1. Joe was on trial for robbery. Joe called Jim to the witness stand to provide an alibi. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Jim: "Isn't it true you are having an affair with your next door neighbor?"

If the court sustains the defense counsel's objection, the best rationale under the Federal Rules of Evidence would be:

Group of answer choices

The prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value.

The question is leading.

The question is beyond the scope of direct examination.

The court should not have sustained the objection.

2. Jane, who is eighty years old, loved coffee. She tripped over a broken step at the coffee shop entrance. She fell and broke her arm. At trial, Jane offered to introduce evidence that the coffee shop fixed the broken step.

According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court will mostly likely rule this evidence is:

Group of answer choices

Admissible to show the coffee shop was negligent.

Inadmissible because subsequent remedial measures are not admissible to prove negligent conduct.

Admissible because public policy discourages subsequent remedial measures.

Admissible to show that the coffee shop knew the step needed to be repaired.

3. Denny and Pal signed a contract for Pal to make Denny a surfboard. Pal's secretary, Penny, was present and observed both Denny and Pal sign the contract. Denny later denied he signed a contract with Pal. At trial, Pal sought to introduce the contract with Denny's signature.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, in order for the contract to be admissible, Pal must:

Group of answer choices

Call an expert to testify to the contract.

Show evidence of the authenticity of Denny's signature.

Show evidence of the authenticity of the contract document itself.

Simply introduce the contract as a marked exhibit.

4. John was arrested and criminally charged with illegally transporting a minor across state lines for illicit purposes. The prosecutor presented evidence that John drove his car from California to Nevada. The prosecutor requested and the trial judge took judicial notice of the fact that a state line is crossed when traveling from California to Nevada.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the judge taking judicial notice in effect meant:

Group of answer choices

In this criminal case, the jury may accept or reject the judge's ruling.

Required the jury to accept the judge's finding that a state line was crossed.

Shifted the burden of proof to the defendant to show he did not drive across the state line.

Relieved the prosecutor from any further providing any further evidence that the defendant crossed the state line.

5. Billy, a local city journalist, wrote that Barry the Mayor is a thief. Mayor Barry sued Billy for defamation. In his defense, Billy called the local store clerk who will testify she made a citizen's arrest of Mayor Billy about 2 months ago when Billy tried to steal a bottle of liquor. Mayor Barry's counsel objects to the store clerk's testimony on the grounds of impermissible character evidence.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Group of answer choices

The court should sustain Mayor Barry's objection.

The court should exclude the evidence under FRE 403.

The court should allow the store clerk to testify.

The court should exclude the evidence because it is not relevant.