Blog

Plaintiff, the decedent’s wife, sues the decedent’s employer under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Plaintiff’s theory of her case is that the decedent’s employer forced him to work even though management knew or should have known of decedent’s debilitating illness, which made him unfit for work on the day he died. Plaintiff’s counsel proffered decedent’s wife’s testimony regarding a telephone conversation she overheard her husband having with his employer. Specifically, on the morning in question, the decedent, in the presence of his wife, called his employer via telephone. If allowed, decedent’s wife would testify that she heard her husband say in response to the party on the other end of the conversation: “But, I can’t come to work today, I don’t feel good at all;” “Why are you forcing me to come to work now that you know how sick I am?;” and “I guess I will have to punch in while sick.” Defense counsel objects. What is the proper ruling regarding the admissibility of the proffered testimony under the FRE?

Romeo is visiting his friend Juliet at her house. As Romeo entered Juliet’s house, the brick stairs leading up to her front door collapsed.  Romeo fell and broke his leg.  Juliet rushed out of the house immediately and said: “Omigod, I’m so sorry, I knew I should have gotten those fixed.  I’ll pay whatever it takes to get your leg fixed.” Romeo sued Juliet and wishes to testify about the statements she made to him.  How should the judge rule?

Same facts as #31. Except that after the prosecutor has asked Ronna on cross-examination about two prior felony convictions, she calls Stan, who is prepared to testify that he has known Ronna for twenty years and knows her reputation in their neighborhood to be that she is a “truthful person.”  The prosecutor objects.  How should the court rule and why?

Two reality television chefs, Ramsey and Huang, were campaigning to win “King of the Foodies” in a well-known contest. Just one week before the vote was to occur, a website published a story implying that Huang’s cooking had been known to cause food poisoning. Huang lost the contest and Ramsey was named King of the Foodies. Huang sued the website for defamation; the website defended on the grounds of truth. At trial, Huang testified that his cooking had never, in all his professional career, ever caused a single instance of food poisoning. The website subsequently called a witness to testify that a seafood soup prepared by Huang seven years ago had given ten people food poisoning. Huang objects to this testimony. Will it be excluded? 

Maurice and his nephew, Carl, went fishing in Maurice’s boat. It was a stormy day, and a large wave struck the boat. Carl fell overboard and drowned, despite Maurice’s attempt to save him. Coast Guard rescuers took Maurice to the hospital and called Tomika, who was Carl’s mother. Tomika took a tranquilizer and, per her statements to hospital staff later that night, “slept for about five hours.” She then went to the hospital. When Tomika arrived at the hospital about eight hours after receiving the call from the Coast Guard, she walked into Maurice’s room and admonished him: “I told you it was irresponsible to go out on the boat today!” A nurse overheard Tomika’s statements. Tomika sued Maurice for wrongful death, claiming it was too dangerous to go fishing that day. Can plaintiff’s counsel call the nurse as a witness to testify about Tomika’s statement to support the claim that Maurice acted negligently?

Same facts as #1. The government seeks to introduce Midori’s failure to call 911/emergency assistance during or after her dog attacked, mauled, and bit Diane to death. Defense counsel objects. What is the strongest basis for the objection? 

Chris is on trial for robbing a shopping center kiosk.  Three days before his trial is set to begin, the shopping center security guard — who would have been a key eyewitness against Chris – was killed in a suspicious hit-and-run accident.  The prosecutor now wishes to admit the security guard’s grand jury testimony against Chris at trial, arguing that “the government suspects the defendant’s involvement in the death of the security guard.”  Is this permissible?

Lee is on trial for murder. The victim in the case was shot in the back of the head, and the killer took the body to a farm in the country and buried it between two trees next to an old barn. Lee’s defense is that the killing was carried out by another man, Howard, who committed suicide the day after the shooting. There is no evidence that Howard and Lee know each other; thus, if Howard committed the crime, Lee is innocent. At Lee’s trial, the defense attorney called Sam, a local bartender, who testified that the day after the shooting, Howard said to the bartender, “There’s a surprise waiting for the police underground between the two trees next to the old Fujimoto barn.” The bartender said he thought that Howard was joking until the body was found in that location three weeks later.  Is this evidence admissible? 

The United States prosecuted the mayor and several town council members of Las Vegas, Nevada, claiming that they defrauded the town of more than $10 million. At trial, the defendants offered minutes from a town council meeting held several months after the fraud became public. According to these minutes, no payments had been made to the organization accused of perpetrating fraud. The mayor presided over this meeting, and several other defendants were present as council members. Are the minutes admissible as public records?

Same facts as #1. Midori seeks to introduce in her case-in-chief evidence that she is a decades’ long, award-winning member of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ “Most Humane Pet Mom.”  The prosecution objects.  What is the strongest basis for the objection?