| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions! Dokkio, a new product from the PBworks team, integrates and organizes your Drive, Dropbox, Box, Slack and Gmail files. Sign up for free.

View
 

worksheet

Page history last edited by abogado 3 years ago

Question 1

0 / 18 pts

 

Pruddy Plaintiff, who while at the Cannes film

festival fainted at the sight of the people on the beach sunning

without any protection, sued the hotel. Pruddy suffered extensive

injuries from the fall. Pruddy claimed that the hotel was reckless in

failing to provide a buffer to protect hotel guests from exposure to

the au naturel beach. The hotel, however, denied liability claiming

that Pruddy was just clumsy rather than shocked. At trial, Pruddy

called her friends husband to testify that her friend, Rosie, had

blushed at about the same time Pruddy fainted. Pruddy, of course, wants

the testimony to corroborate the fact that the bathers were a shocking

sight. The judge should rule that the testimony is?

 

     
     
     
     
   

You Answered

 

Inadmissible because the blush is nonverbal conduct intended by Rosie as an assertion.

 

 

 

 

Admissible because the husbands testimony is offered for the truth rather than to establish Rosies state of mind.

 

 

 

Correct Answer

 

Admissible because Rosies blush could not be interpreted as intending to assert something.

 

 

 

  

Inadmissible because the husband will be repeating a statement made by Rosie.
 

 

 

 

 

Feedback the "blushing" is not considered "assertive conduct" under 801 (d) of FRE

 

 

 

Question 2

0 / 18 pts

 

In a civil lawsuit, plaintiff deposed Witt prior to trial, with defendants counsel present. Witt testifies differently at trial. The plaintiff now wants to offer Witts testimony not only as impeachment, but also as substantive evidence. Should the trial judge admit the deposition as substantive evidence?
 
 

You Answered

  

yes, because substantive evidence is excluded from the hearsay rule.
 

 

 

 

Correct Answer

 

Yes, because the deposition in this situation is considered a statement which is not hearsay, and it may be admitted for the truth it asserts

 

 

 

  

No, because the depositon is hearsay without an exception
 

 

 

 

  

No, the deposition may only be admitted for impeachment purposes.
 

 

 

 

 

Feedback see FRE 801

 

 

 

Question 3

0 / 16 pts

 

Plaintiff was injured by a driver for the Trucking Company. The truck driver was making a company delivery. Plaintiff sued only the Trucking Company. Plaintiffs counsel, at trial, seeks to have the sheriff who investigated the accident testify that the truck driver told the sheriff: This probably was my fault. The judge should rule the proffered evidence?

You Answered

 

Admissible, because it is a statement made to a police officer in the course of an official investigation.

 

 

 

Correct Answer

 

Admissible as an admission of an employee of a party, concerning a matter within the scope of employment.

 

 

 

 

Inadmissible, because it is a statement by a party who has an interest in the outcome of the case.

 

 

 

  

Inadmissible, because it is hearsay.
 

 

 

 

 

Feedback admission against interest - it has inherent truthfullness since innocent people do not "admit guilt" - it is technical hearsay since it is an out of court statement, and you are using it to prove the truth of the statement. see FRE 801(2) non hearsay

 

 

 

Question 4

0 / 16 pts

 

While the husband was testifying, Pruddys attorney attempted to show that Pruddy was not clumsy at the moment in question, by asking what the husband said when Pruddy fainted. The hotels counsel objects. The judge should?

  

Overrule the objection because the answer is not offered for the truth it asserts.
 

 

 

 

Correct Answer

 

Sustain the objection because the husbands statement is one made out of court and offered for the truth it asserts.

 

 

 

You Answered

  

Sustain the objection because the husbands statement is irrelevant.
 

 

 

 

 

Overrule the objection because the husband is permitted to repeat what he said out of court.

 

 

 

 

Feedback hearsay is an "out of court statement" offered for the truth it asserts. see FRE 801

 

 

 

Question 5

16 / 16 pts

 

Pedestrian was hit at a street crossing by an automobile driven by Driver. Pedestrians counsel calls Witness to testify that Driver pleaded with Witness to testify falsely that Pedestrian ran in front of Drivers car. The trial judge should rule Witnesss testimony?

  

Inadmissible because it was not relevant to the issue of negligence.
 

 

 

 

  

Inadmissible because it was hearsay.
 

 

 

 

 

Admissible because Drivers statement was an excited utterance which is an exception to the hearsay rule.

 

 

 

Correct!

  

Admissible because Drivers statement was an admission by a party opponent.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 6

0 / 16 pts

 

During cross-examination of the Plaintiffs witness in an infamous savings and loan case, the defense attorney inquired about a windfall the witness would receive should the Plaintiff prevail. Upon redirect, the Plaintiff offered the witness prior deposition wherein the witness testified similarly to his testimony during the trial. The judge should rule the evidence?

 

Inadmissible because the defense attorney did not cross-examine the witness at the depositon.

 

 

 

You Answered

  

Inadmissible because it is hearsay.
 

 

 

 

Correct Answer

  

Admissible as a prior consistent statement by a witness.
 

 

 

 

  

admissible as a recorded recollection.
 

 

 

 

 

 

Quiz Score: 16 out of 100

 

PreviousNext

Last Attempt Details:
Time: less than 1 minute
Current Score: 16 out of 100
Kept Score: 66 out of 100
4 Attempts so far
View Previous Attempts 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.