Hearsay: Prior Statements Flashcards
True or False?
P v. D. Automobile accident case. W testifies for P. D impeaches her testimony by introducing evidence that W is having a love affair with P and was having one at the time of the accident. In rebuttal, P may introduce evidence of W’s prior consistent statements about the accident.
False.
True or False?
W and D are charged with a crime. Before trial, W agrees to assist the prosecution and is allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense. At trial, after W testifies for the state, and after D attacks W’s testimony by implying that W fabricated the evidence to receive the favorable plea bargain, the prosecutor will be allowed to introduce a prior consistent statement made by W shortly after he began cooperating. This statement is admissible both on the merits and to rehabilitate W’s credibility.
False.
Prosecution of D for murder of a convenience store clerk during a robbery. The prosecution calls W, a witness to the robbery, to testify that she picked D out of a line-up as the perpetrator of the convenience store robbery. This evidence is
A. Inadmissible to establish the identity of the perpetrator.
B. Admissible as a prior identification of D made after perceiving him.
C. Admissible to impeach D’s credibility, but only if he takes the witness stand on his own behalf and denies involvement.
D. Inadmissible for any purpose.
B. Admissible as a prior identification of D made after perceiving him.
Prosecution of D for a murder which occurred in Indianapolis. D’s defense is that at the time of the murder, she was in New York with W. D calls W, who testifies that he was indeed with D in New York at the time of the murder. On cross-examination of W, W denies ever making a statement inconsistent with his trial testimony. The prosecutor then shows W a certified transcript of his testimony before the grand jury on this matter, in which W testified that at the time of the murder, he was with D in Indianapolis. The grand jury transcript is
A. Admissible both to impeach W’s credibility and to prove that D was in Indianapolis at the time of the murder.
B. Admissible to impeach W’s credibility, but inadmissible to prove that D was in Indianapolis at the time of the murder.
C. Inadmissible to impeach W, but admissible to prove that D was in Indianapolis at the time of the murder.
D. Inadmissible either to impeach W or to prove that D was in Indianapolis at the time of the murder.
A. Admissible both to impeach W’s credibility and to prove that D was in Indianapolis at the time of the murder.
At the request of police, the teller who was robbed prepared a sketch bearing a strong likeness to Brown, but the teller died in an automobile accident before Brown was arrested. At trial the prosecution offers the sketch. The sketch is
A. Admissible to prove identity as pretrial identification of a person after perceiving him.
B. Inadmissible as hearsay.
C. Admissible for impeachment purposes alone if Brown denies his involvement.
D. Inadmissible because a police sketch is inherently reliable unless the artist is qualified as an expert.
B. Inadmissible as hearsay.
At the request of police, the teller who was robbed prepared a sketch bearing a strong likeness to Brown, but the teller died in an automobile accident before Brown was arrested. At trial the prosecution offers the sketch. Brown testified on direct examination that he had never been in the First National Bank. His counsel asks, “What, if anything, did you tell the police when you were arrested?” If his answer would be, “I told them I had never been in the bank,” this answer would be
A. Admissible to prove Brown had never been in the bank.
B. Admissible as a prior consistent statement.
C. Inadmissible hearsay.
D. Admissible only to corroborate Brown’s testimony.
C. Inadmissible hearsay.
Action for medical malpractice in prescribing valium to a patient suffering from uterine cancer. The plaintiff testifies that the defendant told her that her symptoms were “all in your head.” On cross-examination, the plaintiff admits that shortly before filing her suit she had read an article in a legal newspaper about a successful malpractice suit against another doctor on a similar claim. The plaintiff then calls her secretary who testifies that immediately after a visit to the defendant some two years before the present lawsuit, the plaintiff told the secretary that “my doctor thinks I’m psychosomatic.”
A. The plaintiff’s testimony on direct is inadmissible hearsay.
B. The testimony of the secretary is inadmissible.
C. The testimony of the secretary is admissible to prove the truthfulness of the statement.
D. The testimony of the secretary is admissible for corroborative purposes only.
C. The testimony of the secretary is admissible to prove the truthfulness of the statement.
In Polk’s negligence action against Dell arising out of a multiple-car collision, Witt testified for Polk that Dell went through a red light. On cross-examination, Dell seeks to question Witt about her statement made in a deposition in a separate action between Adams and Baker that Polk was the one who ran the red light. If Polk objects on grounds of improper impeachment, the court should rule the inquiry
A. Admissible for impeachment only.
B. Admissible as substantive evidence only.
C. Admissible for impeachment and as substantive evidence.
D. Inadmissible for any purpose, because it is hearsay.
C. Admissible for impeachment and as substantive evidence.
Prosecution for food freezer fraud. A police detective testifies that 75 witnesses, none of whom testified, picked the defendant out of a line-up as the woman who told them that if they bought a freezer from her company, the company would keep it perpetually stocked with frozen food. The testimony is
A. Inadmissible hearsay.
B. Admissible as statement of prior identification.
C. Admissible as a statement of then-existing state of mind.
D. Admissible as a verbal act.
A. Inadmissible hearsay.
Dray was prosecuted for bank robbery. At trial, the bank teller, Wall, was unable to identify Dray, now bearded, as the bank robber. The prosecutor then showed Wall a group of photographs, and Wall testified that she had previously told the prosecutor that the middle picture (concededly a picture of Dray before he grew a beard) was a picture of the bank robber. Wall’s testimony is
A. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
B. Admissible as prior identification by the witness.
C. Admissible only if the court finds that Wall truly cannot remember.
D. Inadmissible unless the photo refreshing her memory to the point that she can make an in-court identification.
B. Admissible as prior identification by the witness.
In a prosecution for rape of a child, following the child’s in-court account of the rape, the prosecution asked the child whether she had ever told anyone else this account of the events. When she answered, “Yes I told my mother, a doctor, and the police who talked with me.” If the defendant objects to the child’s testimony of what she said to the police when they came to investigate the alleged rape the court should
A. Sustain the objection as hearsay.
B. Overrule the objection because the witness is in-court, subject to cross examination and therefore the statement is not hearsay.
C. Overrule the objection on the basis of Rule 801(d)((1)(B), prior consistent statement.
D. Sustain the objection on the basis of the Right of Confrontation.
A. Sustain the objection as hearsay.
In the Boston Marathon bombing trial, W testifies that he cannot remember whom he identified as the person who placed a backpack near the location where the bomb exploded a few minutes later, but he does remember telling FBI Agent X the identity of the suspect a few days after the bombing. FBI Agent X will testify that during the investigation W identified D as the person who placed the backpack near the sight of the bombing minutes before the bombing. If defendant objects to the testimony of FBI Agent X, regarding W’s pretrial identification testimony, the court should
A. Exclude the testimony as hearsay.
B. Admit the police report identification under Rule 803(8)(A)(ii), matters observed.
C. Exclude the pretrial identification testimony, because the witness W did not make a consistent in-court identification.
D. Admit the testimony as prior identification testimony under Rule 801(d) (1) (C).
D. Admit the testimony as prior identification testimony under Rule 801(d) (1) (C).
In a child sexual molestation prosecution, the child victim testifies, but is not cross examined. Thereafter the prosecution offers the testimony of the victim’s mother and a friend, each of whom will testify that the victim told them the same account of the abuse that she gave during her trial testimony. If defendant objects to the testimony of the mother and the friend regarding the child victim’s prior consistent account that the accused had molested her, the court should
A. Admit the testimony as nonhearsay under Rule 801(d) (1) (B), as prior consistent statements.
B. Exclude the prior consistent statements as hearsay because the witness’s credibility has not been challenged.
C. Admit the statements under Rule 414.
D. Admit the statements under Rule 803(3) the then existing state of mind of the declarant memory of the prior events.
B. Exclude the prior consistent statements as hearsay because the witness’s credibility has not been challenged.
In a drug distribution case, if the Prosecution does not object to the Defendant’s cross examination of Squealer regarding a reduced plea offer, may the Prosecution offer Squealer’s grand jury testimony given before the plea offer discussions in a separate case that essentially repeats Squealer’s in-court testimony? Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the prior consistent grand jury testimony is
A. Inadmissible hearsay.
B. Admissible for both corroborating Squealer’s in-court testimony and as substantive evidence of the truthfulness of his testimony under Rule 801(d)(1)(B).
C. Admissible as corroborative testimony but not as substantive evidence.
D. Inadmissible because the statement was made prior to the time the witness had a reason to fabricate testimony to curry favor.
B. Admissible for both corroborating Squealer’s in-court testimony and as substantive evidence of the truthfulness of his testimony under Rule 801(d)(1)(B).
In a drug case, assume that the Prosecution asks Idee “Have you had an
opportunity to identify the Defendant previously in a lineup as the person you observed receiving the white bag that day?” If Defendant objects to the lineup identification testimony, the court should
A. Sustain the objection because it calls for inadmissible hearsay.
B. Overrule the objection because pretrial identification testimony is offered to prove something relevant other than the truth of the matter asserted.
C. Overrule the objection because the lineup identification testimony of an in-court witness is nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(C).
D. Sustain the objection on direct examination because the Prosecution cannot introduce a prior consistent statement under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) until the Defense has cross-examined the witness and suggested recent fabrication or improper motive.
C. Overrule the objection because the lineup identification testimony of an in-court witness is nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(C).
