Category: Uncategorized

A plaintiff in a civil case offers hearsay evidence against the defendant. The defendant fails to object to the evidence at the time, and the evidence is admitted. After the plaintiff wins the case, the defendant appeals. One of the defendant’s grounds for appeal is that the hearsay evidence was improperly admitted at trial. How should the appellate court proceed? 

The labor efficiency variance is labeled favorable (F) if the actual hours used is less than the standard hours allowed for the actual output.

Negligence action by P against D, the owner of a laundromat. P was hurt when the dryer he was loading suddenly started spinning, trapping his hand. P wishes to introduce evidence that after the accident, D fired the company that was servicing its machines and hired a more experienced company. D objects. The court should:

Criminal prosecution for aggravated assault by the defendant against his former business partner, who is also a former police officer. Defendant seeks to exclude admission of an Instagram post on the defendant’s Instagram account. Specifically, the defendant posted multiple visually beautiful and technically sophisticated music videos by an up-and-coming local rap artist that contains lyrics that celebrated the vicious killing of police officers. When posting the videos on his Instagram account, the defendant commented/captioned immediately beneath the videos: “Love this!”  The government seeks to admit the videos and song lyrics against the defendant. What is the strongest basis for admissibility?

D’s defense in a homicide case is an alibi. D claims that he was in Cheers, his favorite bar, watching his favorite TV show, at the time of the crime. D calls the Cheers bartender to the stand to testify that D never misses watching Survivor in the bar. This testimony is:

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?