MidSemester Review

1
Mid-Semester Review
2
Any Objections?

• To show that Ps head hurt after a collision with
  Ds motor vehicle, Ps witness W testifies that
  after the collision he heard P say, My head
  hurts.
• To show that P was not seriously hurt after a
  collision with Ds motor vehicle, Ds witness W
  testifies that after the collision he heard P
  say, Im okay.

3

• Criminal prosecution for rape. Victim testifies
  on direct examination about the details of the
  incident. Defendant calls Victims friend to the
  stand to testify that several days prior to
  trial, Victim told Friend ? didnt touch me.
  This is
• Inadmissible hearsay
• Admissible as an admission of a party opponent
• Admissible as evidence of a prior inconsistent
  statement
• Inadmissible for lack of personal knowledge.

4

• Same case. ? alleges consent. ?s counsel calls
  W to testify that Victim has a bad reputation in
  her community for chastity. This evidence is
• Inadmissible, because the defense may not
  introduce evidence of a victims bad character
  unless the prosecution first introduces evidence
  of the victims good character.
• Admissible, because ? properly presented only
  reputation testimony.
• Inadmissible, because the unchaste character of
  an alleged rape victim may not be proven.
• Admissible, because the evidence is not
  collateral.

5

• Civil contract dispute for 80,000. After ?
  received the complaint, he called the ? and said
  Wont you make this go away if I give you
  30,000 here and now? The case goes to trial.
  The conversation is
• Admissible as a party-opponent admission.
• Inadmissible hearsay as proof of ?s liability.
• Inadmissible as part of settlement negotiations.
• Admissible as circumstantial evidence of ?s
  liability.

6

• Personal injury action. Star Markets assistant
  manager apologized to Cornelia Customer for the
  wet floor after she fell. In subsequent
  litigation against Star Market, this is
• Admissible as a party-opponent admission, if the
  assistant manager was an eyewitness to the fall.
• Admissible as a party-opponent admission, if the
  assistant manager was authorized to speak on
  behalf of the company.
• Admissible as a party-opponent admission, if the
  assistant manager is still an employee of Star
  Market at the time of trial.
• Admissible as a party-opponent admission.

7

• Civil fraud action against a stockbroker. ?
  stockbroker has no history of disciplinary
  actions or lawsuits. Evidence that ? has an
  excellent reputation for honesty in the business
  community is
• Admissible, to help the jury assess the
  credibility of ?s claim that she was deceived.
• Inadmissible character evidence.
• Admissible, because ?s character is directly in
  issue in the case.
• Inadmissible hearsay.

8

• Civil assault battery action. ? claims
  pre-emptive self-defense. Witness will testify
  that she heard Tom say to ? the week before
  Youd better watch out. ? is looking for you.
  This evidence is
• Inadmissible hearsay.
• Inadmissible on grounds of irrelevance.
• Admissible to show that ? had reason to fear ?.
• Inadmissible, because Witness lacks personal
  knowledge that ? was really looking for ?.

9

• Prosecution for murder. The statute defines
  first degree murder as including murders
  committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty.
  Forensic evidence will show that Victim was
  dismembered. Testimony by ?s neighbor that, in
  his opinion, ? was a violent and brutal man is
• Inadmissible, because only reputation evidence
  would be permissible.
• Admissible only if the neighbor offers the basis
  of his opinion.
• Admissible, because ?s character is directly in
  issue.
• Inadmissible propensity evidence.

10

• Erin Eyewitness has testified on direct
  examination as to her observations. On
  cross-examination, can she be questioned about
  her use of hallucinatory drugs over the last
  year?
• Yes, because it is relevant to her credibility.
• No, because she was not asked specifically about
  her drug use on direct examination.
• Yes, as long as there is a good-faith basis to
  believe that Erin has used drugs.
• No, because it is not relevant to any issue in
  the case.

11

• Murder prosecution. The prosecutor wants to
  introduce love letters from Victim to ?s wife.
  This evidence is
• Admissible.
• Inadmissible hearsay.
• Inadmissible on grounds of irrelevance.
• Inadmissible character evidence.