Blog

Alpha and Beta are roommates. One day when Alpha came home from work, Beta said, “Our neighbor is so strange. Today I saw him walking around wearing a blonde wig.” One month later, Alpha heard about a series of rapes that occurred by a man wearing a blonde wig. Alpha reported it to the police, who arrested the neighbor. At the neighbor’s trial for rape, Alpha testifies as to Beta’s statement, because Beta has since died. Defense counsel objects. The objection should be:

Defendant is accused of criminal embezzlement. Alpha, a co-worker of Defendant, informed Beta, her boss, of Defendant’s embezzlement. At trial, Alpha denies informing Beta of the embezzlement. Beta takes the stand for the prosecution and testifies that Alpha told him, “You better watch Defendant, as he is skimming money from the company.” Defense counsel objects. The court should:

Plaintiff was injured in a construction accident and brought suit. Plaintiff was the first witness, and she described how the accident occurred. Plaintiff’s expert was her second witness. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the expert if she heard plaintiff’s testimony. Plaintiff stated that she had. Plaintiff’s counsel then asked, “Assuming what Plaintiff said was true, can you form an opinion regarding the cause of this accident?” Defense counsel objected. The court should find the expert’s testimony is:

In a criminal trial, Defendant is charged with assault and battery. Defendant testified that he was home watching a movie at the time of the alleged assault. On cross-examination, the prosecutor may in good faith ask whether Defendant was ever:

Worker suffered a head injury while working on a construction project. His boss told him to drive home. While driving home, Worker lost consciousness and hit Plaintiff with his car. When the boss learned of the accident, she called Plaintiff and stated, “I will pay your medical expenses. I really should not have let Worker drive home after that head injury.” The statement that he should not have let Worker drive home after the head injury is:

Alpha, a bus driver, witnessed a car accident between Plaintiff and Defendant. When he stopped at the next bus stop, he wrote down his recollection of the accident. At the civil trial, when he was having difficulty remembering some of the facts, Plaintiff’s attorney sought to let him review the notes he had made. The court should rule this:

Alpha is a driver for Defendant’s limousine company. While carrying Beta, a passenger, Alpha rear-ended Plaintiff’s car. Immediately after the accident, Alpha stated to Beta, “Are you okay? I’m so sorry, because that accident was entirely my fault.” Plaintiff sues Defendant’s limousine company. Alpha is available to testify, but Plaintiff puts Beta on the stand to repeat the statement made by Alpha after the accident. The evidence is:

Defendant is on trial for assault and argues self-defense. Victim testifies that the attack was unprovoked. Defendant calls Alpha as his first witness. Alpha states that Victim provoked the attack. Defendant’s next and final witness is Beta, who intends to testify that Defendant’s reputation in the community for honesty is very good. Should the court allow the testimony?

Plaintiff was injured in a car accident and brought a personal injury action in which she claimed that the Defendant was speeding and ran a red light. Defendant denied the allegations. At trial, Plaintiff seeks to introduce testimony that the defendant possessed a reputation in the community for reckless driving. The testimony is:

In an architectural malpractice case, Defendant calls an architect who testifies that Defendant did not commit any malpractice. Under cross-examination, the architect admits his findings are contrary to universally accepted architectural opinion. He also admits that his methods are presently experimental and incomplete. Plaintiff moves to strike the architect’s testimony. The judge should: