Category: Uncategorized

Prosecution of D for murder. The prosecution calls PO, a police officer who collected physical evidence at the crime scene. PO authenticates her report and testifies that she is required to file such a report whenever she investigates. The prosecution offers the report as evidence. D objects. The court should:

Stephanie is suing Phillip for injuries she suffered when Phillip allegedly ran into her with a bicycle and then biked away.  Phillip claims he was not even riding his bike that day and that someone else must have struck Stephanie with a bicycle.  Stephanie calls Fran, an eyewitness, who will identify Phillip in court.  In response, Phillip wishes to call Dr. Niki to the stand.  Dr. Niki will testify that she is an experimental psychologist and has conducted dozens of tests and read about hundreds more regarding the unreliability of eyewitness identification.  Specifically, she will testify about the general unreliability of eyewitnesses, especially under stressful situations.  She will also testify that she watched Fran testify and that, based on her expertise, Fran seemed unsure of her identification of Phillip. What is the best objection that Stephanie can make to exclude Dr. Niki’s testimony?

Same facts as #48. Hyland proffers Bystander’s testimony that Bystander was talking to Witness when Bystander heard the crash and heard Witness, now deceased, exclaim, “That car doesn’t have any lights on!”  Bystander’s testimony is:

Cane physically assaulted Brayden outside of a bar. As Cane ran off, Brayden collapsed and lost consciousness. Before Brayden lost consciousness, one of the bar’s patrons heard Brayden shout: “I am sorry I cheated on my 2022 taxes, skimmed money off the top of my illegal drug sales, and caused Cane’s profits to tank, but? Do not let Cane get away with this!” Quick medical treatment saved Brayden, but he now suffers from amnesia and cannot recall any details of the assault. Can the bar patron testify about what Brayden shouted? 

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?