Prosecution of D for the murder of V. D admits killing V_ but claims by xiangpeng

VIEWS: 122 PAGES: 8

									Prosecution of D for the murder of V. D admits killing V, but claims she acted in self-defense. To prove V
started the fight, D offers evidence that V had committed numerous acts of violence in the months prior to
the killing. D was unaware of these acts when the killing occurred. The prosecution objects on relevance
grounds.
        20. How should the court rule? Why? If you believe the evidence is relevant, set forth the chain of
        inferences that demonstrates its relevance, and include generalizations that show how the
        inferences are linked.
ANSWER:




Prosecution of D for conspiracy to murder well-known political figure. At trial, the prosecution calls W to
testify that a week before the killing, W saw D talking to X, the confessed trigger-person, in a nightclub. D
objects on relevance grounds.
        21. How should the court rule? Why? If you believe the evidence is relevant, set forth the chain of
        inferences that demonstrates its relevance, and include generalizations that show how the
        inferences are linked.
ANSWER:




Civil rights action by P against D police department for using excessive force in arresting P at P’s home.
The officers went to P’s home to execute an arrest warrant resulting from P’s failure to pay fifty parking
tickets. It is undisputed that as soon as P opened her front door, the officers grabbed P and beat her with
their night sticks until she lost consciousness. D claims its officers acted in the reasonable belief that such
force was necessary. To prove this, D wishes to offer evidences that on two occasions not long before this
incident, P had acted violently when confronted with police officers. The two officers involved in this
incident were not aware of these previous confrontations. P objects on relevance grounds.
        23. How should the court rule? Why? If you believe the evidence is relevant, set forth the chain of
        inferences that demonstrates its relevance, and include generalizations that show how the
        inferences are linked.
ANSWER:




                                                       1
Prosecution of D for first degree murder of V. D admits shooting V but claims she acted in self-defense
when V attacked her. At trial, the prosecution calls W, a forensic pathologist who conducted the autopsy
on V. W testifies that she found three entry wounds on the back of V’s head. The prosecution then shows
W a series of photographs, which W states were taken of V’s upper boy and head during the autopsy. The
photographs clearly show the bullet wounds to the back of V’s head that W had testified about. The
prosecution offers the photographs into evidence. D objects.


        26. Which of the following statements is most likely correct?


        (A) Because the photographs are cumulative, they are irrelevant and must be excluded.
        (B) Although the photographs are relevant, the fact that they merely corroborate W’s testimony
            deprives them of all but minimal probative value, and they must be excluded.
        (C) Although the photographs are relevant, the court may exclude them if it finds that they are
            less reliable evidence of the condition of V’s body that is W’s oral testimony.
        (D) Although the photographs are relevant, the court may exclude them if it finds that their
            probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that the jury will convict D for the
            wrong reasons.




Wrongful death action by P against D arising from a horrible head-on automobile collision that killed P’s
deceased. To prove that D was traveling considerably above the speed limit of 25 miles per hour at the
time of the crash, P wishes to offer into evidence several photographs taken at the scene. The photographs
show P’s mangled car, reduced to half its original size. Blood stains can be seen through the windshield. D
offers to stipulate that she was traveling at least 60 miles per hour, and asks the court to exclude the
photographs. P refuses to accept D’s stipulation and insists on offering the photographs.


        27. How should the court rule?


        (A) Because the photographs would provide the jury with a greater understanding of the accident,
            the court should deny D’s motion and allow P to offer the photographs.
        (B) Because D’s stipulation would give P everything the photographs would have shown, the court
            should grant D’s motion and exclude the photographs.
        (C) Because a party may prove its case with any otherwise admissible evidence, and may never be
            forced to accept a stipulation, the court should deny D’s motion and allow P to offer the
            photographs into evidence.
        (D) Because trial courts generally exclude gory photographs, which tend to invite unfair prejudice
            by inflaming the jury’s passions against the opponent, the court could exclude them even
            without D’s offered stipulation.



                                                      2
Prosecution for D for murder. D claims insanity. To support insanity defense, D wishes to call W, a
psychiatrist who examined D.


        264. Which of the following opinions would the court be least likely to permit the expert to state?


        (A) At the time of the killing, D suffered from paranoid schizophrenia
        (B) At the time of the killing, D suffered from several mental disease that made it impossible for
             her to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of her acts
        (C) At the time of the killing, D was mentally ill.
        (D) At the time of the killing, D suffered from psychosis


Prosecution of D for arson. To prove the fire was set intentionally, the prosecution calls W, a police arson
investigator who has served in that capacity for ten years after spending several years as a beat officer. W
never attended college and had no special schooling in arson investigation, but learned investigative
techniques from a senior investigator with whom she worked for two years. From techniques learned
through this experience, W spoke with eyewitnesses who saw the fire at various stages, and concluded
from that information as well as her won investigation of the fire scene that the fire was set intentionally.


        262. Which of the following objections to W’s testimony is the court likely to sustain, if either?


        (A) W is not a qualified expert.
        (B) W’s testimony about the cause of the fire should be excluded as inadmissible hearsay.
        (C) The court is likely to sustain both of these objections.
        (D) The court is likely to overrule both of these objections


Negligence action by P against D arising from a motorcycle collision. P claims serious emotional injuries
as a result of the accident. D denies that P suffered any such injuries. To prove her injuries, P wishes to
call W, a psychiatrist.


        265. From which of the following sources may W learn the facts of data that form the basis of her
        opinion?


        (A) Personal observations and testing of P.
        (B) Tests performed by a clinical psychologist.
        (C) A hypothetical question posed to W before or during W’s testimony.
        (D) All of the above are permissible sources of information.



                                                       3
Product liability action by P, a ten-year-old child, against D, the manufacturer of a bicycle that P alleges
was defectively designed, causing him to lost control and crash, suffering serious injuries. Specifically, P
claims the bike’s frame was not strong enough to handle even the weight of a ten-year-old, and that it
collapsed under him while he was riding. Although the actual bike was accidentally destroyed before trial,
P produces another bike of the same model and exhibits it to the jury during the trial. The judge allows the
jury to take the bike to the jury room. After the jury renders a verdict for the D, the bailiff tells P’s lawyer
that when he entered the jury room to deliver some water, he saw jurors taking apart the bike and
examining its suspension system, something that was not done in open court. Based on this information,
P moves for a new trial and asks the court to hold a hearing so the bailiff can testify about what he saw.


        17. How should the court rule?


        (A) The court should hold the hearing because if true, the jury’s conduct amounted to the taking
             of new testimony without the parties present.
        (B) The court should hold the hearing because the jurors are not allowed to handle exhibits
        (C) The court should not hold the hearing because the bailiff may not testify to impeach the
             verdict.
        (D) The court should not hold the hearing because it is improper for a party to inquire about, or
             receive information about, the factors that motivated the jurors to render their verdict




Medical malpractice actions by P against D, a surgeon. P claims D failed to treat a leg injury properly, and
that as a result of improper treatment, her leg had to be amputated. At trial, P wishes to testify that her leg
required amputation due to complications that occurred during D’s treatment. D objects on best evidence
rule grounds, asserting that P’s medical records must be used to prove the cause of the condition lending
to amputation.


        229. How should the court rule?


        (A) The court should sustain the objection because the medical records are the best evidence of
             P’s medical condition.
        (B) The court should sustain the objection unless P offers to produce the records to support her
             testimony.
        (C) The court should sustain the objection unless P demonstrates that her medical records are not
             available for reasons beyond P’s control.
        (D) The court should overrule the objection.




                                                        4
Breach of contract action by P against D. P claims that D breached the written contract by failing to
deliver 200 crates of apples by the specified date. At trial, D wishes to testify that the contract only called
for delivery of 100 crates. P makes a best evidence rule objection.


        232. How should the court rule?


        (A) The court should sustain the objection
        (B) The court should overrule the objection because a contract is an agreement brought about by
            the meeting of two minds, not a writing. The writing is only a memorandum of the agreement,
            not the contract itself.
        (C) The court should overrule the objection because D is not testifying about the contents of the
            writing, but about her understanding of the agreement. Thus, the best evidence rule does not
            apply.
        (D) The court should overrule the objection because the central issue in the case concerns the
            terms of the agreement, and the jury is entitled to hear D’s interpretation of the terms.




Civil action by P against D for battery during a professional basketball game. D had been cheering for the
visiting team when P asked her to “cut it out.” P claims D then punched P. D claims she never touched P.
To prove her defense, D calls W to testify that she was with D at another game when D cheered for the
visiting team, that a home team fan asked D to stop, and that D just shrugged it off. P objects.


        149. Which of the following statements is correct?


        (A) The evidence is admissible character evidence.
        (B) The evidence is admissible habit evidence.
        (C) The evidence is inadmissible because it is offered in the form of specific instances of conduct
            rather than reputation or opinion.
        (D) The evidence is inadmissible because D may not use character evidence to support her
            defense in this situation.




                                                       5
Prosecution of D for assault and battery. During its case-in-chief, to prove D was the aggressor in the
fight, the prosecution calls W, who testifies that she has lived in the same community as D for many years,
that she is familiar with D’s community reputation for violence or peacefulness, and that D’s reputation is
that she is a very violent person. D objects.


           147. Which of the following statements is correct?


           (A) The court should sustain D’s objection because the evidence is hearsay for which no exception
               applies.
           (B) The court should sustain the objection because this is impermissible character evidence.
           (C) The court should overrule the objection because D’s character is in issue.
           (D) The court should overrule the objection if the probative value of the evidence substantially
               outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.




Prosecution of D for the murder of V. D claims V attacked her, and that D acted in self-defense. To prove
self-defense, D calls W1 to testify she saw V attack D. To rebut D’s self-defense claim, the prosecution calls
W2 to testify that she knew V for many years and that in her opinion, V was anon-violent person. D
objects.
           156. How should the court rule, and why?
           ANSWER:




Prosecution of D for the murder of V. To prove she acted in self-defense, D calls W, who has known D for
many years, to testify that in her opinion, D is a peaceful person. The prosecution objects.


           152. Which of the following statements is correct?


           (A) The court should sustain the objection because D may not offer character evidence to prove
               action in conformity on a specific occasion.
           (B) The court should sustain the objection because, although character evidence is admissible in
               this situation, D may only prove character by offering evidence of her community reputation.
           (C) The court should sustain the objection because the witness is biased.
           (D) The court should overrule the objection.




                                                          6
Prosecution of D for the murder of V while both were watching their sons compete in a high school
football game. To prove self-defense, D offers the testimony of W that D is a peaceful person. The
prosecution does not object. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks W, “Did you know that D was
involved in a barroom brawl last year?” D objects.


        153. How should the court rule?


        (A) The court should overrule the objection.
        (B) The court should sustain the objection because specific instances of conduct may not be used
            in this situation.
        (C) The court should sustain the objection because the question is impermissibly leading.
        (D) The court should sustain the objection because the circumstance of the barroom brawl were
            different that the barroom brawl that led to V’s death.




Prosecution of D, a trustee, for embezzling funds from the trust. D admits that the trust was depleted, but
claims someone else was stealing the funds. To rebut D’s defense, the prosecution wishes to present
evidence that after the charged act, D embezzled more funds from the same trust. D objects.


        157. How should the court rule?


        (A) The court should overrule the objection because the evidence is admissible to prove a plan,
            and thus D’s identity as the perpetrator.
        (B) The court should overrule the objection because the evidence is admissible to impeach D by
            contradiction.
        (C) The court should sustain the objection because the uncharged act took place after the charged
            event.
        (D) The court should sustain the objection because this is inadmissible character evidence.




                                                        7
Prosecution of D1 and D2 for the murder of four restaurant patrons. D1 and D2 deny involvement in the
crime. The prosecution wishes to call W to testify that she knows D1 and D2 as well as the victims, that all
were illegal drug dealers, and that not long before the killings, the victims had tried to “muscle in” on
territory controlled by D1 and D2. D objects.


        165. How should the court rule?


        (A) The court should overrule the objection because the evidence is admissible to show a
            tendency toward violent behavior.
        (B) The court should overrule the objection because the evidence is admissible to show a motive
            to kill the victims.
        (C) The court should sustain the objection because the evidence constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
        (D) The court should sustain the objection because the probative value of the evidence is
            substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.




Prosecution of D for robbing a store. The robber entered before closing, put on a salesperson’s uniform,
and pretended to work there. After the store closed and everyone else left, the robber shed the uniform
and stole all the DVD players. D denies involvement. To prove D’s guilt, the prosecution offers evidence
that a month earlier, D stole all the DVD players from a different store using the same method. D denies
committing the prior robbery, and objects.


        160. How should the court rule?


        (A) The court should sustain the objection unless D was charged criminally for that robbery.
        (B) The court should sustain the objection unless the prosecution convinces the court by a
            preponderance of the evidence that D committed the prior robbery.
        (C) The court should sustain the objection unless the prosecution offers evidence sufficient to
            support a finding that D committed the prior robbery.
        (D) The court should sustain the objection even if D admits committing the prior robbery.




                                                      8

								
To top