More Hypos-Evidence Flashcards by Sara Benero

Defendants Fisher, Weibel and Sinnott were charged with conspiring to defraud the U.S. by inflating appraisals that generated millions in charitable tax deductions. During jury deliberations, juror 44, who is black, was accused of racial bias by juror 26, who is white, who told the court she heard juror 44 tell two other jurors that defendants (who are white) were guilty because of their race and class. The two other jurors in the room with juror 44 when juror 26 said he made the comment, denied hearing him say it.

Questioned by the Court, juror 26 acknowledged making the accusation and added that “she is a white person standing up for white people.” The Court did not find juror 26 credible as to her accusation of juror 44. The government has moved to disqualify juror 26, arguing that her racially motivated reasoning behind her statement of “standing up for white people” should disqualify her. How should the court rule on the government’s motion?

Grant to disqualify juror because her position was based on race, 606 applies

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

After a judgment was entered for the defendant in a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff made a motion for a new trial based on information from a person who served on the jury. Which of the following items of information would most likely give proper support for that motion?

A. The juror will testify that two members of the jury did not pay attention during deliberations and spent almost all the time making jokes.

B. The juror will testify that one member of the jury compared what the defendant doctor was alleged to have done with what his own doctor had done with him for a similar health problem.

C. The juror will testify that one member of the jury printed out a Wikipedia article on the plaintiff’s health problem, brought it to the jury room, and used it to argue that the defendant’s conduct could not have caused the plaintiff’s harm.

D. The juror will testify that a juror explained during deliberations that malpractice insurance premiums have increased greatly in recent years and that there are too many tort judgments against doctors.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

During jury deliberations that lasted for days, one juror suggested that they flip a coin to decide. They all agreed, flipped the coin, and found defendant guilty. Defendant has filed a motion for new trial based on jury misconduct. Would rule 606(b) bar testimony that a jury reached a verdict by flipping a coin.? What if the jurors had used drugs and alcohol during the trial.?

A) Verdict stands, testimony barred; not extraneous.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

In a rape prosecution assume the accused proffers evidence tending to show that the alleged victim consented. Assume the jurisdiction has a statute which defines rape as felonious sexual assault for anyone to engage in sexual penetration with a person, other than his spouse, who is under age 16. The accused proffers evidence tending to show that the alleged victim consented and prosecutor objects on relevance. What result?

A. Overruled, consent is not a material element of rape.
B. Overruled, lack of consent is an element of common law rape, the evidence relates to a consequential fact.
C. Sustained, lack of consent is not an element of rape under the statute.
D. Sustained, the evidence is relevant.

C. Sustained, lack of consent is not an element of rape under the statute.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Tracy Morgan files a diversity action against Walmart, alleging negligence in his complaint as a result of serious accident where a Walmart truck rear ended Tracy’s limo in New Jersey. In its answer, Walmart does not deny negligence, but pleads contributory negligence on the part of Tracy’s limousine driver. Assume that New Jersey follows the pure comparative negligence rule. At trial, evidence that Walmart is negligent is

A. Admissible because it is relevant.
B. Admissible because it is a fact of consequence.
C. Inadmissible because it is no longer an issue in the case.
D. Inadmissible because it is relevant

C. Inadmissible because it is no longer an issue in the case.

Since Walmart does not deny evidence; it’s not relevant; it’s about damages. Relevance is off the table.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Floyd Mayweather is charged with a scheme to defraud the Nevada Boxing Commission of
thousands of dollars. Mayweather wants to introduce evidence that he is a man of a peaceful disposition. This evidence is

A. Admissible as relevant to Mayweather’s truthfulness.
B. Admissible as relevant to Mayweather’s character.
C. Inadmissible.
D. None of the above.

C. Inadmissible.
Irrelevant; has nothing to do with fraud pattern.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

An undercover agent began negotiating with a Colombian drug dealer for a shipment of cocaine. The dealer shipped cocaine to the agent, and they made plans to have the drugs delivered to the dealer’s associate (Defendant) in Houston, Texas. Just after the cocaine was delivered to the associate’s residence, several agents, wearing vests and helmets marked “POLICE” and “DEA,” approached the house as one agent yelled, “Police!” As the police approached, Defendant hid in a garage closet. The agents found two other suspects in the living room and located Defendant in the closet. Defendant was later convicted of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The district court instructed the jury that evidence of flight could reflect a consciousness of guilt. Defendant argues that there were no inferences necessary to support a flight instruction. Appellate court should:

A. Affirm because evidence of an accused’s flight may be presented at trial as probative of a guilty mind if there is an adequate factual predicate creating an inference of guilt of the crime charged.
B. Reverse because evidence of an accused’s flight is not generally admissible as tending to establish consciousness of guilt.
C. Reverse because hiding in a closet may not be the standard method of escape.
D. Affirm because there were no inferences necessary to support a flight instruction

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

A defendant is charged with possession of heroin. The prosecution’s witness, an experienced dog trainer, testified that he was in the airport with a dog trained to detect heroin. As the defendant approached, the dog immediately became alert and pawed and barked frantically at the defendant’s briefcase. The defendant managed to run outside and throw his briefcase into the river, from which it could not be recovered. After the dog trainer’s experience and qualification is established, he is asked to testify as an expert that the dog’s reaction told him that the defendant’s briefcase contained heroin. The dog trainer’s testimony is:
A: admissible, as relevant to consciousness of the defendant’s guilt.
B: admissible , because the dog trainer is qualified.
C: inadmissible, because it is based on hearsay not within any exception.
D: inadmissible, because of the unreliability of the reactions of an animal.

A: admissible, as relevant to consciousness of the defendant’s guilt.

A trainer’s qualifications is not an issue. It was established that the dog is qualified because is an experienced dog trainer. What is relevant is the testimony.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

A 1989 Ford and a 1991 Chevy collide at an intersection in Orlando. The owner of the Ford (“Ford”) claims that the owner of the Chevy (“Chevy”) was speeding and did not slow down for the intersection. A few days later, Ford’s investigator found a rim from a headlight in a field 200 feet from the point of impact. Ford has an expert witness prepared to testify that in order for the headlight rim to have been thrown 200 feet, the Chevy had to be going at least 85 mph. Ford puts the investigator on the stand; she testifies to finding the rim, specifies the precise spot where she found it, and identifies the rim she found. Ford then offers the rim in evidence. Chevy contests this proof with a witness who claims that the rim is from a 1987 Cadillac. Admission of the rim in evidence will depend on:
A. Ford telling the judge about his intention to call an expert and outlining the testimony expected from the expert.
B. Ford needing a witness first who can identify the rim as having come from a 1991 Chevy and specifically from Chevy’s 1991 Chevy.
C. The court insisting on proof that a rim on Chevy’s car is missing.
D. Chevy telling the judge what the evidence is being offered to prove and what evidence exists to link the offered evidence to the issues in the case.

B. Ford needing a witness first who can identify the rim as having come from a 1991 Chevy and specifically from Chevy’s 1991 Chevy.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

OJ Simpson is charged with murdering his girlfriend, Nicole Simpson. OJ is alleged to have stabbed Nicole sixteen times in the face. The trial court allowed four photographs into evidence over OJ’s objection that they were gruesome, highly inflammatory, and unduly prejudicial: Exhibit 1: Nicole’s clothed body, showing gross marbling of the skin, discoloration of the face, and fluid coming from both the nose and mouth; Exhibit 2: a closeup of Nicole’s face in profile before it was cleaned; Exhibit 3: Nicole’s torso and face after the body had been washed and her head had been shaved to make the wounds more visible; Exhibit 4: views of Nicole’s skull, the top and its contents having been removed, with a knife going through an opening to the inside. OJ did not contest the facts that are of consequence. On appeal, the photographs are likely to be ruled:

A. Admissible as relevant to the manner of Nicole’s death
B. Inadmissible because their danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the exhibit’s probative value
C. Admissible because all relevant photographs may be received in evidence even though they “also have a tendency to prejudice the jury against the person who committed the offense”
D. Inadmissible, because OJ contested the “fact that is of consequence”

B. Inadmissible because their danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the exhibit’s probative value.

The pictures do not prove anything cause the fact is proven already. Unfair prejudice does not apply only to previous crimes but also to evidence in the very same case at hand, when they don’t prove anything.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Defendant is charged with criminal sale of narcotics in violation of the penal law. Prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence to prove that D sought to kill key prosecution witness. Defense attorney objects. The trial judge should?

A. Exclude on relevance grounds.
B. Exclude on 403 grounds.
C. Exclude on both relevance and 403 grounds.
D. Admit as evidence of attempted murder.

B. Exclude on 403 grounds.

You cannot bring evidence of a different crime when you are charging a person with one crime. It is relevant but because it is a different crime it cannot come, prosecution had to charge it.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Blac Chyna sues Anna Nicole for negligently rear-ending her car, causing her a whiplash and a concussion. At trial, Blac Chyna wants to introduce evidence that Anna Nicole works as a topless dancer in a strip club where the dancers consume a lot of alcohol. The judge is likely to

A. Admit the evidence as tending to prove that Anna Nicole was drunk.
B. Admit the evidence as relevant.
C. Exclude the evidence because it has low probative value to the issue of negligence and has substantial risk of unfair prejudice.
D. Exclude the evidence as prejudicial to Anna Nicole.

C. Exclude the evidence because it has low probative value to the issue of negligence and has substantial risk of unfair prejudice.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

In 2014, the United States prosecuted Money Man (“MM”) in federal court for insider trading. The prosecution alleged that MM received a tip from two doctors about the success of a new Alzheimer’s drug in clinical trials and advised his firm to purchase stock in the drug producers resulting in $276 million in profits.
MM moved to exclude evidence that he fainted when approached by FBI agents outside his home on November 8, 2011, approximately a year before his arrest. MM fainted after agents told him that they wanted to talk with him about his insider trading activities at his firm. MM was quickly revived and suffered no lasting effects. The prosecution argues that evidence of MM’s fainting is relevant to his guilt. MM argues that the evidence is unfairly prejudicial and has little probative value. The fainting evidence is likely to be

A. Excluded because its probative value is substantially outweighed by its unfair prejudice.
B. Excluded because its prejudice is substantially outweighed by its probative value.
C. Admitted because it is relevant.
D. Admitted because it has an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis.

A. Excluded because its probative value is substantially outweighed by its unfair prejudice.

Unfair prejudicial because it was stated that it was relevant, but it could prejudice the jury to think he is guilty because he fainted.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Big Papi, (“BP”) an unauthorized immigrant from the “DR” working as a masonry laborer was injured while working on a construction site. BP slipped on the ice and fell, suffering a hernia and severely injuring his back. He now endures a permanent disability, restricting him from lifting more than twenty pounds and barring him from working again as a masonry laborer. BP claims his injury decreased his lifetime earning capacity by between $600,000 and $900,000. BP has now sued his employer, Boston Strong(“BS”) for the injuries. BS contends that BP’s unlawful immigration status should be admissible because, as an unauthorized immigrant, he could be deported at any time, therefore, his immigration status is relevant to his claim for lost future income. BP responds that admission of his unlawful immigration status will be unfairly prejudicial to him, that is, its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. A court is likely to rule evidence of BP’s unlawful immigration status

A. Relevant and admissible, because as an unauthorized immigrant, BP could be deported at any time.
B. Relevant but inadmissible, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues.
C. Irrelevant and inadmissible.
D. Unfair to BP

B. Relevant but inadmissible, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Barbara Backseat was a passenger in a car, riding in its backseat. Frieda Frontseat was riding in the front seat of that same car. Tom Trucker drove his truck into the car. Backseat sued Trucker, claiming that he drove negligently and that she had suffered a back injury from the impact. At trial, Trucker admitted he had driven negligently, but denied that the collision had caused Backseat’s injury. An expert witness testified for Trucker that the force of the collision was too slight to have caused an injury to Backseat. Backseat seeks to introduce evidence showing that the collision caused a bodily injury to Frontseat. Assuming Trucker makes appropriate objections, the best ruling by the trial judge would be that the evidence is:

A. Excluded because it is not relevant.
B. Excluded because it has only slight relevance.
C. Admitted because it has high relevance.
D. Excluded because it has low probative value, would require a lot of time to prove, and might be overvalued by the jury.

D-Excluded because it has low probative value, would require a lot of time to prove, and might be overvalued by the jury.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Personal injury action by Dan Newlin (“Newlin”) against H-E-B arising from Newlin’s fall on the floor in H-E-B supermarket. Newlin fell on a liquid spill that was not visible to him as he walked down the aisle, and claims H-E-B was negligent for not cleaning it up before the accident. H-E-B denies negligence. To prove H-E-B did not act reasonably, Newlin wishes to offer evidence that a week after the accident, H-E-B’s employees began patrolling for spills in that area twice as often as before the accident. H-E-B objects. What result?

(A) The evidence is inadmissible because it has low probative value.
(B) The evidence is inadmissible because it is irrelevant.
(C) The evidence is relevant but inadmissible.
(D) The evidence is relevant and admissible.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Personal injury action by Newlin against H-E-B arising from Newlin’s fall on the floor in H-E-B supermarket. Newlin fell on a liquid spill that was not visible to him as he walked down the aisle, and claims H-E-B was negligent for not cleaning it up before the accident. H-E-B denies negligence. To prove H-E-B did not act reasonably, Newlin wishes to offer evidence that a week before the accident, H-E-B’s employees began patrolling for spills in that area twice as often as after the accident. H-E-B objects. What result?

(D) The evidence is relevant and admissible.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Student X tripped and fell at the front door mat of Sidebar café. The mat is made of natural fibers that tend to wear out due to bad weather. As soon as Sidebar café learned of the fall, it replaced the fiber mat with a rubber mat. The fact that Sidebar café replaced the natural fiber mat with the rubber mat is

A. not admissible to prove that Sidebar cafe acted negligently by
not replacing the mat earlier.
B. not admissible to prove feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted.
C. admissible to prove that Sidebar Cafe acted negligently by not
replacing the mat earlier.
D. admissible because it is a subsequent remedial measure.

A. not admissible to prove that Sidebar cafe acted negligently by
not replacing the mat earlier.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

In a personal injury case, Barbie sued a retail store for injuries she sustained from a fall in the store. Barbie alleged that the store had negligently allowed its entryway to become slippery from snow tracked in from the sidewalk. Before the lawsuit was filed, Barbie first threatened to sue, the store’s manager said, “I know that there was slush on that marble entryway, but I think your four-inch-high heels were the real cause of your fall. So let’s agree that we’ll pay your medical bills in the real world, and you release us from any claims you might have.” Barbie refused the offer. At trial, Barbie seeks to testify to the manager’s statement that “there was slush on that marble entryway.” Is the statement about the slush in the entryway admissible?

A. No, because it is a statement made in the course of compromise negotiations.
B. No, because the manager denied that the slippery condition was the cause of Barbie’s fall.
C. Yes, as a statement by an agent about a matter within the scope of his authority.
D. Yes, because the rule excluding offers of compromise does not protect statements of fact made during compromise negotiations.

A. No, because it is a statement made in the course of compromise negotiations.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

The Donald and his aide Stormy Daniels (“Stormy”) had been very close for many years. Stormy was recently diagnosed with a terminal liver disease. As Stormy lay dying, “The Donald” said to her, “Don’t you worry, I will take care of all your medical bills if you pull through this. Believe me, nobody is ever seen anything like it!” Shortly thereafter, Stormy made a full recovery. When The Donald, as usual, refused to pay Stormy’s medical bills, Stormy sued him. During trial, Stormy seeks to introduce The Donald’s statement regarding payment of her medical bills. Should the court admit the statement?

(A) No, because the statement constitutes an offer to pay medical bills.
(B) No, because the statement violates the parol evidence rule.
(C) Yes, as admissible evidence.
(D) Yes, as a dying declaration.

Rule only applies when he causes the accident.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Snoop Dogg was arrested on marijuana distribution charges by DEA Agent Bauer, who gave him Miranda warnings. Snoop then informed Bauer that he had cooperated with the government in the past and would be willing to do so in the future. In the course of this conversation Snoop made incriminating statements relating to the crime for which he had been arrested. Later that day Snoop met in a pre-arraignment conference with Assistant United States Attorney Olivia and had a similar conversation. After his arraignment Snoop returned to DEA headquarters with a lawyer to meet with Bauer. Snoop again offered to cooperate, and Bauer suggested that Snoop contact Agent Carter. Snoop thereafter contacted Carter, offered to cooperate, and made some incriminatory statements. At no time during any of these conversations did Snoop explicitly offer to plead guilty or request a concession from the government. Which parts, if any, of the conversations related above should be excluded under Rule 410?

(A.)The statement with Bauer that Snoop had cooperated with the government in the past and would be willing to do so in the future.
(B).The conversation made in a pre-arraignment conference with Assistant United States Attorney Olivia.
(C).The incriminatory statements made to Agent Carter.
(D). None of the above.

(B).The conversation made in a pre-arraignment conference with Assistant United States Attorney Olivia.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Detective Andy Sipowicz arrests Shorty under suspicion of committing an armed robbery. Sipowicz reads Shorty his Miranda rights and Shorty states that he understands his rights and waives them. Shorty then gives Sipowicz an alibi for the crime. Sipowicz responds: “Look, both you and I know that story isn’t true. You really should be honest with me. Things will go better for you if you cooperate.” Shorty then gives Sipowicz a full confession. The prosecution later tries to admit the confession at Shorty’s trial, and the defense attorney objects. The confession is:

A. Irrelevant and therefore inadmissible.
B. Inadmissible under Rule 410.
C. Admissible only if Shorty takes the stand and testifies to facts inconsistent with the statement.
D. Admissible.

D. Admissible.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Barbie is suing Ken for injuries she suffered in a crash of a balcony at Ken’s Mojo Dojo Casa House, alleging that Ken owns the Mojo Dojo Casa House and negligently failed to have it properly maintained. Ken asserted in his defense that he never owned the Mojo Dojo Casa House or had any responsibility to maintain it. At trial, Barbie calls a witness to testify that the witness had sold Ken a liability insurance policy on the Mojo Dojo Casa House. The testimony of the witness is

A. Inadmissible, because the policy is in dispute.
B. Inadmissible, because of the rule against proof of insurance where insurance is not itself at issue.
C. Admissible to show that Ken had little motivation to invest money in maintenance of the Mojo Dojo Casa House.
D. Admissible as some evidence of Ken’s ownership of, or responsibility for Mojo Dojo Casa House.

D. Admissible as some evidence of Ken’s ownership of, or responsibility for Mojo Dojo Casa House.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

A plaintiff sued a defendant, alleging that she was seriously injured when the defendant ran a red light and struck her while she was walking in a crosswalk. During the defendant’s case, a witness testified that the plaintiff had told him that she was “barely touched” by the defendant’s car. On cross-examination, should the court allow the plaintiff to elicit from the witness the fact that he is an adjuster for the defendant’s insurance company?

(A) No, because testimony about liability insurance is always barred by the rules of evidence.
(B) No, because the reference to insurance raises a collateral issue.
(C) Yes, for both substantive and impeachment purposes.
(D) Yes, for impeachment purposes only.

(D) Yes, for impeachment purposes only.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Dark Brandon falls down a well on Trump’s property at Mar-a- Lago Fl, contending that the well was impossible to see because of overgrown foliage that Trump should have cleared away. Trump, as usual, denies that he was negligent. To prove Trump’s negligence, Dark Brandon wants to introduce evidence that Trump carried a homeowner’s liability insurance policy on the land in question. A court is likely to hold the evidence A. Admissible to prove that Trump acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. B. Not admissible to prove that Trump acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. C. Admissible to prove that Dark Brandon fell down the well. D. Not admissible to prove ownership or control.

B. Not admissible to prove that Trump acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.

An action by the estate of Paul against Davey seeking damages for the pain and suffering Paul experienced in an auto accident injury, caused by Davey. Davey denies liability and also asserts that Paul died instantly in the accident and therefore couldn’t have suffered any pain and damages. Wayne proposes to testify that on the side of the road and immediately after the accident, Paul said, “Davey’s car ran the red light” Is Wayne’s statement hearsay? A. Yes, if offered to prove who ran the red light. B. Yes, if offered to prove that Paul was alive following the accident. C. No, because it is not an out of court statement. D. No, because Paul is dead

A. Yes, if offered to prove who ran the red light.

Max was employed as a waitress at 2 Broke Girls restaurant from 2011 to 2017 when she was terminated because she exceeded the permissible number of customer walk-outs. Max brought a lawsuit alleging that Defendant, her employer, wrongfully terminated her because of her age. Defendant alleged that Max was fired because customers complained about her rude service. Defendant relied on its electronic customer complaint system where customers could post their complaints. In her pleadings, Max states that “a couple of days before her deposition she saw where another employee posted on her Facebook about a customer complaining about her and that she was so sick and tired of it.” Max wants to offer this statement as evidence that customers complained about other servers; but employer did not terminate them, except for her. Defendant objects that this is hearsay. This evidence is: A. Admissible because it is not hearsay. B. Admissible because it is not a statement. C. Inadmissible because it is an out of court statement offered for its truth. D. Inadmissible because it is irrelevant.

C. Inadmissible because it is an out of court statement offered for its truth.

It is Christmas time. Ganja, his wife Jodi Arias and Ganja’s aged, invalid father are at home. As usual, Jodi prepares pre-dinner drinks--martinis for Ganja and her father-in-law, and sex on the beach cocktail for herself. Since it is a special occasion, Jodi also prepares hors d'oeuvres. But Jodi does not eat any hors d'oeuvres herself. The next day, Ganja and his father are found dead. An autopsy of the bodies and a chemical analysis of the martinis and hors d'oeuvres reveal traces of arsenic poisoning in the bodies, drinks, and food. Jodi is charged with two counts of first-degree murder. At Jodi's trial, suppose that the prosecution proves the above and then calls Casey Anthony, a saleslady in the local drugstore, to testify that on December 24 she sold Jodi a tube of rat poison. On Jodi's objection to Casey’s testimony, the court should A. Admit the evidence because Casey is testifying about personal experience. B. Admit the evidence as an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. C. Exclude the evidence because it is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. D. Exclude the evidence as prejudicial to Jodi.

A. Admit the evidence because Casey is testifying about personal experience. There's no statement; is what she did. A conduct.

Assume that under the same facts, the prosecution calls Andrea Yates, Casey Anthony’s sister, to testify that Casey told her on December 25 that Jodi bought rat poison. On Jodi's objection, the court should A. Admit the evidence because Andrea is testifying about personal experience. B. Admit the evidence as an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. C. Exclude the evidence because it is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. D. Exclude the evidence as prejudicial to Jodi.

C. Exclude the evidence because it is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. This is an out of court statement.

“The Donald” is charged with first degree murder after blowing Rosie O’Donnell’s head off with a shot gun. The day after the murder, Officer Mahoney interviews Hillary, the owner of the Plaza, in which the shooting occurred. In Mahoney's presence, Hillary prepares and signs a statement that says, "I saw The Donald shoot Rosie.”At The Donald’s trial, the first witness is Officer Mahoney who identifies Hillary's written statement and says, "Hillary is dead.” The Prosecution offers Hillary’s statement in evidence. The Donald objects. What result? A. Overruled, because the statement is clearly relevant and highly probative. B. Sustained, because the statement is offered for the truth of the matter asserted and is not a statement made by Hillary while testifying. C. Overruled, because Hillary is dead. D. Sustained, because the statement is clearly relevant and highly probative.

B. Sustained, because the statement is offered for the truth of the matter asserted and is not a statement made by Hillary while testifying.

Action for damages for assault and battery. At trial, Daenerys testifies that she was driving down East Colonial Drive at 9 p.m. on January 1, and while she was stopped at a streetlight between Colonial and Semoran Blvd, someone threw a brick through her car window. Although Daenerys did not see who hurled the brick, Arya, Brienne, Cersei and Davos were the only ones on the street at the time. Daenerys proposes to testify further that she stopped her car and Arya walked over to her and said, "Davos threw it, Lady." Davos objects. What result? A. Objection overruled, Daenerys is testifying to Arya's statement which is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. B. Objection overruled, the evidence is relevant and highly probative. C. Objection sustained, Arya, Brienne, Cersei and Davos were the only ones on the street at the time. D. Objection sustained, Daenerys is testifying to Arya's statement which is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

D. Objection sustained, Daenerys is testifying to Arya's statement which is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Out of court statement brought into court. If Davos was on trial and said "I saw him do it" it's different

Assume that under the same facts, Daenerys proposes to testify that she stopped her car and asked Arya who threw the brick and Arya pointed to Davos. Davos objects. What result? A. Objection sustained, Arya’s pointing was non-verbal conduct intended as an assertion. B. Objection overruled, the evidence is relevant and highly probative. C. Objection sustained, Arya, Brienne, Cersei and Davos were the only ones on the street at the time. D. Objection overruled, Arya’s pointing was non-verbal conduct intended as an assertion.

A. Objection sustained, Arya’s pointing was non-verbal conduct intended as an assertion.

The prosecution is trying to convict Kenya for Porsha’s murder. One night, Kandi was walking her dog when she heard three loud gun shots. She heard someone scream, “Kenya, why did you have to shoot me, I am too young and pretty to die!!” The next day, officers knock on Kandi’s door. They tell her that there has been a murder in the area and ask if she happened to hear anything the previous night. Kandi responds, “come to think of it, I heard someone in that house yell out” Kenya, why did you have to shoot me, I am to young and pretty to die!!” The prosecution calls Kandi as a witness to testify to what she heard. Kandi’s statement is A. Admissible to prove that Kenya shot Porsha. B. Admissible because the prosecution wants to prove that Kandi heard it. C. Inadmissible, because it is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. D. Inadmissible, because Kandi didn’t know who Porsha was.

C. Inadmissible, because it is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

A jewelry thief steals jewelry in front of a witness. Several days later, the witness works with police to create a drawing of the thief, which is a very effective likeness, and helps the police to capture the thief. The witness dies several days before the trial, and, as a result the witness is unavailable to testify at trial. When the witness’s drawing is offered by the prosecution as evidence in the case, Defendant objects on the ground that it is hearsay. The objection should be: A. Sustained because the drawing is an out of court statement by a witness, that does not fall under any hearsay exception and the witness is not available to testify at trial and be cross-examined by the defense. B. Sustained because composite sketches are not barred by the hearsay rule and thus are generally admissible against defendants to prove guilt. C. Overruled because the drawing is an out of court statement by a witness that falls under the hearsay exception. D. Overruled because it is the only relevant evidence since the witness is unavailable.

A. Sustained because the drawing is an out of court statement by a witness, that does not fall under any hearsay exception and the witness is not available to testify at trial and be cross-examined by the defense.

Max brought a lawsuit alleging that Defendant, her employer, wrongfully terminated her because of her age. Defendant alleged that Max was fired because customers complained about her rude service. Defendant relied on its electronic customer complaint system where customers could post their complaints. In her pleadings, Max states “that a couple days before her deposition she saw where another employee posted on her Facebook about a customer complaining about her and that she was so sick and tired of it.” Max wants to offer this statement as evidence that customers complained about other servers, but employer did not terminate them, except for her. Defendant objects that this is inadmissible double hearsay. This evidence is: A. Admissible because it is not double hearsay. B. Admissible because social media postings are not statements. C. Inadmissible because it is hearsay within hearsay offered for its truth. D. Inadmissible because social media postings are statements.

C. Inadmissible because it is hearsay within hearsay offered for its truth. It's hearsay within hearsay

Plaintiff, a tenant sued his Landlord based on negligence theory after he slipped and fell on the stairs. Defendant wants to introduce evidence that the janitor told him that he had told plaintiff, “one day, you will fall and break your leg if you keep running up and down those steep stairs like that”. This evidence is: A. Admissible if offered to prove that Plaintiff had notice that the stairs were steep. B. Inadmissible because it is hearsay within hearsay. C. Admissible if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. D. Inadmissible as prejudicial.

A. Admissible if offered to prove that Plaintiff had notice that the stairs were steep.

A doctor is on trial for assault and battery of a former patient. He claims that he was acting in self-defense, as the patient became enraged at the doctor’s advice to the patient to “just go home and wait to die.” During trial, the doctor testified that he was warned by two of the patient’s friends that the patient had a short temper and to “beware.” The prosecution objected. How should the court rule? (A) The statement is inadmissible, as hearsay not within an applicable exception. (B) The statement is inadmissible, as a self-serving statement. (C) The statement is admissible, as it is not hearsay. (D) The statement is admissible, under the statements for medical diagnosis exception.

Porsha has a party. She has invited all the girls except Kenya. Porsha is in Publix grocery store with her baby girl Pilar, pushing her on a shopping cart. At the wine section, they run into Kenya. Kenya uses the opportunity to confront Porsha about being uninvited to her party. As the two argue back and forth, Porsha realizes that Pilar is missing. Porsha panics and starts screaming, calling Pilar’s name. Kenya coolly says to her, “see that Boricua lady walking out the door, she has Pilar.” Porsha bolts after the Boricua lady, tackles her sending her sprawling on the asphalt. The Boricua lady didn’t have Pilar. As Porsha apologizes to the Boricua lady, Kenya walks by her and says, “that will teach you lesson for leaving me out of your party.” Pilar was later found under the shopping cart. Porsha is now charged with assault and battery for tackling the Boriqua lady. Porsha wants to testify that Kenya told her in the store “see that Boricua lady walking out the door, she has Pilar.” The prosecution objects on hearsay grounds. This statement is A. Admissible, because it is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. B. Admissible, if offered to prove the effect on Porsha. C. Inadmissible, because it is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. D. Inadmissible, if offered to prove the effect on the listener

B. Admissible, if offered to prove the effect on Porsha.

A-Rod is on trial for beating up Ben Affleck. Jennifer Garner testifies that, prior to the fight, she heard A-Rod say, “I can’t believe that no good, tree hugging, gigli-bombing snowflake Affleck has been sleeping with my girlfriend J-Lo! I thought he was my friend!” Affleck’s attorney immediately objects on hearsay grounds. This evidence is A. Admissible, if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. B. Admissible, if offered to show that A-Rod was angry with Affleck. C. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exceptions. D. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay within hearsay.

B. Admissible, if offered to show that A-Rod was angry with Affleck. to show the effect on him; non hearsay, effect on the listener

An action for the purchase price of a television set bought by Sheldon from the Best Buy TV Company. Howard's complaint alleges the following: (1) Best Buy sold and delivered a television to Sheldon on June 1 on credit; (2) Sheldon has failed to pay for the television in breach of the credit agreement; (3) Best Buy assigned its claim to Howard on September 1; (4) On September 15 Howard demanded payment from Sheldon; Sheldon refused; and (5) Howard’s claim is now due and unpaid, whereby Howard demands judgment for the purchase price. Sheldon's answer alleges that Howard is not the real party in interest. At trial, Howard testifies that on September 1 he proposed to Best Buy that Best Buy assign its claim to him and that Best Buy then executed a document marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 for identification. Exhibit 1 states: “Best Buy TV Company hereby assigns its claim against Sheldon to Howard for good and valuable consideration." Sheldon objects and moves to exclude Exhibit 1 on hearsay grounds. What ruling? A. Objection sustained, because the exhibit is hearsay not within any exception. B. Objection sustained, because contractual terms, when offered to prove that a contract exists, are not hearsay. C. Objection overruled because the exhibit is an assignment which has the legal effect of assigning the claim. D. Objection overruled because contractual terms, when offered to prove that a contract exists, are hearsay.

C. Objection overruled because the exhibit is an assignment which has the legal effect of assigning the claim. Every time we see a contract is good, not hearsay.

On the issue of whether Ben Affleck and J-Lo were engaged to be married, Affleck’s statement to J-Lo, "I promise to marry you on August 20, 2022” is A. Inadmissible as hearsay not within any exceptions. B. Inadmissible as state of mind exception. C. Admissible as an operative legal fact. D. Admissible as an acceptance.

C. Admissible as an operative legal fact.

Leonard is charged with knowingly receiving stolen goods (two diamond earrings) from Howard in June 2015. At trial the prosecution makes out a prima facie case and rests. Leonard proposes to testify that Howard gave him the diamond earrings in June and told him that he had bought them as an anniversary gift for his wife Bernadette, and asked him to keep them for him until their anniversary dinner where Howard would surprise Bernadette with the earrings. Leonard further testifies that he believed Howard. The D.A. objects. What ruling and why? A. Objection overruled, if the statement is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. B. Objection overruled if Leonard is offering it to show that he had a basis for believing that the goods he received from Howard were not stolen. C. Objection sustained if the statement is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. D. Objection sustained if Leonard is offering it to show that he had a basis for believing that the goods he received from Howard were not stolen.

B. Objection overruled if Leonard is offering it to show that he had a basis for believing that the goods he received from Howard were not stolen. Effect on the listener; state of mind.

A woman had a severe allergic reaction after ingesting some fermented chai tea. As a result, she was admitted to the hospital for two weeks and suffered permanent hearing loss. Knowing that she was allergic to certain types of preservatives such as monosodium glutamate, a common preservative, the woman had purchased the chai tea because the label stated that the tea was “all natural.” The woman claims that she carefully read the label for any indication of preservatives and that none were listed. The woman files suit against the manufacturer, seeking damages for lost wages, pain and suffering, and punitive damages based on false advertising and product liability theories. When the woman attempts to testify that she examined the label and found no mention of preservatives, the defense objects. The judge should (A) overrule the objection, because it is admissible hearsay. (B) overrule the objection, because the woman is testifying to what she remembers was contained on the label. (C) sustain the objection, because the information is hearsay. (D) sustain the objection, because the woman is not an expert and cannot testify regarding chemical preservatives.

(B) overrule the objection, because the woman is testifying to what she remembers was contained on the label.

In an auto vehicle collision case, Wanda testifies that she saw a red Toyota run a red light between Colonial Drive and Semoran Blvd, after which she heard a loud bang. Opposing counsel objects on the grounds of hearsay. The objection will be A. Sustained, because it is hearsay not within any exceptions. B. Sustained, because it is irrelevant. C. Overruled, because it is non hearsay. D. Overruled, because it is relevant.

C. Overruled, because it is non hearsay. Testifying of what she saw and heard a loud bang, it's not a statement.

In an auto vehicle collision case, Wanda testifies that “according to my notes that I took at the time, I saw a red Toyota run a red light between Colonial Drive and Semoran Blvd, after which I heard a loud bang.” Opposing counsel objects on the grounds of hearsay. The objection will be A. Sustained, because it is hearsay not within any exceptions. B. Sustained, because it is irrelevant. C. Overruled, because it is non hearsay. D. Overruled, because it is relevant.

A. Sustained, because it is hearsay not within any exceptions.

A Bey Hive called Beyonce at 2 am in the morning and said, “hey queen Bey, you are not gonna believe this, I just saw Jay-Z kiss Becky with the good hair!” Beyonce offers this evidence in her divorce case. This statement is A. Hearsay if offered to show that Jay-Z kissed Becky with the good hair. B. Non hearsay if offered to prove that the Bey Hive called Beyonce at 2 am. C. Non hearsay if offered to show that Beyonce had knowledge of Jay-Z’s cheating. D. All of the above.

D. All of the above.

Dr. Dre sees Eminen walking down the street and shouts, “hey slim, whassup? Eminen responds, “sup Dre.” Eminen is now charged with wire fraud. He is accused of submitting a check to the bank signed, “slim shady.” Eminen denies that he is slim shady. Prosecution has called 50 Cent as a witness. 50 Cent will testify that he heard Dre shout “hey slim, whassup? and Eminen respond, “sup Dre.” Prosecution wants to offer this statement to prove that Eminem is slim shady. This statement is A. Admissible as a statement of identification. B. Admissible as a nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion. C. Inadmissible as a nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion. D. Inadmissible if put forward as evidence that Eminem is slim shady.

D. Inadmissible if put forward as evidence that Eminem is slim shady.

Defendants Shaggy and Snoop were arrested for possession of marijuana, in violation of 21 USC § 841. At trial, the judge admitted a statement Shaggy made to Snoop infront of the arresting officers. Shaggy said, “Yo Snoop, I didn't tell them anything about you. It wasn’t me.” Snoop argues that the trial court erred in admitting this statement because it is hearsay not within any exceptions. The government argues that the statement is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that Shaggy didn’t tell the officers anything about Snoop, but is probative of Snoop’s guilt. The government sought to use the statement as circumstantial evidence for the purpose of establishing the existence of a conspiracy between the two defendants, as well as their joint participation in the substantive offenses charged. The appellate court is likely to: A. Reverse the trial court because the evidence is unfair to Snoop. B. Reverse the trial court because the statement is offered to show that Snoop was involved in the crime for which the two were charged and tried. C. Affirm the trial court because it shows Shaggy made the statement. D. Affirm the trial court because the statement is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

B. Reverse the trial court because the statement is offered to show that Snoop was involved in the crime for which the two were charged and tried.

Defendants Shaggy and Snoop were arrested for possession of marijuana, in violation of 21 USC § 841. At trial, the judge admitted a statement Shaggy made to Snoop in front of the arresting officers. Shaggy said, “Yo Snoop, I didn't tell them anything about you. It wasn’t me.” Snoop argues that the trial court erred in admitting this statement because it is hearsay not within any exceptions. Assume that one issue at trial was whether Shaggy was capable of speaking English. As to the admission of the statement, A. Trial court erred because the evidence is unfair to Snoop. B. Trial court erred because the statement is hearsay not within any exceptions. C. Trial court did not err because the government sought to use Shaggys' statement, as circumstantial evidence for the purpose of establishing the existence of a conspiracy between the two defendants, as well as their joint participation in the substantive offenses charged. D. Trial court did not err because the statement is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

D. Trial court did not err because the statement is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

A police investigation revealed that Snoop had attempted to accept a package in the mail containing a large quantity of marijuana. After the package had been delivered, Snoop was arrested. At the time of his arrest, Snoop had a cellphone which was seized by the police. Later that day, at the police station, the phone began ringing. Detective Shaft answered the phone and identified himself as Snoop. The person on the other end asked Shaft “Did you get the fo shizzle?” Shaft answered “ahuh.” The unidentified person then asked “Where is Dawg?” Shaft responded that “Dawg” was not available. The evidence at trial revealed that “Dawg” is 50 Cent's nickname. Snoop and 50 Cent were charged with conspiring to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. The district court allowed Shaft to testify to the questions asked by the unidentified caller. Did the court err by allowing Shaft to testify to the questions asked by the unidentified caller? A. No, because the questions asked by the unknown caller are not hearsay because they are not intended to assert anything. B. No, because the questions asked by the unidentified caller were offered for the truth of the matter asserted. C. Yes, because while questions in this case are not direct assertions, there are certain assertions implicit in the questions. D. Yes because Dawg and Dog are not the same names.

A. No, because the questions asked by the unknown caller are not hearsay because they are not intended to assert anything.

Negan’s Rolls-Royce strikes Grimes while Grimes is crossing the street in a crosswalk with the light. Negan's chauffeur Glenn who was in the Rolls at the time, and Grimes are the only eyewitnesses. Grimes has amnesia as a result of the accident and cannot remember what occurred. Grimes, by his Guardian, Carol, sues Negan for damages. The issue is Glenn's negligence or not. At trial, Grimes offers a letter by Negan properly authenticated, which says in part, “Glenn's negligence caused Grime's injuries." Negan objects. What ruling? A. Objection sustained, the statement is not admissible against Negan as statement of a party opponent B. Objection overruled, the statement is admissible against Negan as the statement of a party opponent. C. Objection sustained, not relevant D. Objection overruled, unfairly prejudicial to Glenn.

B. Objection overruled, the statement is admissible against Negan as the statement of a party opponent. Statement by opposing party going in.

Two brothers, Lyle and Erik Menendez are charged with killing their parents, Jose and Mary Menendez. At trial, the prosecution calls Kitty, the parents’ maid, to testify that a week before the murder, she heard Erik’s four-year old son ask his grandfather, “pop pop, when are you going to kick the bucket?” To which his grandfather replied, “oh mi nieto, why do you ask that?” The four-year-old answered, “because daddy says that we are going to be rich when you kick the bucket, and he’s gonna take me to Disneyworld!.” Erik objects to this testimony. A court is likely to rule the four year old’s statement “because daddy says that we are going to be rich when you kick the bucket, and he’s gonna take me to Disneyworld!.” A. Admissible as substantive evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. B. Inadmissible as substantive evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. C. Inadmissible because it is hearsay within hearsay. D. Admissible as a statement against interest.

A. Admissible as substantive evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

City of Orlando taxes real property on the basis of 100 percent of value. The city tax collector appraises Paula Deen’s property at $100,000 and taxes it accordingly. Deen files an abatement request (tax reduction) stating that her property is worth only $50,000. Later, Orange County condemns Deen's property under its power of eminent domain. The value of the property is disputed. The County claims the property is worth $50,000; Deen claims it is worth $100,000. At the trial of this issue, Orange County offers Deen's abatement request filing. Deen objects. What ruling and why? A. Objection sustained; the request is hearsay not within any exceptions B. Objection overruled. C. Objection sustained; the abatement request is not admissible. Deen's abatement assertion that her property is worth $50,000, when offered by the County, is not a statement of a party opponent in the County's proceeding against her. D. Objection overruled; the abatement request is admissible. Deen's abatement assertion that her property is worth $50,000, when offered by the County, is a statement of a party opponent in the County's proceeding against her.

D. Objection overruled; the abatement request is admissible. Deen's abatement assertion that her property is worth $50,000, when offered by the County, is a statement of a party opponent in the County's proceeding against her.

City of Orlando taxes real property on the basis of 100 percent of value. The city tax collector appraises Paula Deen’s property at $100,000 and taxes it accordingly. Deen files an abatement request (tax reduction) stating that her property is worth only $50,000. Later, Orange County condemns Deen's property under its power of eminent domain. The value of the property is disputed. The County claims the property is worth $50,000; Deen claims it is worth $100,000. At the trial of this issue, Orange County offers Deen's abatement request filing. Deen objects. Under the same facts, suppose the County claims the value of the property is $30,000. Deen now offers the abatement request filing stating that her property is worth $50,000. The County objects that it is hearsay. What ruling and why? A. Objection sustained. Deen is offering her own statement, not the statement of a party opponent. B. Objection sustained. Deen’s property is worth $50,000. C. Objection overruled, it is hearsay not within any exception. D. Objection sustained, it is statement against a party opponent.

A. Objection sustained. Deen is offering her own statement, not the statement of a party opponent.

Rita Marley, the executor of Bob Marley’s estate, is charged with secreting Marley's assets, to wit, fifty $1,000 bills. Rita denies the existence of this money. At Rita's trial the state calls Aston "Family Man" Barrett to testify that he was present at the meeting of Marley’s heirs on May 11, 1981 in Miami when Rita opened Marley's wall safe. Barrett will testify that he saw Rita rummage around in the safe and announce, "Nothing of value--just some one-dollar bills." Barrett will further testify that Rita’s son, Ziggy, who was peering over Rita's shoulder, responded, "Hey, mama, those aren't one-dollar bills; they're one thousand-dollar bills" and that Rita was silent. Ziggy is dead. May Barrett testify to Ziggy's statement? A. No, Barrett may not testify to Ziggy's statement because that would be hearsay if offered to prove that the bills in the safe were $1,000 bills. B. No, Because Rita neither disagreed nor assented to the statement C. Yes, Barrett may testify to Ziggy's statement. Rita by her silence in circumstances in which she could be expected to disagree with Ziggy's statement if she had felt Ziggy to be wrong, manifests her adoption of Ziggy 's statement. D. Yes, Barrett may not testify to Ziggy's statement. Rita by her silence in circumstances in which she could be expected to disagree with Ziggy's statement if she had felt Ziggy to be wrong, did not manifests her adoption of Ziggy 's statement.

C. Yes, Barrett may testify to Ziggy's statement. Rita by her silence in circumstances in which she could be expected to disagree with Ziggy's statement if she had felt Ziggy to be wrong, manifests her adoption of Ziggy 's statement.

Sanchez, a hit man hired by the defendant called the defendant asking for his money. Sanchez stated, in part, “You told me, me go to North Carolina kill a Raymond, I kill him, now I need . . . my money for me leave bitch.” Sanchez continued, asking the defendant whether he had his money “for killing Raymond.” The defendant responded: “Yeah.” At Defendant’s trial, the prosecutor seeks to offer a tape of this conversation. Defendant objects on hearsay grounds. What result? A. Overruled, the conversation constitutes an admission by the defendant. B. Overruled, the conversation is hearsay within hearsay C. Sustained, the conversation is prejudicial to Defendant D. Sustained, the defendant is not party opponent.

A. Overruled, the conversation constitutes an admission by the defendant.

On June 1st at 4 a.m., following two days of heavy rain, a flood wiped out a housing development at Lake Mary. The cause of the flood was the collapse of the dam five miles upstream from the development. The dam was built and owned by the Florida Power. Snoop Dogg, individually and on behalf of the class of residents of Lake Mary has sued Florida Power for $5 million in actual property damages and $50 million in punitive damages, alleging that Florida Power was negligent in building and maintaining the dam. Snoop proposes to call Dr. Dre, Ph.D., the president of Lake Mary Homeowner's Association, to testify that on May 25 he was at the dam site and that engineer, an employee of Florida Power who had been sent to repair a sluice said to him, "This repair won't do much good if there is a heavy rain. The whole system is shiitake mushrooms.” Florida Power objects on hearsay grounds. What ruling? A. Overruled, the statement is not hearsay if offered to show notice to Florida Power of a dangerous condition. B. Overruled, the statement was not authorized by Florida Power. C. Sustained, the statement is hearsay not within any exceptions. D. Sustained, the statement does not concern a matter within the engineer’s scope of employment or agency.

A. Overruled, the statement is not hearsay if offered to show notice to Florida Power of a dangerous condition.

On June 1st at 4 a.m., following two days of heavy rain, a flood wiped out a housing development at Lake Mary. The cause of the flood was the collapse of the dam five miles upstream from the development. The dam was built and owned by the Florida Power. Snoop Dogg, individually and on behalf of the class of residents of Lake Mary has sued Florida Power for $5 million in actual property damages and $50 million in punitive damages, alleging that Florida Power was negligent in building and maintaining the dam. Snoop proposes to call Dr. Dre, Ph.D., the president of the Lake Mary Homeowner's Association, to testify that on May 25 he was at the dam site and that engineer, an employee of the Florida Power who had been sent to repair a sluice said to him, "This repair won't do much good if there is a heavy rain. The whole system is shiitake mushrooms.” Florida Power objects on hearsay grounds. What result? A. Overruled, the statement was not authorized by Florida Power. B. Overruled, the statement is not hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. C. Sustained, the statement is hearsay not within any exceptions. D. Overruled, it is a statement by the party’s agent or servant about a matter within the scope of agency or employment made during the existence of the relationship.

D. Overruled, it is a statement by the party’s agent or servant about a matter within the scope of agency or employment made during the existence of the relationship.

Two police officers, a sergeant and a lieutenant, were charged with robbery and felony murder. The sergeant’s lawyer moved to have the two officers tried separately, and the court granted the motion. The sergeant’s trial was held first, and he was acquitted. At the lieutenant’s trial, his lawyer called the sergeant’s wife as a witness. The sergeant’s wife testified that after the sergeant was acquitted, the sergeant told her that he had committed the robbery because he wanted to buy her a new ring and that he felt bad because the lieutenant was not involved. Should the wife’s testimony be admitted? (A) No, because the sergeant is estopped from contradicting the jury’s acquittal verdict. (B) No, because it is hearsay not within any exception. (C) Yes, because it is an admission by a coconspirator. (D) Yes, because it is a declaration against a penal interest.

(B) No, because it is hearsay not within any exception. No conspiracy because he was acquitted.

Defendant Mad Dawg (“MD”) was indicted for first-degree murder of victim and for robbery with a dangerous weapon. The other codefendant, Money Man (“MM”) was also indicted, but they were not tried together. The evidence showed that MD and MM went to the victim's store three times to buy beer. The next time they went there, MM stayed in the car while MD went inside, shot the victim, took his gun, and stole the money box. They then drove to a motel and divided up the money. During MD’s trial, the prosecution introduced the statements of MM in which he said the two agreed to “hit this store,” “stick together whatever happen[s],” and to “smoke the old m––f–.”. The trial court admitted the statements. MD was found guilty of murder. On appeal, MD argues that MM’s statements were inadmissible hearsay. The statements are: A. Inadmissible, because they hearsay within hearsay. B. Inadmissible, because they were not made in furtherance of a conspiracy. C. Admissible because they are relevant. D. Admissible because they are non hearsay.

D. Admissible because they are non hearsay.

Defendant was convicted by jury of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute at least 50 grams of crack cocaine and at least 500 grams of powder cocaine. In his appeal he claimed that the trial judge erred in admitting a prior statements his wife made about him at his detention hearing. At the detention hearing, the defendant's wife testified under oath ..that her husband was not “a drug dealer and did not own a Chevrolet Blazer.." contrary to the charges against him. She had also told the police that “her husband called her before the police executed a search warrant at their home and asked her to leave before the officers got there.” After the defendant's detention hearing, the government then indicted Defendant’s wife in the defendant's crime, rendering her a co-defendant in the case. Accordingly, at trial of the case, she exercised her Fifth Amendment right not to testify at trial. The government tried to proffer a prior inconsistent statement made by the wife and the trial court admitted this evidence as non-hearsay. The admission of the statement was: A. Proper as a prior inconsistent statement, therefore, non-hearsay. B. Improper as a prior inconsistent statement because she did not testify inconsistently at her trial with her husband. C. Proper as extrinsic evidence of a prior statement by a witness. D. All of the above.

B. Improper as a prior inconsistent statement because she did not testify inconsistently at her trial with her husband.

At a deposition, witness testified as follows “I remember the car was red.” During trial, asked about the color of the car, witness responds “I don’t recall the car color.” Under the FRE, the statement “I remember the car was red” is A. Admissible as a prior inconsistent statement because witness has given two different descriptions of one thing: knowledge of car color. B. Admissible at trial because witness is lying. C. Inadmissible at trial because witness has not provided information at trial that’s different from out-of-court statement. D. Inadmissible at trial since the judge believes witness has two different memory states.

A. Admissible as a prior inconsistent statement because witness has given two different descriptions of one thing: knowledge of car color.

Cookie drives her new BMW home from the BMW dealer on June 1. She parks it in front of her crib with the motor running while she goes in to pick up her bling. Cookie notices some acquaintances, Hakeem, Lucius, and Jamal--standing on the sidewalk. Cookie shouts to them to keep an eye on her new ride. When Cookie comes out of her house a minute later, the BMW is gone and so are Lucius and Jamal. Cookie asks Hakeem where the car is. Hakeem says, “Lucius took it.” Cookie sues Lucius for conversion of the BMW. Lucius's answer generally denies Cookie's allegations. At trial, Cookie calls Hakeem and asks him if he saw who took the BMW. Hakeem says, "Yes, Jamal took it." Cookie then questions Hakeem about his June 1 statement to her that Lucius took the BMW. Lucius objects. Lucius’s objection is overruled. Hakeem denies making the statement. Cookie then takes the stand and over Lucius's objection testifies to Hakeem‘s June 1 statement. Cookie rests her case. Did the trial court err in overruling Lucius’s objections? A. No, if Hakeem’s prior statement is inconsistent with his current trial testimony and is offered to impeach only. B. No, if Hakeem’s prior statement is inconsistent with his current trial and is offered for substantive proof only. C. Yes, because Hakeem’s prior statement is inconsistent with his current trial testimony. D. Yes, because, Hakeem’s statement meets the requirements of FRE 801(d)(1), as substantive evidence.

A. No, if Hakeem’s prior statement is inconsistent with his current trial testimony and is offered to impeach only. Statement was not given under oath.

Officer Mahoney is charged with attempt to defraud HUD through his participation in the Officer Next Door Program (“ONDP”). The ONDP allows police officers to buy homes from HUD in economically depressed, high crime areas at a 50% discount on the condition that the officer live in the home for at least three years. The government alleged that Mahoney bought an OND house but failed to live in it, instead using it as a rental property. At trial, lieutenant Harris, the government’s main witness, testified that he stopped by the OND property shortly after Mahoney purchased it, and Mahoney stated that he was fixing it up to make it more attractive for tenants. Mahoney testified that at the time he bought the OND property he was planning to separate from his wife and move out of their home into the OND house. However, he indicated that his wife and children began experiencing health problems, he therefore decided to stay with the family. The government sought to impeach Mahoney and show that his trial testimony was a fabrication designed to cover up his fraud. The government cross examined him with loan documents which indicated that he was not separated from his wife, that the family home was pending sale, and that he and his wife planned to use the OND house as a primary residence. The government argued that at the time Mahoney bought the house, his intent was to defraud HUD. Mahoney then called Officer Hightower who was to testify that six months prior to closing on the OND house, Mahoney confided in him that he was splitting up with his wife and was going to move into an OND house. Mahoney moves to admit the evidence as aa prior consistent statement under FRE 801(d)(1)(B). What result?

Inadmissible

A blind man sitting at a bar feels someone trying to steal his wallet from his back pocket. He whirls on the thief and grabs him by his chest in a vice-like grip. "Call the police," he says to the bartender, who does so. Some minutes later a policeman arrives. The blind man, still holding the thief by the chest, hands the thief to the policeman, saying, "Here is the man who tried to steal my wallet." At trial of the thief for attempted larceny, the blind man tells this story. When the prosecutor asks him if he sees the thief in the courtroom, the blind man replies negatively. The prosecutor next calls the policeman who took the thief into custody. When the prosecutor asks him whether he sees the person he arrested in the courtroom, the policeman points to the defendant. The prosecutor then asks, "What did the blind man say to you when he delivered the defendant to you?" Defense counsel objects on grounds of hearsay. What ruling and why?

Overruled; admissible

An action by the estate of Peggy against Dale seeking damages for the pain and suffering Peggy experienced in an auto accident injury, caused by Dale. Dale denies liability and also asserts that Peggy died instantly in the accident and therefore couldn’t have suffered any pain and suffering damages. Hank proposes to testify that on the side of the road and immediately after the accident, Peggy said, “Dale’s car ran the red light” Is Hank’s statement hearsay? A. Yes, if offered to prove who ran the red light. B. Yes, if offered to prove that Peggy was alive following the accident. C. No, because it is not an out of court statement. D. No, because Peggy is dead.

A. Yes, if offered to prove who ran the red light.

An action by the estate of Peggy against Dale seeking damages for the pain and suffering Peggy experienced in an auto accident injury, caused by Dale. Dale denies liability and also asserts that Peggy died instantly in the accident and therefore couldn’t have suffered any pain and suffering damages. Hank proposes to testify that on the side of the road and immediately after the accident, Peggy said, “Dale’s car ran the red light” Is Hank’s statement admissible? A. Yes, as a present sense impression. B. Yes, because it is relevant. C. No, because it is not an out of court statement. D. No, because Peggy is dead.

A. Yes, as a present sense impression. Declarant's made statement immediately after the accident.

In State v. Burglar, prosecution offers into evidence a tape- recorded 911 call to the Dallas police by an anonymous caller from a phone booth who states, “I’m across the street from Harry’s Hardware and I’m watching as Burglar is making off with some chain saws.” The police arrive in time to arrest Burglar a few blocks away from Harry’s Hardware. Burglar seeks to exclude the 911 call on hearsay grounds. The statement is A. Inadmissible as hearsay not within ay exceptions. B. Admissible to prove the truth of matter asserted because the statement reflected a present sensation when made of an event as it occurred. C. Admissible for impeachment only. D. Inadmissible because it is hearsay within hearsay.

B. Admissible to prove the truth of matter asserted because the statement reflected a present sensation when made of an event as it occurred. A continuous activity that is happening: "I'm watching" activity is ongoing.

A statement about the cause of a collision calmly made 30 seconds after observing an automobile accident can most likely qualify under the following: A. Present sense impression. B. Excited utterance. C. State of mind. D. The residual, catch-all exception.

A. Present sense impression.

Delilah observes a horrific head-on auto collision and excitedly tells RoboCop, who arrives 10 minutes later, “Oh my God, Officer! Both of those cars were going 80 miles an hour!” May RoboCop properly testify to Delilah’s statement in subsequent litigation arising out of the accident? A. No, because it is hearsay within hearsay. B. No because the RoboCop arrived ten minutes later after the event. C. Yes, this is excited utterance, startling event and circumstances suggest Delilah was still under excitement at time of statement. D. Yes, because it is a present sense impression.

C. Yes, this is excited utterance, startling event and circumstances suggest Delilah was still under excitement at time of statement.

Son of Sam is prosecuted for murder and his defense is insanity. A witness for Son of Sam proposes to testify that two days before the killing, he heard Son of Sam say “ I am Lucifer, it is good to be back!” Is this statement admissible? A. Yes, if offered to prove that Son of Sam is Lucifer. B. Yes, if offered to show circumstantial evidence of Son of Sam’s state of mind. C. No, because it is hearsay not within any exception. D. No, because it is an out of court statement.

B. Yes, if offered to show circumstantial evidence of Son of Sam’s state of mind.

Betty White, a well-known Orlando socialite recently died. She left all her fortune, estimated at $75 million to the local pet cemetery. In probate of White’s will, White’s family challenges the will on the ground that White was insane at the time of the will’s execution. Pet cemetery offers testimony that a few days before execution of the will, White said to her friend, “I do not love my family anymore.” This statement is: A. Admissible as relevant to White’s then existing mental state when made and explains why she acted. B. Admissible as an admission by party opponent. C. Inadmissible as hearsay not within any exceptions. D. Inadmissible because White is dead.

A. Admissible as relevant to White’s then existing mental state when made and explains why she acted. At the time she wrote that will that's what how she felt.

Susan’s family sues Gecko Life Insurance Co. for nonpayment of proceeds upon Susan’s death. Gecko offers the defense of suicide. Gecko seeks to introduce a note found in Susan’s apartment (in Susan’s handwriting) in which she said, “I’m going to end it all next week.” The note is A. Admissible as present sense impression. B. Admissible as state of mind statement of intent to do something in future. C. Inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception. D. None of the above.

B. Admissible as state of mind statement of intent to do something in future.

In State v. Raymond, prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that before going out Monday night, victim told wife, “I’m meeting Raymond tonight at the bowling alley.” Victim’s dead body was found Tuesday morning outside the bowling alley. Raymond objects. The statement A. Is inadmissible, unless Raymond did not kill victim. B. Is inadmissible because its probative value substantially outweighs its unfair prejudice. C. Is admissible as state of mind declaration used to show that Raymond killed victim. D. Maybe admissible as state of mind declaration used to show another person’s conduct.

C. Is admissible as state of mind declaration used to show that Raymond killed victim.

Plaintiff, whose arm was broken in accident with Defendant, sues for damages for pain and suffering. Plaintiff will testify about the pain she experienced. Plaintiff also calls Neighbor to testify that (a)“I was with Plaintiff last July when she said, ‘I’m feeling a lot of pain in my arm’ and again in December when she said (b) ‘I sure did feel a lot of pain in my arm last July.’” Upon objection by defendant’s attorney : A. Both statements are admissible since witness is testifying to declarant’s present physical condition statement B. Both statements are inadmissible since declarant’s statement is not contemporaneous with pain C. Statement (a) is admissible under the then-existing mental, emotional or physical condition while statement (b) is not D. Statement (b) is admissible under the then-existing mental, emotional or physical condition while statement (a) is not

C. Statement (a) is admissible under the then-existing mental, emotional or physical condition while statement (b) is not Things that happen in the past are not state of mind.

On May 26, Leonard went to the University where he worked. Peggy, Leonard’s wife texted Leonard around midday, and when he called back, he, told her he had to go to Brooklyn to meet The Kid, by whom she understood him to mean Sheldon. Leonard was murdered on the same day. His body was never found. Sheldon is tried for Leonard’s murder. Peggy testified that Leonard had told her many times that he met with Sheldon at 92nd and Shore Road; that location, so far as she knew, was their habitual meeting place. Over Sheldon’s objections, the district court allowed both statements; that Leonard had to go to Brooklyn to meet The Kid and; Leonard had told Peggy many times that he met with Sheldon at 92nd and Shore Road, as admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 803(3) state of mind exception to hearsay. On appeal, Sheldon objects to admission of both statements. What result? A. Affirm both statements as admissible. B. Overrule both statements as inadmissible. C. Affirm the first statement that Leonard was going to Brooklyn on the afternoon of May 26 to meet with Sheldon, and reverse the admission of the second statement that he routinely met Sheldon at 92nd Street and Shore Road. D. Reverse the first statement that Leonard was going to Brooklyn on the afternoon of May 26 to meet with Sheldon, and affirm the admission of the second statement that he routinely met Sheldon at 92nd Street and Shore Road.

A. Affirm both statements as admissible.

This case is about a dispute among siblings regarding the proper burial place for their mother. Four of the siblings, ("the majority siblings”) filed suit seeking the court's authorization for them to make all necessary decisions regarding the final disposition of their mother's body, to the exclusion of two of their brothers (“the minority siblings”). The majority siblings alleged that their mother desired to be buried in Maryland. The minority siblings responded that it was their mother's wish to be buried in Israel, near her deceased husband and a son who had predeceased her. In support of their case, one of the minority siblings testifies that their mother had said to him and others, "I want to be buried in Israel.” The majority siblings objected on hearsay grounds. The trial court sustained the objection. An appellate court is likely to rule that the trial court: A. Erred in refusing to admit into evidence and consider statements that the mother may have made expressing her wishes with respect to final disposition of her body. B. Erred because the mother’s statements were not spontaneous. C. Did not err in refusing to admit into evidence and consider statements that the mother may have made expressing her wishes with respect to final disposition of her body. D. Did not err because such statement was hearsay because it was being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the declarant.

B. Erred because the mother’s statements were not spontaneous.

A patient is involved in automobile accident. At the hospital, the patient tells his treating physician that he was struck by a car and that the car ran a red light. Defendant is on trial for the automobile accident. He objects to admission of patient’s statement to his treating physician. A court is likely to : A. Admit the statements under the medical diagnosis exception. B. Admit patient’s statement that he was struck by a car, but not his statement that the car ran a red light. C. Admit patient’s statement that the car ran a red light but not his statement he was struck by a car. D. Exclude both statements under the medical diagnosis exception.

B. Admit patient’s statement that he was struck by a car, but not his statement that the car ran a red light.

Lindsay Lohan, a Demerol addict, is the plaintiff in a civil action in which she seeks to recover damages for back pain against a pharmaceutical company. Just before trial, she went to a pain clinic in Rodeo Drive, requesting Demerol. The receptionist told her to fill out a form rating her level of pain. After telephoning her lawyer, Lohan rated her pain level at “9” (excruciating and unbearable). At trial, Lohan’s lawyer offers Lohan’s statement on the form into evidence to prove that she had excruciating pain on that date. Under FRE 803(4) the evidence is?

In reality Lohan is not the declarant; but if she puts down the name in the form it is her statement. She wasn't there looking for treatment, she was there looking for drugs.

Iron Shell (defendant) was accused of assault with intent to rape a nine-year-old girl, Lucy. Lucy was examined by Dr. Mark Hopkins the night of her assault. During the course of his examination of Lucy, Dr. Hopkins asked her what happened, and Lucy replied that a man had dragged her into the bushes. Dr. Hopkins then asked her “if the man had taken her clothes off.” Lucy replied that he did. At Iron Shell’s trial, the prosecution called Dr. Hopkins and Hopkins testified as to what Lucy had said during the examination. Iron Shell objects to Dr Hopkins’ question “if the man had taken her clothes off” as not being reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis and treatment. What result?

Admissible as reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis and treatment

Shay sued Tray on behalf of her nine-year-old son, Jay. Tray owns a tractor that pulls a wagon while passengers ride on it. Shay called another boy, Davis, who testified about how the injury occurred. On cross-examination, Tray's lawyer asked Davis if he remembered making a statement to the police after the accident. Davis could not recall talking to anyone. Tray’s lawyer showed him a transcript of the conversation to refresh his recollection. After silently reviewing the transcript, Davis was able to remember and testified that Jay got injured while running alongside the wagon trying to get on. Shay requested to see the transcript in order to introduce in evidence any portion that relates to the Davis’s testimony. Tray’s lawyer objects. What result? A. Objection overruled, Shay, as an adverse party, is entitled to view the document and admit into evidence any portion that relates to the witness’s testimony. B. Objection overruled, the transcript has guarantees of trustworthiness. C. Objection sustained, Shay is not an adverse party therefore she is not entitled to view the document and admit into evidence any portion that relates to the witness’s testimony. D. Objection sustained, the transcript is hearsay not within any exception.

A. Objection overruled, Shay, as an adverse party, is entitled to view the document and admit into evidence any portion that relates to the witness’s testimony.

Shay sued Tray on behalf of her nine-year-old son, Jay. Tray owns a tractor that pulls a wagon while passengers ride on it. Shay called another boy, Davis, who testified about how the injury occurred. On cross-examination, Tray's lawyer asked Davis if he remembered making a statement to the police after the accident. Davis could not recall talking to anyone. Tray’s lawyer showed him a transcript of the conversation to refresh his recollection. After silently reviewing the transcript, Davis Could still not remember. Tray’s lawyer then asked Davis to read aloud the portion that said “Jay got injured while running alongside the wagon trying to get on.” Shay objects. What result? A. Objection overruled, Shay, as an adverse party, is entitled to view the document and admit into evidence any portion that relates to the witness’s testimony. B. Objection overruled, the transcript has guarantees of trustworthiness. C. Objection sustained, Shay is not an adverse party therefore she is not entitled to view the document and admit into evidence any portion that relates to the witness’s testimony. D. Objection sustained, the statement is hearsay not within any exception

D. Objection sustained, the statement is hearsay not within any exception

A music fan sued a well-known groupie of a rock band, alleging that she was assaulted by the groupie during a melee at a concert. The fan’s attorney calls the custodian of records for the hospital that treated her. He wishes to introduce a portion of the record by the emergency room physician, who is now deceased, reporting that the fan said she was assaulted by the groupie. Assuming the custodian testifies that the record is an original, kept in the ordinary course of hospital business, is that portion of the hospital record admissible? (A) Yes, as records of regularly conducted business activity. (B) Yes, as a statement made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. (C) No, because the physician who made the record is not available for cross-examination. (D) No, as hearsay not within any exception.

(D) No, as hearsay not within any exception.

Assume that law student moves from Hotlanta to O-town to attend law school in 2020. In the middle of the semester, there is an outbreak of Covid 19. Law student decides to move back to Hotlanta. Law student and landlord have a dispute over security deposit. At trial, landlord wants to offer the lease as proof of non liability if renter breaches the terms of the lease. The court should A. Admit the lease as non hearsay. B. Admit the lease a business record. C. Not admit the lease because it is hearsay not within any exceptions. D. Not admit the lease because it is not relevant.

A. Admit the lease as non hearsay.

Assume that law student moves from Hotlanta to O-town to attend law school in 2020.In the middle of the semester, there is an outbreak of Covid 19. Law student decides to move back to Hotlanta. Law student and landlord have a dispute over security deposit. At trial, law student wants to offer the analysis of a report prepared by the landlord’s maintenance staff, against the landlord, because it reports "no damage,” to the unit. The court should A. Admit the analysis report as non hearsay. B. Admit the analysis report a business record. C. Not admit the analysis report because it is hearsay not within any exceptions. D. Not admit the analysis report because it is a subsequent remedial measure.

A. Admit the analysis report as non hearsay.

Assume that law student moves from Hotlanta to O-town to attend law school in 2020. In the middle of the semester, there is an outbreak of Covid 19. Law student decides to move back to Hotlanta. Law student and landlord have a dispute over security deposit. At trial, landlord wants to offer the analysis of a report prepared by the landlord’s maintenance staff, against law student, because it documents extensive damage to the unit. The court should A. Admit the analysis report as non hearsay. B. Admit the analysis report as a business record, if the landlord can lay the proper foundation. C. Not admit the analysis report because it is hearsay not within any exceptions. D. Not admit the analysis report because it is a self-serving document.

B. Admit the analysis report as a business record, if the landlord can lay the proper foundation.

A man sues his company claiming that he was denied his yearly bonus. The CEO claims that the man was not a bonused employee. To prove this fact, he wishes to introduce a record of all bonused employees. The CEO calls the secretary who is in charge of payroll to testify to this record. The man objects claiming the report is hearsay. How should the court rule? (A) The testimony is inadmissible under the confrontation clause. (B) The testimony is inadmissible because the business record exception applies only to an actual entry in a business record. (C) The testimony is admissible as proof of the absence of entry in business records. (D) The testimony is admissible as habit evidence provided there is corroborating evidence.

Bama brought a personal injury action against Vinny for an automobile accident. At trial, Bama called Mrs. Riley to testify on his behalf. Mrs. Riley testified that she was standing 100 feet from the accident scene and saw Vinny’s car drive through a red light and strike Bama’s car as it entered the intersection. On cross examination, Vinny’s attorney asked Mrs. Riley, “ Were you wearing your eyeglasses when you saw the accident? Mrs. Riley responded, “No I wasn’t”. Vinny’s Counsel then asked, “Isn’t it true that you are near sighted and have bad eyesight? Mrs. Riley stated “Yes.” On redirect Bama’s attorney seeks to introduce a copy of the police report taken 30 minutes after the accident in which Mrs. Riley told the Officer, “Vinny’s car drove through the red light and caused the accident.” Vinny’s counsel objects to the introduction of the police report into evidence. Is the police report admissible? A. Yes, for rehabilitation of Mrs. Riley’s credibility, but inadmissible as substantive evidence because it is hearsay. B. Yes, for rehabilitation of Mrs. Riley’s credibility, and as substantive evidence. C. Yes, as substantive evidence but not for rehabilitation. D. No, neither for rehabilitation nor as substantive evidence.

D. No, neither for rehabilitation nor as substantive evidence. Consistent statement-credibility is about truth and lies; sensory deficiencies has nothing to do with credibility. It's not that she is credible is that she can't see. Doesn’t meet requirement of prior consistent statement.

Respondent mother appeals from an order of the district court terminating her parental rights as to her three two children. The Department of Children and Families “DCF” received at least two reports that respondent had physically abused or inappropriately disciplined her children. DCF records from 1998 through 2000 reflected reports of scratches, scarring, and stripes on the children; that respondent and her boyfriend had sex in front of the children; that one of respondent's children, X.L.J., who was 14 months old at the time, died. The following day, the medical examiner's office conducted an examination of X.L.J.'s body and noted acute chronic injuries to his head, cheek, and nose. There were also abrasions over one eye and a bruise on the right side of the head. The medical examiner determined that the cause of death was an abusive head injury that could not have been self-inflicted. The court relied on the medical examiner’s autopsy report in terminating respondent’s parental rights. Respondent argues that the autopsy report is inadmissible hearsay. As to the admission of the autopsy report, the trial court: A. Erred because the report is inadmissible hearsay. B. Did not err because the autopsy report falls within the public records exception to the hearsay rule. C. Erred because the report was made for law enforcement purposes. D. Did not err because the autopsy report falls within statements for medical diagnosis and treatment

B. Did not err because the autopsy report falls within the public records exception to the hearsay rule.

Mad dog is charged with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill after he fired five rounds at a police officer. Mad dog contends that he has never owned a gun. To prove that Mad dog owns a gun, the prosecution seeks to introduce a transcript of Mad dog’s girlfriend, Ms. Ruffin, which was taken at a bond hearing. Ms. Ruffin testified that earlier in the evening of the night in question, Mad dog fought with her, hit her in the face, and shot at the ground with a gun. Mad dog was present but chose to ask no questions. Assume Ms. Ruffin is now unavailable to testify. Mad dog does not dispute that he asked no questions at the bond hearing but asserts the bond hearing raised different issues than the trial, and therefore he did not have "an opportunity and similar motive" to cross-examine the witness, therefore, Ms Ruffin’s statements cannot be admitted as former testimony. What result?

admissible as former testimony

D. Admissible under the former testimony exception.

Passengers Angie and Buddy were seriously injured. Angie sued Greyhound Bus Company, alleging negligence by bus driver. At trial, Witness testified for Angie that the bus driver was intoxicated at time of accident. Thereafter, Witness died. Buddy now sues Greyhound Bus Company and seeks to admit a transcript of Witness’s former testimony. Bus Company objects. What result? Same facts as previous hypo, at grand jury hearing, Witness testified that bus driver was intoxicated at time of accident. Thereafter, Witness died. Bus driver is prosecuted for DWI. Prosecutor seeks to admit a transcript of Witness’s grand jury testimony. Bus company objects. What result? A. Inadmissible, there was no opportunity to develop testimony or cross-examine at the prior hearing. B. Inadmissible, because the declarant is unavailable. C. Admissible as an admission. D. Admissible under the former testimony exception.

A. Inadmissible, there was no opportunity to develop testimony or cross-examine at the prior hearing.

The victim collapsed at her desk while drinking her morning coffee. Her secretary came rushing to her aid. Gasping for breath, the victim said “ I don’t think I have much time left. I want you to remember when they come looking for suspects that I believe my assistant would kill for my job.” The victim soon lost consciousness. She regained consciousness briefly after arriving at the hospital, but the doctors would not allow her to speak to anyone, including the police. She again lapsed into a coma, and she remains in this vegetative state. It was determined that she was poisoned. The assistant is arrested and charged with attempted murder. At the assistant’s trial, the prosecution wishes to call the victim’s secretary to testify to the victim’s statement about the assistant before the ambulance arrived. The court should find this statement A. Admissible, because it is dying declaration. B. Admissible, because it is a declaration of the victim’s state of mind. C. Admissible, as statement of physical condition. D. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.

D. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. it's a criminal case; she is not dead

In a civil action to recover money owed to Tiny Tim, testimony is offered that on his deathbed, Tiny Tim said “I am aware of the imminence of death, and Buzzy never paid back the $50,000 he owes me.” Offered for its truth, the statement is A. Admissible, because Tiny Tim is unavailable. B. Admissible if the judge is convinced that Tiny Tim was aware of the imminence of death. C. Inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception D. Inadmissible because of the dead man's statute.

C. Inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception statements must relate to circumstances of impending death

In State v. Dan, Defendant is charged with murdering Victim. Victim was found by RoboCop lying in the gutter in a pool of blood with a knife in his stomach. He told RoboCop, “It’s not looking too good for me. Dan did it, and if I make it, I’m going to get him for this.” Victim died an hour later. May RoboCop testify to Victim’s statement as a dying declaration? A. Yes, because Victim died shortly thereafter. B. Yes, because Victim said “Dan did it”. C. No, because Dan may not have done it. D. No, because there is no showing that Victim spoke under belief of impending and certain death.

D. No, because there is no showing that Victim spoke under belief of impending and certain death. it's ambiguous

A college professor is on trial for the murder of her husband. The prosecution alleges that the professor paid one of her students to kill the professor’s husband. The student told his girlfriend the day after the husband’s death, “Babe, we’re rich. I just knocked off the Prof’s hubby and made $100,000 for five seconds’ work.” The student was a bit too exuberant, and a neighbor outside overheard every word. The student mysteriously disappeared before trial. The neighbor testifies at trial as to the student’s remarks under proof of circumstances that clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. The professor’s lawyer objects. The testimony will be ruled (A) admissible as a statement with circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. (B) admissible as an admission by a party-opponent. (C) admissible as a declaration against penal interest. (D) Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.

Plaintiff sued Acme Trucking Company, based on Charlie, Acme truck driver’s negligent driving. Charlie was fired immediately after the accident. Two weeks later, Charlie told Plaintiff’s insurance adjuster that he had been drunk while driving. At trial, Charlie refused to testify on the ground of self-incrimination. May the insurance adjuster properly testify to Charlie’s statement as evidence against Acme Trucking Company? A. Yes, because it is an admission by an agent. B. Yes, because it is statement against interest and declarant is unavailable. C. No, because it is hearsay not within any exception D. None of the above.

B. Yes, because it is statement against interest and declarant is unavailable.

A-Rod and Ben Affleck have been friends for a long time. On his hospital bed and aware of his impending death, A-Rod clasps Affleck’s hand and says, “Amigo, I don’t have too much time left, I need to tell you something and I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me. I recently slept with your wife J-Lo”. Affleck nods sympathetically and responds, “I have something to tell you too bro, and I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me. I am the one who poisoned you.” A-Rod died shortly thereafter. Affleck is now charged with A-Rod’s murder. A witness proposes to testify to the conversation. Affleck’s statement is A. Admissible as dying declaration. B. Admissible as statement against penal interest. C. Admissible as an admission by party opponent. D. Inadmissible as hearsay not within any exceptions.

C. Admissible as an admission by party opponent. admission by party opponent

In 2017, Plaintiff sued Defendants for cost recovery under federal law. Lowe, who died in 2007, was a former employee of Plaintiff where he worked as a truck driver for more than 30 years. In 2005, long after Lowe had retired, he was interviewed by Arkell, an investigator with EPA’s Office of Civil Enforcement. Arkell was assigned to interview ten individuals who had previously hauled waste to the South Dayton Dump (“Dump”). Lowe was one of those ten individuals. During that interview, Lowe stated that it was common knowledge that Plaintiff transported drums of plating waste, which contained acids and cyanide to the Dump. He himself transported plating waste to the Dump on Saturdays and on days when the regular driver was unavailable. Lowe also told Arkell that Plaintiff had a contract with the Dump which allowed Plaintiff to dispose of unlimited waste at that facility for $50 per month. The next day, Arkell summarized Lowe’s interview, and the interviews of the other individuals, in an Investigative Activity Report. His report also included factual findings. Defendants attempted to meet with Arkell in 2017 to discuss the interview summaries. Nevertheless, the EPA refused to make him available, offering instead to certify and authenticate his Investigative Activity Report. Defendants have moved to admit Lowe’s interview statements. Plaintiff opposes on the grounds that the statements are hearsay within hearsay. Defendants respond that the interview statements are admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 807, the residual exception to the hearsay rule. What result?

hearsay within hearsay Lowe's statements don't fit an exception. Use 807.

In 1993 the Universal Testing Corporation (UTC) notified the police that one of its employees, James Laster (defendant), had ordered a chemical used to make methamphetamine from the Wilson Oil Company in UTC’s name without UTC’s permission. The police then obtained records from Wilson Oil Company which included four invoices dated March 24, 1993, April 14, 1993, April 30, 1993, and May 14, 1993 which respectively reflected the sale on each date of one 500 milliliter bottle of hydriodic acid, a component of methamphetamine, ordered by the defendant. In August 1994, defendant was charged with numerous narcotics crimes. At trial, after informing the defense, the prosecution sought to introduce the records from the Wilson Oil Company, including the invoices showing the orders defendant placed. Wilson, the sole owner and operator of the Wilson Oil Company and custodian of the records, died before the trial. The prosecution presented no other witness with personal knowledge of the records. Assume that these records were material, more probative on the point for which they were offered than any other evidence which the prosecution could procure through reasonable efforts, and there was no indication that the records were not reliable. The trial court should (A) Admit the records under the business records exception of the hearsay rule. (B) Admit the records under the residual exception, Fed. R. Evid. 807. (C) Exclude the records as hearsay not within any exception. (D) Exclude the records because they were not made by a person with knowledge of the transaction.

(B) Admit the records under the residual exception, Fed. R. Evid. 807.

Officer Mahoney responded to a domestic violence call one night. Officer Mahoney arrived at the scene about five minutes later. Upon arriving, he was flagged down by the victim, Weaver. She was alone and leaning against a building, slumped over with one arm holding her ribs. She was crying, upset, and visibly in pain. Her face was swollen and she was having problems breathing. Officer Mahoney asked Weaver what had happened, and she went into detail. Weaver told Officer Mahoney that she and her ex-boyfriend-whom she identified as Rankins-had been arguing over money, and that Rankins became angry, pushed her to the ground, stomped on her, and dragged her across the asphalt by her arm. Weaver gave a description of Rankins, who had fled the scene, and an address where he could be found. During the course of Weaver's statement, Officer Mahoney helped her to his patrol car. He stayed with Weaver until the ambulance and EMT arrived, at which time he and a detective went to look for Rankins. Weaver was taken to the hospital. Rankins was found and arrested. Rankins was charged with fourth-degree assault. On trial day, Weaver, the only eyewitness, was not present because she was pregnant and on bed rest. The prosecutor announced that the State would proceed without Weaver, and would rely instead on the aforementioned statements Weaver had made to Officer Mahoney. Rankins objects on confrontation clause grounds. What result?

Testimonial In domestic violence cases and the person is on the lose there is not ongoing threat.

Mark Zana, a fifth-grade teacher, was charged with three counts of lewdness with a child under the age of 14. Six girls came forward alleging Zana would touch their breasts and/or invite them to place their hand in his pocket to get candy. A jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to 30 years in prison. On appeal, Zana argues that the trial court permitted several instances of hearsay in violation of his due process rights under the Confrontation clause. The trial court permitted testimony by the grandmother of one victim about a conversation over dinner when the victim told several family members about repeatedly reaching into Zana’s pocket for candy. That victim's mother also testified that the victim discussed the incident periodically. Two other mothers also testified about conversations they had with their daughters. The appellate court is likely to rule that?

Informal conversation – non testimonial Telling their family members is informal conversation

Chef Gordon Ramsay operates a restaurant under the name Hell’s Kitchen. The restaurant was destroyed by fire. Police investigation determined that the fire was intentionally set. Criminal charges were brought against Ramsay for having set fire to the business and then attempting to defraud his insurer, Jake from State Farm. At trial, Ramsay is found guilty of arson and insurance fraud. Ramsay subsequently initiates property damage and business loss claims under his insurance. The claim is denied and Ramsay files a civil case against Jake from State Farm. Jake from State Farm wants to introduce the criminal judgment against Ramsay. What result? A. The criminal judgment is admissible in the civil matter because it is relevant and probative of an essential fact. B. The criminal judgment is admissible in the civil matter because it was decided on a preponderance of the evidence standard. C. The criminal judgment is inadmissible in the civil matter because it is not relevant and probative as to an essential fact D. The criminal judgment is inadmissible in the civil matter because juries and judges sometimes make mistakes and innocent people do plead guilty.

A. The criminal judgment is admissible in the civil matter because it is relevant and probative of an essential fact.

Walton, a truck driver, was assigned to drive a huge tractor trailer loaded with logs. The logs were being sold by Redwood, a lumber company which had loaded the trailer. After four hours of driving, Walton consumed five bottles of beer. He became intoxicated. As he drove in a local street, he hit Amy, an 11-year-old who was crossing the street. Amy was seriously injured. Amy’s parents, on behalf of Amy, bring a claim against Redwood Lumbar Company for negligence. At trial, which of the following is least likely to be admissible? A. Evidence that Walton’s reputation for driving is poor if Redwood and Walton argue that the latter was negligent. B. Evidence that Walton pleaded guilty to criminal charge of DUI arising from this incident. C. Evidence that Redwood carried liability insurance on the tractor trailer if an investigator for Redwood’s insurance company testified for Redwood. D. Evidence that Redwood carried liability insurance on the tractor trailer if Redwood argues that Walton was an independent contractor.

A. Evidence that Walton’s reputation for driving is poor if Redwood and Walton argue that the latter was negligent.

A plaintiff brought an action against a defendant for property damages, alleging that the defendant’s car nicked the side of the plaintiff’s truck while the defendant was changing lanes on an expressway. At trial, the defendant sought to introduce evidence of her good driving record. Is the evidence admissible? A. No because it is improper character evidence B. No, because it is self-serving. C. Yes, because it is proper character evidence. D. Yes, because it is habit evidence.

A. No because it is improper character evidence

A plaintiff sued a defendant for defamation, asserting in her complaint that the defendant had called the plaintiff a thief in front of a number of business associates. The plaintiff calls two witnesses to the stand, both of whom testify that they heard the defendant refer to the plaintiff as a thief in front of the business associates. The plaintiff does not take the stand herself. The defendant pleads truth of the statement as an affirmative defense and calls a witness to the stand. The defense witness is prepared to testify that he was a co-worker of the plaintiff when the plaintiff supplemented her income by tending bar three nights a week. The witness will testify that he saw the plaintiff take a $20 bill from the tavern's cash register and secrete the money in her pocket. The plaintiff's attorney objects. May the defense witness's testimony be allowed? A. No, because the plaintiff never took the stand. B. Yes, because theft is a crime indicating dishonesty. C. No, because specific bad acts may not be used to show bad character. D. Yes, as substantive evidence that the plaintiff is, in fact, a thief.

D. Yes, as substantive evidence that the plaintiff is, in fact, a thief.

Judge Judy, a judge in the District Court in Houston Texas attended a local fundraising for her judicial campaign. In introducing Judge Judy to the attendees, Trump said “Ladies and Gentlemen, I take great pleasure in presenting Judge Judy, who we all know is the best Judge money can buy in Houston.” Judge Judy sues Trump for slander. If Trump pleads truth as a defense, which one of the following can he produce? I. Judge Judy has a reputation for dishonesty in the community. II. Judge Judy was convicted of bribery 3 years earlier. III. Judge Judy, though not convicted, embezzled money from a former employer before being elected to the bench. A. I and II B. II and III C. I and III D. I, II and III.

D. I, II and III.

Action against the D, Tribune for libel, with federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. P alleges that D published an article referring to him as "the most corrupt mayor we have had in a long time.” At trial, D offers evidence that P has been twice convicted of taking bribes and that P's net worth has increased to $20 Million during the last 5 years while P has served as the full-time mayor at a salary of $50,000 per year. P objects. What ruling and why?

Overruled; 405-b

In its lead editorial in the Sunday edition, a suburban daily newspaper characterized a real estate developer as a "common thief." The developer promptly filed suit against the newspaper for defamation. During the course of the presentation of the plaintiff's case, he sought to put a witness on the stand who is prepared to testify that the plaintiff once saved the life of a fellow soldier in combat. If the newspaper's lawyer objects, should the court rule that the testimony is admissible? A. Yes, because the plaintiff has a right to introduce evidence of his good character. B. Yes, because the plaintiff's character has been brought into question by the editorial. C. No, because the witness's testimony is not probative of any material issue. D. No, because specific instances of conduct are not admissible to prove character.

C. No, because the witness's testimony is not probative of any material issue.

At D's trial the state calls W1, a teller at the bank, who identifies D as the robber. The state next calls W2 and proposes that W2 testify that he is familiar with D's reputation in the community and that D's reputation is one of a thieving, embezzling, bunko artist. On D's timely objection, what ruling and why?

sustained, defendant has not opened the door. Mercy rule.

Assume that D's objection to W2's testimony is sustained and the prosecution rests. D calls witness W3 to testify to D's reputation in the community as an honest, Christian person. On the District Attorney's timely objection, what ruling and why?

overruled; defendant opens the door

Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder after shooting her husband (victim) to death. Defendant argues the trial court excluded specific instances of the victim's violent character that would have shown the reasonableness of her fear and why she used deadly force. Defendant called Witness W, who testified during voir dire that he worked at a used car dealership and had sold a car to the victim. The victim called the owner of the car dealership and complained the car's trunk would not remain latched. The victim then drove to the dealership after business hours and broke another car's windows. The victim was arrested for damage to property. Defendant testified she knew of this incident. The trial court excluded this testimony, stating, "I don't see how this event is relevant in this case.” As to the exclusion of the testimony, the trial court A. did not err because evidence of the victim's character is not admissible to prove that the victim acted in conformity with his character on a particular occasion. B. erred because where defendant alleges first aggressor/ self-defense theory in a criminal case, evidence of victim’s violent character will be admissible. C. did not err because evidence of a victim's violent character is irrelevant. D. erred because in self-defense cases, the victim's violent character is always relevant.

B. erred because where defendant alleges first aggressor/ self-defense theory in a criminal case, evidence of victim’s violent character will be admissible.

Civil rights action by Rodney King,(“King”) a prison inmate against State of California (“State”). The action arises out of an alleged beating that King suffered at the hands of the prison guards. State claims that King attacked the guards and that their actions were therefore in self-defense and for purposes of preventing his escape. At trial, King testifies that the guards are violent and attacked him without provocation. State then offers evidence that on eight occasions prior to the incident in question, King had attacked prison authorities. This evidence is A. Admissible only to prove that King was the aggressor in the fight. B. Admissible only to prove that King had a character trait to be violent. C. Admissible only to attack King’s credibility. D. Inadmissible as propensity evidence.

D. Inadmissible as propensity evidence.

Defendant is charged with possession of controlled substance, to wit, Angel dust. Prosecutor seeks to introduce context of crime - immediately proceeding event which included crimes of use of a stolen credit card and theft of pants. Accused ran from store with the pants, and while running threw a bag which contained the controlled substance. The defense objected to evidence of use of stolen credit cards and theft of pants. The trial judge should A. Exclude on 404(a)character evidence grounds. B. Exclude on 403 unfair prejudice grounds. C. Exclude on both grounds. D. Admit the evidence.

D. Admit the evidence. seeking it for context not for his character

Defendant is charged with assault with intent to commit serious bodily injury on the Victim. At trial, after proper notice, State offers evidence of defendant’s prior conviction of bank fraud where Victim was a witness and helped procure the earlier conviction. Defendant objects that this evidence is inadmissible as evidence of other crime, wrong, or act. A court is likely to rule this evidence A. Admissible if offered to prove defendant’s character in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. B. Admissible if offered to show defendant’s motive or intent in committing a subsequent crime of assaulting a witness that helped procure the earlier conviction. C. Inadmissible as hearsay not within any exceptions. D. Inadmissible as evidence of other crime, wrong, or act.

B. Admissible if offered to show defendant’s motive or intent in committing a subsequent crime of assaulting a witness that helped procure the earlier conviction.

Defendant is charged with robbery of the First National Bank of Orlando on June 1, 2023. During the robbery, Defendant handed the teller a note with a death threat on it that said, "Money or death: The choice is yours," accompanied by pictures of a dead body under the word "death" and a live, smiling person under the word "money." At trial, the State offers to prove through the teller of the First Federal Bank in Daytona that on February 1, 2021, he was robbed in the same manner by Defendant, that is, that he was handed a deposit slip with the very same death threat written on it. The state also offers several other bank tellers from different banks to testify similarly. Defendant objects to the tellers' testimony. What ruling and why?

Overruled; not for character, but to prove identity

Ganja, a bank teller, is prosecuted for embezzling money from the bank. Ganja claims that he never took any money from the bank. The prosecution calls Snoop to testify that a year before Ganja went to work for the bank, he stole $ 1,000 that Snoop had given him to give to Snoop’s aging grandmother. This evidence is A. Inadmissible because Snoop should have testified that he’d heard that Ganja had stolen the $1,000, not that Ganja actually had done so. B. Inadmissible character evidence. C. Admissible to prove identity. D. Admissible as admission by Ganja since his prior act was assertive conduct.

B. Inadmissible character evidence.

In 2008, a friendship blossomed between D and victim, an elderly widow more than thirty years his senior. D moved into victim’s home. A few years later, victim died of natural causes after being incapacitated. At some point Bank of America—unaware of Victim's demise—re-issued the BofA Card owned by victim. D, who was still living in victim's home, intercepted the re-issued BofA Card and used the account number on the Card to book a three-month trip to a resort in Bermuda. In 2020, the government charged D with an aggravated identity theft. Before trial, the government moved in limine to admit evidence in its case-in-chief concerning a Chase credit Card. D applied for the Chase Card in Victim's name in 2014, when she was incapacitated, and—as with the BofA Card—used it after her death. The government contended that the evidence was probative of D's identity, intent and absence of mistake concerning his use of the BofA Card. D testified that victim specifically authorized him to use the BofA Card as well as her other credit cards, not only for her benefit but also for his. What result?

Inadmissible. None of the 404(b) applies. Intent is not an issue because he didn't say he didn't intend to use it, his argument is consent. It's no absence of mistake because defendant is not claiming "aaah it was a mistake that's why it happened." He is not claiming he did it by mistake, he is claiming consent.

A plaintiff sued her employer, alleging that poor working conditions had caused her to develop a stomach ulcer. At trial, the plaintiff's medical expert testified to the cause of the plaintiff's ulcer and stated that his opinion was based in part on information in a letter the plaintiff's personal physician had written to the plaintiff's employer, explaining why the plaintiff had missed work. When offered to prove the cause of the plaintiff's condition, is the letter from the plaintiff's doctor admissible? (A) No, because it is hearsay not within any exception. (B) No, because the plaintiff's physician is not shown to be unavailable. (C) Yes, because it was relied upon by the plaintiff's medical expert. (D) Yes, under the business records exception to the hearsay rule

(A) No, because it is hearsay not within any exception. it is based on a letter, not medical records; hearsay

A patient sued his doctor for malpractice. The patient called an expert witness. She testified that the drugs prescribed by the doctor were so experimental that it constituted negligence under accepted practices in the medical community. On cross-examination, the expert stated that Pharmacology: A Guide for the Practitioner was a reliable authority in her area of specialty. The expert testified that she, however, did not rely on that treatise in forming her opinion. The doctor’s attorney then proposed to read a portion from the treatise, which stated that the drugs prescribed by the doctor are widely used by other physicians in treating patients. The patient’s attorney objected. Will the court admit the evidence? (A) No, because the text of the treatise constitutes inadmissible hearsay. (B) No, because the expert did not rely on the treatise in forming her opinion. (C) Yes, as substantive evidence. (D) Yes, to impeach the expert, but not as substantive evidence.

(C) Yes, as substantive evidence. it comes in under 803-18 Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets. Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets. A statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if: (A)the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination; and (B)the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’s admission or testimony, by another expert’s testimony, or by judicial notice. If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit.

When a man entered a bank and presented a check for payment, the bank teller recognized the signature on the check as a forgery because the check was drawn on the account of a customer whose handwriting she knew. The bank teller called the police. Before the police arrived, the man picked up the check from the counter and left. The man was charged with attempting to cash a forged check. At trial, the prosecutor called the bank teller to testify that the signature on the check was forged. Is the bank teller’s testimony admissible? (A) Yes, because a bank teller is by occupation an expert on handwriting. (B) Yes, because it is rationally based on the bank teller’s perception and is helpful to the jury. (C) No, because the bank teller was at fault in allowing loss of the original by failing to secure the check. (D) No, because it is not possible for either the jury or an expert to compare the signature on the missing check with a signature established as genuine.

(B) Yes, because it is rationally based on the bank teller’s perception and is helpful to the jury.