More Hypos-Evidence Flashcards
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(C) The evidence is relevant but inadmissible.
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?
(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.
(D) The evidence is relevant and admissible.
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.
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.
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.
(C) Yes, as admissible evidence.
Rule only applies when he causes the accident.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(C) The statement is admissible, as it is not hearsay.
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.
