypothetical question is unnecessary. Felipe's attorney is free to ask the expert opinion on valuation, but then must immediately allow Uri's attorney to cross-examine YolandA) In light of this, Answer B is clearly incorrect.A is wrong. Under the federal rules, the finding that an expert cannot testify as to the ultimate question at issue is no longer the case.C is one of those totally bogus pseudo-rules of law that are to be avoided at all costs on the test. Clearly it is wrong. Yolanda may be a qualified expert in real estate, but she has no basis to offer her opinion on everything from neurology to fashion.

In a situation like this, silence can be considered an admission. A reasonable person in the presence of a police officer taking a statement, would likely have spoken out against a statement of accusation like the one Yuliana made, if they were, in fact, not at fault.A is incorrect. There are no facts to indicate that we are dealing with an agency relationship. Furthermore, a statement of interest application would require that the declarant was not available, which is clearly not the case here.C is wrong. A court will find that the silence of a witness is deemed the adoption of the statement of another. Therefore, Yuliana's statement is considered an admission.D is wrong. There is no need to lay a proper foundation prior to the introduction of this evidence.

The testimony of Mrs. Lenox is not being offered to prove that Tyson had been flirting with Mohammad's lover, but rather to prove that George's accusation had an effect on MohammaD) In light of this, we are not dealing with a hearsay statement and this statement can be admitteD) Therefore, Answer C is wrong.B is wrong. The concept of legally operative fact applies to situations where the words themselves are in issue. This is clearly inapplicable here.D is wrong. When dealing with witness opinion evidence, the evidence can be admitted if: it is based on the perception of the witness, helpful in determining a fact in issue, and not based an scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. In the present case, Mrs. Lenox's opinion testimony could be admitteD)

Here, we have classic hearsay, namely an out-of-court statement being offered for its truth (the person who ran over the elderly pedestrian is Michaleen). In light of this, Answer A is incorrect.B is wrong. This does not fall within a business record exception to hearsay, as Thornton has no business obligation to provide facts to the police upon seeing the accident.D is incorrect. Under the Best Evidence Rule, the actual police report is the best evidence and therefore, that is the document that should be useD)

Here, we have a declaration of present body condition, which courts have found to be admissible as a hearsay exception, regardless to whom the declaration is made. Gilberto does not need to be a doctor in order to be a witness to the statement. Therefore, Alita's statement can be admitteD) In light of this, Answer D is clearly wrong.C is incorrect. As set forth in the correct answer, a declaration of present body condition can be admitted even if it was not made to a physician.B is incorrect. Alita's statement is admitted as a declaration relating to her pain at the time of the accident, not as proof that she had a blood clot affecting her brain.

The jury must find that Hideaki is dead as Nara has set forth all the required facts to prove this presumption - i.e., no one has heard from Hideaki in over 8 years. The opposing party, the insurance company, has not met its burden of providing that Hideaki is, in fact, alive by offering rebuttal evidence to the contrary. Answers A and B are, therefore, wrong.C is wrong. The insurance company can submit a rebuttal presumption, namely evidence to rebut the presumption that Hideaki is deaD) Answer C would only be correct if dealing with a conclusive presumption, as opposed to the rebuttal presumption at issue.

Here, we have an affidavit that is clearly hearsay and there is nothing in the facts to indicate that it should be admitted as admissible evidence. In light of this, Answers A and B are clearly wrong. Answer B is wrong because the attorney/client privilege terminates upon the client's death. Once Mrs. Frangakis passed on, any privilege with Latifah terminateD) Additionally, the attorney/client privilege generally does not apply to observations made by the attorney about the client. "Communications received from a client" are the only things protected under the attorney client/privilege.D is incorrect. Based on the facts, a lay person would likely be allowed to testify as to their opinion since this opinion is: rationally based upon the lay person's perception; helpful to a determination of a fact in issue; and not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Meeting such requirements, Latifah's testimony as to the intoxicated state of Mrs. Frangakis is admissible.

In a civil case such as this one, character is only admissible as proof of conduct if character is directly in issue. That is not the case here, making Answers A and D incorrect.Note: In a criminal case the defense may introduce evidence of character, which in turn can be rebutteD)Evidence of character in the present fact pattern is clearly relevant to the court's determination of whether Amir is at fault, making Answer C incorrect.

Here, we have the perfect example of hearsay outside any exceptions. It is not a business record exception, as the report was not generated as a part of Viola's daily business routine, but at the insistence of her insurance company.B is incorrect. The mere fact that an expert relies on inadmissible evidence does not mean that the evidence is now admissible.C is incorrect. Interest of the insurance company results in a modification of the weight that is to be placed on the evidence, but it does not relate to the overall admissibility of the evidence as a whole.

Here, we have relevant evidence, as the evidenced offered helps establish a motive and in turn Dumaine's guilt. Evidence such as this is clearly relevant. Therefore, an objection by Dumaine's attorney based solely on relevance (as the question asks) should be overruleD) Once this is established, Answers A and B are clearly wrong.D is wrong. When dealing with a drug dealing question as presented here, the involvement of Dumaine remains relevant. Additionally, since the objection was based on grounds of relevance the limiting instruction of the judge is not requireD) Note: Had the objection been on hearsay grounds, the outcome may have been different. Here, however, as stated in the question, the objection is based on relevance grounds. ONLY answer what has been asked of you after careful reading.

When dealing with a witness whose memory is incomplete, the defense attorney is free to refresh her memory with a prior writing, in this case Bonnie's letter on the motel stationary. When it comes time to testifying, however, the witness must testify from her present recollection and NOT on the prior writing. In other words, Bonnie can read the letter to refresh her memory and then testify, but she cannot testify based on what the letter says when question by an attorney.A is incorrect for misstating the use of a past recollection recorded exception to hearsay. This exception would only be applicable to a case where the party is seeking to introduce the writing into evidence. Here, the defense simply wants to use the writing to refresh the witness's memory.Both C and D are wrong since the defense is not seeking to introduce Bonnie's writing into evidence, but simply to refresh her memory of the weekend in question.

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that a witness cannot be compelled to testify against herself, thereby allowing Catty to refuse answering question that might incriminate her. This privilege applies to both civil and criminal proceedings, as long as the answer may expose a witness to criminal liability. This makes Answer B clearly incorrect.A is incorrect. When faced with potentially incriminating testimony, a witness is free to refuse to answer a question, regardless of whether the witness has a reasonable fear of potential prosecution.D is incorrect. The basis for applying the privilege against self-incrimination is not based on the likelihood of an actual criminal prosecution against the witness. Any testimony that could potentially open up a witness to criminal liability is enough to allow application of the privilege.

Here, the driving record is being admitted as character evidence. Generally speaking, the introduction of character evidence in a civil case is not permitted, as the small probative value is highly outweighed by the potential for distracting a jury. Introducing character evidence to infer that a person would generally act in conformity with their character is generally not alloweD) Attempting to illustrate that Bear has a good driving record and, therefore, likely acted in conformity with that good driving record is impermissible.B is incorrect. A court will not preclude the introduction of evidence simply because it is self-serving. Think about it. Just about any evidence a party offers is likely to be found self-serving. Why would a party introduce negative evidence against themselves?C is wrong as it is based on a belief that character evidence is generally allowed, which is clearly not the case in relation to civil cases in light of the correct answer. Note: Character evidence could be permissible in a situation where Bear's character was at issue (defamation, for example) but this is not the situation in the present case.D is incorrect since this is not habit evidence, which generally shows a person's response to a set of circumstances. Again, the attorney was attempting to introduced character evidence NOT habit evidence. This evidence does not show a response based on an ordinary set of circumstances the person typically encounters - i.e., habit evidence.

Here, we have proper opinion testimony of a witness. Generally speaking, opinions are NOT admissible, but they are permissible in a situation where: 1) it is rationally based on the perception of the witness; and 2) it is helpful to a clear understanding of the witness's testimony or to the determination of a fact in issue. Wiley personally observed Foxy and his opinion that she was intoxicated benefits Wiley's testimony, since saying she appeared intoxicated is clearly saying that her speech was slurred, her gait was off and her eyes were bloodshot etC) . .A is incorrect. A lay opinion regarding a person's alleged intoxication can, in fact, be admissible.B is incorrect. Expert testimony is only necessary when dealing with a highly technical subject matter that is not easily understooD) A determination that a person is outwardly intoxicated does not require this level of expertise and can easily be determined by a lay person.D is incorrect. There is no hearsay situation here, yet Answer D states a hearsay exception. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserteD) Wiley is not testifying to an out-of-court statement, but rather to his opinion of Foxy's appearance at the time of the accident. Since there is no hearsay, there is no need for a hearsay exception.

Under the federal rules, evidence showing remedial measures is not admissible to show negligence, as a public policy exists allowing people to make repairs or take other remedial measures after an accident for the benefit of public safety. Thus, A and B are incorrect.D is wrong as Kris's attorney is not trying to impeach the president of ConvoyTrucking, but rather trying to use her actions as proof of negligence.

Note: A juror cannot be a witness in a case in which they are sitting. By definition a juror is deemed an incompetent witness. Note, however, that this only relates to cases in which they are sitting on the jury.Here, Mike is not a juror in this particular case. Therefore, the only way that the evidence could be excluded is if the judge determines that the probative value of the evidence would be substantially outweighed by its tendency to misleaD)A is wrong since we are on cross-examination, wherein a leading question is permitteD)B is wrong since the question, here, relates to a potential bias in Mike toward Steve. Therefore, we cannot exclude this question on a bias of scope of directexamination.D is wrong for being another bogus answer that is illogical. A foundation relates to the introduction of physical evidence, not testimony.

Here, we have an admission by conduct, as the attempted bribery can be viewed as an admission to guilt. An admission is never declared hearsay; therefore, it is allowed to come in as an admission. In light of this, Answer A is clearly wrong.B is wrong since this is evidence that helps to establish that the defendant actually believed that he had done something wrong to cause the accident.D is wrong on the basis that an admission is never found to be hearsay. There is no need to bring this declaration in as an exception to the hearsay rule. Additionally, a declaration against interest is only applicable in a situation where the declarant is unavailable. Samantha is clearly available, making Answer D wrong for yet another reason.

This evidence tends to indicate that Van Cool was not, in fact, acting in a non-negligent manner when they hired the bus driver in question. Therefore, Answer A is clearly wrong.B is not a good answer. In the interest of public safety, courts generally will not allow subsequent remedial actions by a company to be introduced into evidence. Here, however, Van Cool's actions in question happened prior to the accident.D is wrong. It does not illustrate the bus driver's incompetence, but rather shows Van Cool's negligence in not properly screening and testing all of their drivers.

Here, we have a question of a lay person's opinion. Generally, such an opinion is permissible if it is rationally based on the perception of the witness, helpful in understanding the witness's testimony relating to a fact at issue and is not based on scientific or expert knowledge. Here, Cristos' lay opinion meets none of these requirements and is, therefore, inadmissible.A is wrong because the question asked does not require an answer that is an out-of-court declaration.C is wrong. Although relevant, the answer would still be improper. D is wrong because the form of the question is improper.

Note: Any lay witness that knows the signature of a party may testify as to the validity of that party's signature, even a lay witness who holds a stake in the proceedings. In light of this, Answer A is clearly wrong.B is wrong. It addresses the belief the jury may have in the testimony's truth, i.e., the weight of the testimony, but fails to address the admissibility of the testimony.D is wrong. Meachum may testify in support of or against the genuineness of the signature.

We clearly have testimony that is hearsay and ordinarily would not be allowed into evidence. However, this evidence falls within the state of mind exception.A is incorrect because a "dying declaration" must be made while in fear of "impending" death. Clearly, this was not the case.C is incorrect. We have no facts indicating that Phil is a psychiatrist or a psychologist, so there is no clear doctor/patient confidentiality. Note that Phil does not actually need to be a psychiatric professional in order to testify; Lee only needs to have thought that he was one.D is wrong. Lee's overall state of mind roughly around the time of the incident is relevant enough. Phil's knowledge need not be confined to the exact day of the incident in order to be relevant.

The federal rules state that when dealing with the out-of-court statement of an agent, the statement can come in, as long as it was made during the existence of a relationship between agent and principal, and concerns the scope of that agent's duties or knowledge. If this is the case, Buddy's statement would be an admission of a party-opponent and, therefore, fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. Answers A and C state requirements for admissibility that have no basis in law. Answer B is also incorrect as a statement admission is not based on whether the declarant of that statement is available to testify.

Here, we have a valid way to show bias in a witness and to subsequently impeach him. Therefore, it is allowable.A is related to the requirements for introducing a prior inconsistent statement. Here, we have no facts indicating that this is a prior inconsistent statement and in light of this, the answer is clearly wrong.C is incorrect. When dealing with the credibility or potential bias of a witness, we are not dealing with an issue deemed collateral to the question at hanD)D is wrong as the attorney is conducting a cross-examination, during which a leading question is permissible.

Here, we have a clearly excited utterance by Tom which falls within an exception to the hearsay rules. In light of this, A is wrong as there is an applicable exception at work.B is wrong because this statute only limits the admissibility of testimony against a descendent. Here, we are faced with testimony that does not subject Tom or his estate (following his death) to any sort of liability. Therefore, the statement is permissible.D is incorrect. When working in a jurisdiction which allows dying declarations in civil cases, the declaration must be made at a time when the declarant (Tom) knows that imminent death is going to occur. Additionally, that declaration must concern the cause of the declarant's death.

The record may be admitted into evidence to prove intoxication. The record of conviction is hearsay, but falls within the hearsay exception for records of felony convictions. Under the federal rules, judgments of felony convictions are admissible in both criminal and civil actions to prove any fact essential to the judgment, whether the judgment arose after trial or upon a plea of guilty.Note: A felony is any crime punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year.A is incorrect. Because this is a civil case, evidence of character used to prove conduct is generally inadmissible, because such evidence creates a danger of prejudice and typically distracts the jury from the main issues.C is incorrect. A felony conviction judgment can be admitted, regardless of whether the conviction resulted from a trial or a guilty plea, as set forth in the correct answer.D is incorrect because the judgment falls within a hearsay rule exception for records of felony convictions.

The past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule does not require unavailability of the declarant. Past recollection applies to a witness who has insufficient memory of an event to enable himself to testify fully and accurately, regardless of the fact that he may have revised (either intentionally or unintentionally) the writing while on the stanD) If this is the case, then the writing may be introduced into evidence following a proper foundation. The foundation requires proof that: 1) the witness at one time had personal knowledge of the facts recited in the writing; 2) the writing was made by or under the direction of the witness or has been adopted by him; 3) the writing was timely made when the matter was fresh in the mind of the witness; 4) the writing is accurate; and 5) the witness has insufficient recollection to testify fully and accurately. Answers A, B, and C each closely resemble one of the requirements set forth above. Answer A applies to condition 3, Answer B to condition 4 and Answer C to condition 2.

Here, we" have an admission by a party-opponent. It is also a statement by an agent concerning a matter within the scope of his agency, made during the existence of the employment relationship. Admissions such as this are considered nonhearsay and can, in fact, be admitted into evidence.A is wrong as this is a nonhearsay related admission that does not require the laying of a foundation in order to be admitteD)Note: Even if the report had not been made by a party in the case, it could still be admitted as a past recollection recorded, but the proper foundation would have to be laid in for it. Examples of this foundation include: 1) the witness at one time had personal knowledge of the facts recited in the writing; 2) the writing was made by the witness or under his direction, or was adopted by the witness; 3) the writing was timely made when the matter was fresh in the mind of the witness; 4) the writing is accurate; and 5) the witness is presently unable to remember the facts sufficiently to testify fully. Here, these requirements are not applicable to a past recollection recorded application, as the driver has not testified that the writing is accurate or that he has insufficient recollection. Therefore, the report would not be admitted as a past recollection recordeD)B is wrong as it implies that the evidence may only be admitted as a business recorD) Since the proper application of this evidence is as an admission as set forth in the correct answer, a businessrecord exception is unnecessary.C is also wrong in view of the correct answer, as we are dealing with an admission which does not require a foundation in order to be admitted into evidence.

A judge is responsible for determining the qualifications of an expert witness and typically must consider any relevant evidence relating to an expert's qualifications. Therefore, the transcript should be evaluateD)A is incorrect. Dobbs claiming a PhD is not a collateral matter, as a witness's competence and credibility is always relevant. When trying to determine whether something is collateral, simply ask whether the evidence would be admissible absent the contrary assertion by the witness. If yes, then you can't exclude the impeachment evidence as collateral matter. Cami's attorney can easily present evidence that Dobbs is unqualified, regardless of whether Dobbs claims to have a PhD, making the transcript admissible.C is wrong. The jury is not responsible for determining whether Dobbs is an expert witness. Once the jury is allowed to hear Dobbs' testimony, it is too late (for reasons of prejudice) to instruct them to ignore his testimony as an expert witness. That is why an expert witness must be qualified by the judge.D is incorrect. Any matter relating to the competence of a witness is relevant and Dobbs' credibility as a witness can be undermined simply by showing that he never got a degree from Leelow University.

Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserteD) Here Bill's statement was not made at Minka's trial and is, in fact, offered for truth. Minka's attorney had no opportunity to cross-examine Bill during the grand jury trial. Bill's statement is inadmissible hearsay since it does not fall within any exception to the hearsay rules.A is wrong since we have inadmissible hearsay, and this hearsay can not be admitted, even if for the purpose of rehabilitation.B is wrong since we are dealing with hearsay. There is a semi-applicable potential exception for a prior consistent statement made by a witness and its subsequent introduction: To use the statement for the purpose of rebutting a charge of fabrication by the witness. This exception, however, is inapplicable to the present situation.C is wrong. The former testimony exception to the hearsay rule requires that the party against whom the former testimony is offered (Minka), must have had a chance to directly examine, cross-examine, or examine the witness on redirect. A grand jury case does not award her this chance.

Here we have hearsay of the shopkeeper, and it remains hearsay, even though it is recorded in the police report.Both A and C are wrong as the statement of shopkeeper remains hearsay even though the police report may, in fact, qualify under some exceptionD is wrong for 2 reasons. First, we have no evidence that the police officer is testifying from the report and secondly, even if he were doing so, this does not change the fact that it is hearsay.

In dealing with a criminal case in federal court, a spouse is free to testify as they please against their spouse, regardless of whether their spouse seeks to prevent it. They cannot, however, be FORCED to testify against their spouse. Inlight of this, Answer A is clearly incorrect.B does, in fact, state one of the elements relating to spousal privilege. In the present case, however, Blanche's information was not acquired due to her marital relationship with Clyde, but rather information she found out on her own. Spousal privilege does not apply to a scenario such as this.C is incorrect. The federal rules do not explicitly state which privileges exist. They allow the common law to govern the existence and enforcement of various privileges as recognized by US courts.

Habit evidence can be introduced to the present case by Cristos as long as he does, in fact, always take the same road back to the pizza parlor where he works.A is wrong because "self-serving" evidence is not a valid objection. Just about any evidence that a defendant offers is in some way or another self-serving.B is wrong because the evidence may, in fact, show that it was not Cristos who ran over Choy's head like a crushed watermelon. Therefore, it is clearly relevant.D is wrong. Habit evidence is admissible to show habit as well as to impeach. It is not for impeachment purposes only.

A is wrong as this statement does, in fact, tend to show a reason why the present accident occurreD)C is wrong because Yuliana is not a party in this case and the statement can not be attributed to Candace.D is wrong. In order to apply the statement against interest exception, the witness must be unavailable. Here, we have no indication that Yuliana is unavailable, as the facts clearly state that all the witnesses are available to testify at trial.

This record can, in fact, come in to prove that Jimmy was high on drugs, since the record falls within the prior felony conviction exception for hearsay. If this was not a felony conviction and applicable exception, this record would be inadmissible hearsay. The federal rules allow any felony convictions to be admitted in to both criminal and civil trials in order to prove a fact in issue. It doesn't mater that there was a plea and no trial for this exception to apply.A is wrong in light of the correct answer, which sets forth that any felony conviction, regardless of whether it was by way of a trial or by way of a plea bargain, can be admitteD)B is also wrong in light of correct answer, since we are dealing with a hearsay exception.C is incorrect. A court will rarely allow evidence of character admitted in to civil case since this has the end effect of being generally prejudicial to the defendant.

Handwriting analysis such as this requires the following elements:1) personal familiarity with Frank's writing, 2) a basis for forming an evaluative opinion of the handwriting based on specialized knowledge, or 3) a particular fact-finding function, such as that assigned to the jury.B is wrong. Element 1 allows a former employee with prior knowledge of Frank's signature to testifyC and D are incorrect because an expert witness or the jury fall within elements 2 and 3, and are free to evaluate the writing. The police officer is neither a trier of fact nor an expert, so element 2 and 3 do not apply.

Risotto's testimony has no relation to any material issue of the case. At best her testimony shows Walker to be a philanthropic kind of guy, but she makes no mention of whether he is a communist or anti-geriatric, etC) . . As this testimony lacks probative value, a judge would not let it in.C misstates the actual law. When character is directly in issue, a court WILL allow specific instances of good character to show that a person likely acted in conformity with his character.D is incorrect. A court will only allow character evidence to come in when a person's character is in issue. In this case any evidence must, therefore, relate to Walker's treatment of old ladies, political background, or service recorD) Unfortunately for Walker, this testimony has no relation to any of these and will not be permitteD) In a similar line of reasoning, Answer B is incorrect as the evidence offered is simply not relevant to the matter at hanD) In light of this, a judge would not let it in.

The only way this testimony can be admitted, is if Dean is established to be an expert in accident reconstruction such as this. We have no facts to indicate that Dean is any sort of expert, and only expert technical knowledge can provide an estimation of speed based on the position of a plane's throttle. Being a former employee with a drinking problem and a peanut fetish probably isn't enough to establish Dean as an expert in the fielD) In light of this, his testimony probably would not be admitteD)C is incorrect. There is no rule of law requiring a witness to be present to corroborate Dean's testimony or finding, regardless of whether he is an expert in the field or simply offering opinion testimony.D is incorrect. Absent a showing that Dean is an expert (which we have established is not the case) all he is offering here is his opinion. In the present case, in light of the need for expert testimony, Dean's opinion testimony is not permissible. Answer B is wrong in a similar vein. Testimony based on personal observation, absent a showing that the person is an expert, will not be allowed to come in.

In the present fact pattern, Barry's credibility is never in issue. Therefore, the court has no reason to allowing Gwen's testimony to further support a question that is not in issue. Testifying to a person's credibility is only applicable when credibility of the witness is in question (i.e., via an impeachment attempt). Here, that is not the case at all, so there is no need for additional testimony.B recalls the defense of hearsay: namely, an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserteD) Here, there is no testimony by Gwen to an out-of-court statement, but rather testimony to her opinion of Barry's character for truthfulness.C is wrong since a court will allow the credibility of a witness (either the good credibility or the bad) to be attacked based upon opinion evidence relating to the witness's honesty. Here, Barry's honesty was not attacked so there is no need to offer the supporting testimony of Gwen.D is incorrect for misstating the law. The reputation of a witness for truthfulness can, in fact, be admitted in to a civil case if used to impeach. RECALL that it isn't reputation, but rather character that generally cannot be introduced into a civil case, unless that character itself is in issue.