1. As you have learned, leading questions are generally not permitted on direct examination, but are permitted on cross-examination. Also, cross-examination should be limited to the scope of direct examination. While this developed in the common law, there is now a federal rule of evidence that codifies the common law rule. What is that specific federal rule of evidence? Make sure you cite to the relevant subsections of the applicable rule if there are any.

2. Judge Tania Gold is presiding over a criminal trial. Approximately two weeks before trial, the defendant called Judge Gold's chambers and spoke with Judge Gold's paralegal, James Pike. During the conversation, the defendant admitted he committed the crime, but claimed he had an excuse. The prosecuting attorney wants to call James Pike as a witness during the trial. Is this permitted? Why or why not? As part of your answer, identify the specific rule that answers this question.

3. Mike Bream is on the stand testifying as a lay witness about what he saw in Wawa when the plaintiff fell and hurt herself. Mike, who is not a party in the case, just a lay witness, testifies that he saw blood on the floor after the plaintiff fell. Is Mike permitted to give his opinion on the stand that the substance was blood? Why or why not? As part of your answer, identify the specific rule that answers this question.

4. On November 15, 2020, Krystal Green and Mara Magenta were involved in an automobile accident. Krystal was traveling northbound on State Street when Mara made a left turn in front of Krystal. Due to the impact, both women suffered personal injuries and damage to their vehicles. Krystal sued Mara for negligence, and the civil trial is now being held in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Mara's attorney, Mike Gray, calls a witness, Jason Bass, to the stand. In order to prove that Krystal was negligent and therefore liable, Jason begins to testify that Krystal's boyfriend, Paul Moss, told Jason that Krystal admitted to him (Paul) that she was speeding at the time of the accident and that it was probably more her fault than Mara's fault. Paul is sitting in the courtroom during Jason's testimony. Krystal's attorney objects to Jason's testimony.Should the objection be sustained (evidence excluded) or overruled (evidence admitted)? Why or why not? Which specific rule - including any specific subsection if applicable- addresses this issue? Make sure you 1) identify the specific rule and 2) write a thorough explanation of why the objection should be sustained or overruled. This is not a matter of opinion- there is a correct answer.

5. Is an expert witness required to have personal knowledge of the matter the expert is testifying about? Why or why not? Note, there are several rules about experts, but only one that specifically answers this question about personal knowledge. Make sure to choose the correct, most specific rule. As part of your answer, identify the specific rule that answers this question.

6. Jack Herring is on trial in federal district court for murdering a business rival, Marc Brown. Jack's former business partner, Paul Pike, told a mutual friend, John Green, that he [Paul] and not Jack, killed the victim. Shortly after that conversation, Jack killed Paul due to a dispute over a debt. Jack's attorney, Claire Indigo, calls John Green to the stand to testify about what Paul told him about the murder of Marc Brown. The federal prosecutor objects to John's testimony because it is hearsay, but the defense attorney argues that there is an exception because Paul Pike is unavailable. Should the objection be sustained (evidence excluded) or overruled (evidence admitted)? Why or why not? Which specific rule - including any specific subsection if applicable- addresses this issue? Make sure you 1) identify the specific rule and 2) write a thorough explanation of why the objection should be sustained or overruled. This is not a matter of opinion- there is a correct answer.

7. Brody Pike is on trial for federal terrorism charges relating to a bombing on December 15, 2021.During the trial, the defense attorney calls Brody's wife, Cynthia Pike, to the witness stand. Cynthia testifies that Brody was with her during the time of the alleged crime. As part of her direct testimony, the defense attorney asks Cynthia about her faith and has her testify that she is a devout Christian and she believes lying is a sin. The goal of this testimony is to demonstrate to the jury that Cynthia is a very credible witness. The prosecutor objects to this testimony and states that it violates the federal rules of evidence. Should the objection be sustained (evidence excluded) or overruled (evidence admitted)? Why or why not? Which specific rule - including any specific subsection if applicable- addresses this issue? Make sure you 1) identify the specific rule and 2) write a thorough explanation of why the objection should be sustained or overruled. This is not a matter of opinion- there is a correct answer.