• 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
Category: Homework
Satisfied Customers: 3040
Experience:  MIT Graduate (Math, Programming, Science, and Music)
3546829
Scott is online now

nbsp;need help on 10 Law evidence question

Customer Question

Attachment: 2015-10-19_085432_10_law_question.docx

Hi. need help on 10 Law evidence question

Sharon    just won the lottery. Unfortunately, she was beset by so many new friends    that she decided she needed to erect a wall around her house with an    electronic surveillance camera at a front gate. One rainy evening, Bob, an    old admirer, who upon learning of her good fortune, decided to renew his    efforts at marriage and went to her home. Undaunted by the gate, the wall,    and the rain, he decided to climb the wall with his guitar so he could    serenade Sharon under her bedroom window. When Bob scaled the wall right    near the gate, he slipped and fell to the ground, crushing his guitar and    some body parts. Bob filed suit for personal injuries, Sharon attempts to    introduce testimony from the hospital nurse that Bob stated to her when she    was changing his bandages the next day at the hospital, “ I shouldn’t have    climbed the gate on a rainy day.” Bob objects. Is the testimony of the    hospital nurse admissible?

 A Yes,      as an excited utterance. B Yes,      as an admission by a party-opponent. C Yes,      as a statement of bodily condition. D Yes,      because it is relevant to show Bob had knowledge of how dangerous it was      to climb the fence on a rainy day.

Phil    ran a newspaper stand. At the end of the day, Bob came up to him and robbed    him of his profits. Phil wrote a description of Bob and gave it to the    police who were then able to locate and arrest Bob. Phil had to leave the    country before Bob’s trial. The prosecutor attempts to offer the description    written by Phil into evidence. The description is

 A admissible      as a spontaneous declaration. B admissible      as eye-witness evidence of the identity of the perpetrator of the crime. C inadmissible      because it is hearsay, not within any exception. D admissible      as evidence of his present state of mind.

Duke    is arrested and charged with the stabbing murder of his girlfriend, Vicki.    Duke and Vicki had a very stormy relationship and had numerous altercations    in front of Duke’s family. The morning after Vicki’s body was found, Duke’s    mother Wilma walked in on Duke as he was washing blood off of his hunting    knife in the kitchen. Wilma grabbed Duke’s arm and said “Heaven help us. Did    you kill Vicki, my son?” Duke jerked his arm from Wilma and left the room.

At    trial, the prosecution offered Wilma’s testimony concerning her    confrontation with Duke in the kitchen the morning after Vicki’s body was    found. This evidence is

 A inadmissible,      as hearsay not within any exception. B inadmissible,      because Duke had no reason to respond to Wilma’s statement. C admissible      as a declaration against interest. D admissible      as an admission by a party-opponent.

Duke    is arrested and charged with the stabbing murder of his girlfriend, Vicki.    Duke and Vicki had a very stormy relationship and had numerous altercations    in front of Duke’s family. The morning after Vicki’s body was found, Duke’s    mother Wilma walked in on Duke as he was washing blood off of his hunting    knife in the kitchen. Wilma grabbed Duke’s arm and said “Heaven help us. Did    you kill Vicki, my son?” Duke jerked his arm from Wilma and left the room.

At    trial, Duke’s defense attorney asked Duke on direct examination “What did    you tell the officer who arrested you?” Duke answered: “I said that I had    not seen Vicki in over a week.” Is this testimony admissible or    inadmissible?

 A Inadmissible      because it was a self-serving statement by a person with a motive to lie. B Admissible      as a prior consistent statement. C Inadmissible      as hearsay not within any exception. D Admissible      as direct evidence of a material issue in the trial.

Jennifer    met her classmate at the local ice cream shop, sporting a new outfit. Her    friend, Elizabeth, knowing that Jennifer had no money and seeing a price tag    still attached, said jokingly, “ Clothesmart must be missing some clothes!”    Jennifer immediately stood up and walked away angrily. Later, Jennifer was    prosecuted for shoplifting based on a salesclerk’s report to the police. The    prosecution now attempts to admit Elizabeth’s testimony about what happened    at the ice cream shop over Jennifer’s objection. Can this evidence be    admitted?

 A Yes,      since Jennifer’s silence was basically a statement against interest. B Yes,      since it was reasonable for her to deny the implication that she committed      a theft. C No,      because it is inadmissible hearsay. D No,      because Jennifer is constitutionally entitled to stay silent.

Felicia    sues Oscar for injuries sustained when the hot air balloon in which she was    a passenger crashed when he attempted to land it in a particularly rocky    area which was densely populated with cacti. As part of her case, Felicia    attempted to bring Oscar’s friend to the stand to testify that Oscar told    him one week before the accident “I failed the test for my pilot’s license.”    The evidence is:

 A Admissible      as a declaration against interest. B Admissible      as an admission by a party opponent. C Inadmissible      hearsay which does not fall under any exception. D Admissible      as a prior statement.

Jerry    was on trial for burglary of a home. The prosecution examined Officer Tom on    direct regarding the discovery of Jerry’s fingerprints on the windowpane. On    cross-examination, Jerry’s defense attorney asked Officer Tom if he was the    officer who was personally conducted the fingerprint investigation, in an    attempt to show that Officer Tom was not directly involved in the    investigation of the case. The prosecution now seeks to conduct a re-direct    examination, during which they intend to elicit information from Officer Tom    that he actually supervised a team of officers and investigators who    reported to him and kept him apprised of their findings. Will the trial    court permit such re-direct?

 A No,      because re-direct examination is limited to matters testified to on direct      examination. B Yes,      if the prosecution can show that omitting discussion of the chain of      command and supervision of the case from the direct exam was due to      mistake rather than strategy. C Yes,      since the issue of supervision and involvement came up for the first time      on cross-examination. D Yes,      because the right to re-direct examination cannot be limited when the      questions relate to an issue of ultimate fact in the lawsuit.

Dave    operated a radio station where Phil worked. Phil was fired and brought suit    against Dave for wrongful discharge. At trial, Abraham testified on Phil’s    behalf saying that Dave “had it out for Phil” and constantly acted to    undermine Phil’s ability to perform his work. On cross-examination, Dave’s    attorney asked Abraham if he had any bias against Dave, which Abraham    denied. Dave subsequently called Norbert as a witness to testify that he,    Abraham, and Phil had all worked together in college and submitted false    time sheets. The court should rule that the testimony of Norbert is

 A admissible,      because the credibility of a witness is always in issue and can be proven      with extrinsic evidence of prior bad acts. B admissible,      because the testimony relates to possible bias. C inadmissible,      because Dave may not introduce extrinsic evidence of Abraham’s bias. D inadmissible,      because there was no showing that Abraham was convicted of any crime in      connection with that prior employment.

Gracie    worked for the downtown church as the business manager. Gracie was unaware    that the church was a front for a border smuggling operation. Gracie was    indicted as part of the undercover sting operation and at trial denied    knowledge of the border smuggling operation. On cross-examination, the    prosecutor asked Gracie if it was true she had served jail time for perjury.    Is this evidence admissible?

 A No,      because it is far more prejudicial than probative. B No,      because the question goes beyond the scope of the direct examination. C Yes,      because it is being used to show Gracie’s propensity for criminal      activity. D Yes,      since the question was designed to impeach Gracie by showing she was      untruthful.

Tom    and Jerry are partners of an ice cream company. They have retained    Consultant Atlas to represent them in all of their business matters. At some    point, Jerry began to suspect that Tom was consuming a portion of their    profits, to the detriment of their business. When they met with their    Consultant to discuss this issue, Tom still denied it but admitted that he    had gained a great deal of weight recently. Furthermore, he stated that it    was important to test the product to ensure quality was maintained. At trial    over the breakup of the business, Jerry sought to put Consultant Atlas on    the stand to testify to Tom’s statements. Can Consultant Atlas testify?

 A No,      because the statements are irrelevant. B No,      since it is hearsay not within any exception. C Yes,      since it is an admission by a party-opponent. D Yes,      since it is relevant to prove Tom was eating the ice cream.

Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Homework