1. Martin brought a civil suit against Zach for injuries Martin sustained when a large, rotten branch fell off of a tree near the curb in front of Zach's home and hit Martin on the head. Zach claims that the tree was on city property and was therefore the city's responsibility, not his. At trial, Martin offered testimony that four days after the accident, Zach cut down the tree with a chainsaw. The offered evidence is: A. inadmissible because there is a policy to encourage safety precautions. B. inadmissible because it is irrelevant to the condition of the tree at the time of the accident. C. admissible to show the tree was on Zach's property. D. admissible to show the tree was in a dangerous, rotted condition. 2. Defendant grocery store clerk is accused of embezzling money from the store for which he works. Defendant claims that he never took any of the store's money. The prosecution calls Sally to testify that a year prior to Defendant's accepting the job at the grocery store, Defendant stole $550 that Sally had given him to bring to her sick cousin who lived nearby. This evidence is: A. inadmissible character evidence. B. inadmissible because Sally should have testified that she'd heard that Defendant had stolen the $550, not that Defendant actually had done so. C. admissible as evidence of Defendant's modus operandi. D. admissible as an admission of Defendant, on the theory that his prior act constituted assertive conduct.2 3. Hermione was arrested and charged with murder. She was read her Miranda warnings, after which she refused to say anything further to the police officers who had arrested her. She testified at trial, recounting where she had been on the day that the crime occurred, and explaining why it would have been impossible for her to have committed the crime. On crossexamination and over defense objection, the prosecution emphasized that Hermione had not told the police this story upon her arrest. The prosecutor thus suggested that Hermione's testimony was false. Hermione was convicted, and she now argues on appeal that the prosecutor's crossexamination was erroneous. Hermione's conviction will most probably be: A. affirmed because a defendant's silence at the time of her arrest can be a prior inconsistent statement that gives rise to a permissible inference that she fabricated her testimony. B. affirmed because Hermione's silence was not used as direct evidence but only for impeachment, a purpose consistent with legitimate cross-examination. C. reversed because Hermione's post-arrest silence constituted Hermione's exercise of her Miranda rights, and use of that silence against her at trial violated due process. D. reversed because most people are aware of their Miranda rights even before they are arrested or read their Miranda rights while in custody. 4. Police officers pulled over Prince's car, claiming that Prince was swerving on the road. Prince got out of his car and started yelling at the officers. Undisputed video evidence shows that the officers responded by hitting Prince 16 times with their nightsticks. At no time did Prince act violently or physically threaten the officers. Now Prince is bringing a Section 1983 excessive force claim against the police department. The department argues that the officers acted under a reasonable belief that such force was necessary at the time. In support, the department wants to introduce evidence that on three prior occasions Prince had physically attacked police officers who pulled him over. The evidence is: A. relevant, but only if the police officers on the scene were aware of Prince's previous confrontations with the police. B. relevant, since it tends to prove that Prince has a character for violence. C. irrelevant, since Prince took no violent action towards the police officers on this occasion. D. irrelevant, since Prince's past actions are no indication of what may or may not have happened in this circumstance.3 5. Barry and Deion were each arrested for robbing an artisanal chewing gum shop in Bushwick. They're being charged and tried separately, with Barry's trial first. At Barry's trial, prosecutors call Titus, the owner of the gum shop and only eyewitness to the crime. Titus testifies that a man in a black jacket came into the gum shop and put a gun to his head while another man in a blue jacket took money from the cash register. A police officer then testifies that approximately two minutes later, Barry and Deion were arrested, wearing a black jacket and a blue jacket, respectively, two blocks away from the gum shop. Barry is convicted, and Titus dies a shortly thereafter. At Deion's trial, the prosecutor seeks to admit the court transcript of Titus's testimony, over the defense attorney's objection. The evidence is: A. admissible under Rule 803(8). B. admissible under Rule 801(d)(1). C. admissible under Rule 804(b)(1). D. inadmissible. 6. After an argument about reimbursement for spices, lead chef David Chang fired his assistant, Hermione. Hermione called Chang several hours later to explain that she had just spoken to a lawyer, and that she intended to sue Chang and his company for breach of contract. Chang apologized over the phone, saying that he had lost his temper. Then he typed a letter in which he admitted that he had been wrong to fire Hermione. In the letter, he offered to reimburse her for the spices. Then he scanned the letter, saved it as a pdf file on his computer, and sent it to Hermione as an email attachment. Hermione rejected the offer and sued Chang. She argued that firing her and refusing to reimburse her for office supplies was a breach of their employment contract. She seeks to admit the letter as evidence that it was wrong for Chang to fire her and that she deserved the reimbursements. The letter is: A. inadmissible hearsay. B. inadmissible as a settlement offer. C. inadmissible because she does not have the original letter, only the scanned pdf version from the email. D. admissible.4 7. Grover is a defense witness in a criminal case. After Grover testified, defense rested and the plaintiff called Abby, who works with Grover in the same company. Abby testifies that she has known Grover for seven years and has worked with him on several company projects. Here is Abby's testimony: Plaintiff's Attorney: What is your opinion of Grover's honesty? Abby: I'd never trust Grover. I think he lies whenever he thinks it'll benefit him to lie. Plaintiff's Attorney: Can you tell me why you have this opinion? Abby: Sure. There are tons of reasons. The first time we worked together on a company project, he was late delivering his part of the project, and because of this the whole project missed its deadline by a week. A few months later I come to find out that Grover told our boss that the delay was all my fault. I was shocked, but not surprised. Is Abby's testimony admissible? A. Yes, all of the testimony is permissible character testimony. B. Only in part. Abby should be allowed to make the first general statement about Grover's character, but she should not be permitted to describe the episode with the delayed project. C. Only in part. Abby should be allowed to make the second statement describing the episode with the delayed project, but she should not be permitted to make the general statement about Grover's character. D. No, all of the testimony is impermissible character evidence. 8. Hunter Biden sues a pub for injuries that he suffered in a car accident caused by one of the pub's patrons, Jared. Biden claims that Jared was served too much whiskey at the pub directly prior to the accident. The pub called Jared to the stand, expecting him to say that he was not intoxicated when he left the pub; but on direct examination, Jared stated that he may have had a bit too much whiskey at the pub. The pub now seeks to confront Jared with his statement made on deposition that he was not intoxicated when he left the pub. Which of the following is true concerning this statement? A. It may be used only to refresh Jared's recollection. B. It is admissible for impeachment and as substantive evidence that Jared was not intoxicated when he left the pub. C. It is inadmissible, because the pub cannot impeach its own witness. D. It is inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.5 9. Morty has been charged with felony domestic violence after repeatedly hitting his partner, Rick, in the sternum with a large stick. At trial, the prosecutor will seek to offer evidence that 12 weeks earlier, Morty punched his previous partner repeatedly during an argument. Morty is pleading self-defense, and at trial he will seek to admit evidence that three years earlier, Rick got into an argument with a Spectrum Wireless employee and hit the employee with a broom handle until the employee fell backwards off of a bridge. There is no evidence that Morty knew about the incident with the Spectrum Wireless employee at the time he repeatedly hit Rick in the sternum with a large stick. How should the judge rule on these proposed pieces of evidence? A. The evidence that Rick hit the Spectrum Wireless employee repeatedly is admissible, but the evidence that Morty punched his previous partner 12 weeks earlier is not admissible. B. The evidence that Rick hit the Spectrum Wireless employee repeatedly is admissible, and after that evidence is admitted, the evidence that Morty punched his previous partner is admissible. C. Both pieces of evidence are admissible regardless of the order in which they are offered. D. Both pieces of evidence are inadmissible regardless of the order in which they are offered. 10. Biff owns a private boarding school for kids ages 5-12. Biff is suing the New York Times for defamation and libel, after the New York Times published an article and released a podcast each of which referred to Biff as a "child abuser." At trial, the New York Times calls Fred, a child who had attended Biff's school. Fred testifies that on several previous occasions Biff physically attacked him. This testimony should be: A. excluded because character evidence is inadmissible in civil cases. B. excluded because the witness's testimony must be limited to opinion or reputation. C. excluded because it is hearsay. D. admitted.6 11. Prosecutors claim that in July, Hermione broke into a safe in her supervisor's office and stole merchandise that her supervisor had stored there. Supposedly only two peoplethe supervisor and the private security officer who installed the safeknew the safe's combination. At trial, the supervisor wants to testify that he believes Hermione broke into the safe in May, two months before the incident in question. The supervisor thinks this is true because he came to work early one day and saw Hermione in his office for no reason, and then later that day he checked his safe and items had been shifted around. Because nothing was stolen, he never reported this incident to the police. The prosecutor argues that Hermione's alleged entry into the safe in May is admissible under Rule 404(b), because it shows that Hermione had the knowledge required to break into the safe (either she somehow had the combination or was able to crack the safe); and the fact that she had this knowledge makes it more likely that she broke into the safe in July. Hermione's attorney concedes that if Hermione had broken into the safe in May, the supervisor should be able to testify to that fact, but Hermione's attorney argues that there is insufficient evidence that Hermione did in fact break into the safe in May. Should the court admit the evidence of Hermione's alleged prior crime? A. Preclude the evidence because Hermione was not convicted of the prior crime. B. Admit the evidence if the judge is convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that Hermione committed the prior crime. C. Admit the evidence if the judge believes a reasonable jury could find by a preponderance of the evidence that Hermione committed the prior crime. D. Admit the evidence if the judge is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Hermione committed the prior crime.7 12. There'll-Be-Blood Inc. (TBB Inc.), an oil company, has several oil rigs 10 meters away from the shore in an area of Louisiana near New Orleans. Last year, during a tsunami that ripped through the part of the shore where the rigs were located, one of the rigs exploded after a large wave crashed into it. Several of TBB Inc.'s workers who had been working at the rig at the time were killed as a result. As early as two hours prior to the rig explosion, and lasting throughout the tsunami, waves reached heights of 20 meters high as they came onshore. TBB Inc. nonetheless kept the rigs running throughout the tsunami. A week after the tsunami, TBB Inc. changed its safety protocols. Under the new protocols TBB Inc. shuts down all onshore rigs that are within 20 meters of the shore, whenever waves reach heights of 15 meters or higher as they come onshore. The families of the injured rig workers are now suing TBB Inc. for negligence. During the plaintiffs' case-in-chief, the plaintiffs called an oil industry safety expert who testified that the accident wouldn't have happened if TBB Inc. had shut down its rig before the waves reached 20 meters. Another industry expert testified that most oil companies shut down any rigs that are within 20 meters of the shore whenever waves coming onshore reach heights of 15 meters or higher. During the defense's case, TBB Inc.'s CEO testified on direct that the explosion was an unavoidable accident, and that TBB Inc. would have put its employees in greater danger if it had attempted to shut down its rig at any point during the tsunami, due to the large number of employees it takes to shut down a rig. The plaintiffs want to introduce evidence that TBB Inc. changed its safety protocols in such a way that, were the same tsunami situation to arise now, TBB Inc. would shut down the rig rather than keep it running. This evidence will be: A. inadmissible. B. admissible at any point in the trial, but only to prove that it would have been feasible for TBB Inc. to follow this new procedure. C. admissible only after the plaintiffs' experts testify, and only to prove that it would have been feasible for TBB Inc. to follow this new procedure. D. admissible only after TBB Inc.'s CEO has testified, and only to prove that it would have been feasible for TBB Inc. to follow this new procedure.8 13. Axel and Bear, both Olympic gymnasts, and their trainer, Carl, are all indicated for possession and distribution of steroids. Before trial, Bear and Carl plead guilty. At Axel's trial, Carl refuses to testify, but Bear testifies that he met with Carl a year ago and Carl told him, "Take half of these steroids; I'm sending the rest to Axel." A police officer then testifies that when he arrested Carl, he found a letter written by Axel to Carl, asking for "more deliveries." The officer also testifies that Carl made a full confession to the officer, in which Carl explained that he sent Axel a lot of steroids over the past few years. Axel's lawyer objects to (I) Bear's testimony regarding Carl's statements to him; (II) the letter sent by Axel to Carl; and (III) Carl's confession. Which of these three statements are admissible? A. All of them. B. I and II, but not III. C. II, but not I and III. D. None of them. 14. Ron Weasley is on trial for robbery. He calls Hermione as a character witness. She testifies that she has known Ron for ten years and in her opinion, Ron is an honest person who would never steal. During cross-examination, the prosecutor asks Hermione: "Are you aware of Ron's having been arrested for stealing a motorcycle last year?" Ron objects. How should the judge rule? A. Overrule the objection and force Hermione to answer. If the prosecutor requests a limiting instruction concerning the proper purpose of this evidence, deny the request, since the requested instruction would do more harm than good. B. Overrule the objection and force Hermione to answer. If the prosecutor requests a limiting instruction concerning the proper purpose of this evidence, give a limiting instruction telling the jury that this is not meant to be evidence that Ron actually committed a prior theft, only a method of testing Hermione's credibility and knowledge of Ron's character. C. Sustain the objection, because the question is about an arrest, not a conviction. D. Sustain the objection unless Ron has testified in the case.9 15. Soon after he began digging a large hole in his yard, John Lennon accidentally cut through an underground wire owned by Spectrum Wireless Inc. Within 10 minutes, a Spectrum employee came to Lennon's house to assess the damage. The employee said, "Lennon, this wire provided internet service to thousands of people; it's costing Spectrum $100,000 per hour to have it broken." It took the employee over eight hours to fix the wire. The next day, Lennon received an email from a Spectrum attorney, claiming that Lennon owes Spectrum $800,000 as reimbursement for the wire and related costs, and threatening to file suit if Lennon failed to pay within 15 days. Lennon called the Spectrum attorney on the phone and admitted that he broke the wire and that he hadn't checked before digging to make sure there was no wire. But Lennon also argued that $800,000 was unreasonable, and he asked whether, if he paid $10,000, Spectrum would agree not to sue. Spectrum refused, and Spectrum ultimately sued Lennon, seeking $800,000 in damages. At trial, Spectrum sought to admit the statements Lennon made over the phone to Spectrum's attorney in order to prove the appropriate level of damages. Should the judge admit or preclude Lennon's statement? A. Preclude the entire statement. B. Admit the part of the statement in which Lennon offers to pay $10,000, but preclude the part of the statement where he admits to breaking the wire and not checking for a wire ahead of time. C. Admit the part of the statement in which Lennon admits to breaking the wire and not checking for the wire ahead of time, but preclude his offer to pay $10,000. D. Admit the entire statement. 16. Tanya Harding is charged with defrauding a government contractor. The prosecutor has a character witness who will testify that he has worked with Harding for seven years and knows her reputation. He is willing to testify that Harding's reputation at work is that she is "super dishonest." Under what conditions will the prosecutor's witness be allowed to testify? A. Only after Harding testifies in her own defense. B. Only after Harding calls her own character witness to testify that Harding is an honest person. C. Only after Harding testifies in her own defense OR calls her own character witness to testify that Harding is an honest person. D. Never.10 17. The plaintiff in a civil case called Thelonious to testify. On cross-examination, the defendant's attorney asked Thelonious whether it was true that on May 5th of the prior year, he filed a fraudulent insurance claim. Thelonious denied that he did so. The defendant's attorney then admitted a photocopy of an affidavit that Thelonious had signed, in which he admitted to the insurance company that his May 5th claim was fraudulent. The defendant's attorney admitted the affidavit to prove not only that Thelonious filed the fraudulent claim (and therefore had a propensity for dishonesty) but also to prove that Thelonious had just lied under oath. Assume the plaintiff objected to all of the defendant's questions and actions during this time. At what point (if any) should the judge have sustained the plaintiff's objections and cut off this line of inquiry? A. None; the defendant's questions and actions conformed to the rules of evidence. B. The defendant should not have been allowed to ask about the fraudulent claim at all, because it is evidence of a specific action, not reputation or opinion evidence. C. The defendant should not have been allowed to admit the photocopy of the affidavit, since it is extrinsic evidence. D. The judge should have allowed the defendant to ask all the questions and admit the photocopy of the affidavit, but should then have given a limiting instruction directing the jury to consider the affidavit only as evidence that Thelonious lied to the jury at trial about his past action, not as evidence that he committed fraud on May 5th. 18. Penelope was arrested for domestic violence assault after allegedly hitting her partner, Morty, with a metal spork. Before being arrested, she said to the police, "I hit him. He'd been foaming at the mouth for ten minutes, and I was afraid that he'd get violent, so I took matters into my own hands." At trial, the prosecutor seeks to admit her statement to the jury to prove that she hit Morty. Penelope's attorney objects that the statement is hearsay. Assume no Confrontation Clause issues apply. Is Penelope's statement admissible? A. No, it is barred by the hearsay rule because it was not against her interest at the time she said it. B. No, it is barred by the hearsay rule unless Penelope chooses to take the stand to explain the statement. C. Yes, it is exempt from the hearsay rule as a party-opponent statement. D. Yes, the hearsay rule does not apply because the statement is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted.11 19. Liz is suing Tracy for injuries resulting from Tracy's having allegedly run into her with a bike. Tracy asserts that on that day he wasn't even riding his bike, and that someone else must have hit Liz with a bike. Liz calls Jenna, an eyewitness, who will identify Tracy in court. In response, Tracy wishes to call Dr. Spaceman to the stand. Dr. Spaceman will testify that he is an experimental psychologist, and that he has conducted dozens of tests and read about hundreds more on the topic of eyewitness identification. He will testify about the general unreliability of eyewitnesses, especially under stressful situations. He will also testify that he watched Jenna testify and that based on her expertise Jenna seemed to be unsure of her identification. What is the best objection that Liz can make to Dr. Spaceman's testimony? A. "Your Honor, Jenna's credibility is not at issue in this case, so the witness' testimony is irrelevant." B. "Your Honor, Dr. Spaceman is not qualified to be an expert and so cannot give his opinion to the jury." C. "You Honor, Dr. Spaceman's testimony is based on hearsay." D. "Your Honor, Dr. Spaceman's testimony will invade the province of the jury."12 20. Federal agents set up a wiretap on a payphone outside an apartment they suspected was being used to store stolen bikes. The agents recorded approximately three hours of phone conversations between the renter of the apartment and another man who was referred to only as "Jelly." During the conversations, the renter talked about several stolen bikes and Jelly offered to purchase them. Based on other evidence, the agents thought that "Jelly" was actually Thomas O'Malley, a known criminal who sold stolen bikes on Craigslist. The agents running the wiretap called in Special Agent Brosnan, who had used O'Malley as an informant numerous times and was familiar with his voice. Brosnan confirmed that the voice of Jelly on the tape belonged to Thomas O'Malley. O'Malley was ultimately arrested and charged with receiving stolen property. At trial, the prosecutor seeks to play some parts of the tape to the jury. The prosecutor intends on authenticating the tape by calling Special Agent Brosnan to testify that the voice of the man called Jelly belongs to Thomas O'Malley. O'Malley will testify that the voice on the tape does not belong to him. Should the tape be admitted into evidence? A. Yes. Special Agent Brosnan's testimony is sufficient to authenticate the voice as O'Malley's. B. Yes. Voices on audiotape are self-authenticating. C. No. A reasonable jury could find that the voice on the tape is not O'Malley's. D. No. Special Agent Brosnan does not have sufficient familiarity with O'Malley's voice to authenticate it