5.A plaintiff sued a defendant to rescind a contract for fraud and damages. The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that, pursuant to a written contract, he had purchased a business from the defendant in reliance on the defendant's fraudulent representations as to the value of business's inventory and cash on hand. At trial, without objection, the plaintiff introduced the written contract, which included recitals of facts containing the statement: "the company is solvent, with inventory and cash assets valued at $200,000" and a boilerplate integration clause (i.e., "no other representations have been made," etc.). The plaintiff purposes to testify that during negotiations the defendants said the real value of the business in cash and inventory was about 500,000, but that tax laws made it inexpedient to recite the real value. The defendant objects.
The offered evidence is:
A. inadmissible, as violative of the parol evidence rule
B. inadmissible, because it is hearsay
C. admissible hearsay, unaffected by the parol evidence rule
D. admissible, because it is neither hearsay nor violative of the parol evidence rule
43.A plainclothes police officer who frequently ate lunch at a certain deli heard rumors that the deli's owner often placed illegal bets on sporting events. Based on the rumors, the officer peeked into an envelope next to the register and saw betting slips. The officer asked his waitress about the envelope, and she told him that the owner had given it to her and that a man in a brown cap was to pick it up at 2 p.m. The officer stayed at the deli until 2 p.m. and watched the waitress hand the envelope to a man in the brown cap. The officer passed the above information on to a friend in the FBI. Several weeks later, based on the information, FBI agents obtained a search warrant for the owner's home- a condo in a large multi-unit complex. The agents went to the home in the early evening, while the owner was at the deli. After announcing their purpose of the owner's wife, they searched the home and found betting slips and other materials related to illegal gambling. The owner was indicated for conspiracy to violate a federal statute prohibiting the use of interstate phone lines to conduct gambling, and for the position of betting slips.
Which of the following would be the best reason for excluding the evidence found at the owner's home?
A. The owner was not home when the warrant was executed
B. The search was conducted in the evening when it easily could have been conducted during daylight hours
C. The warrant failed to specify which condo unit was to be searched
D. The waitress had never been used before as an informant
15. In which of the following fact patterns is Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence most likely to be granted? A. Defendant was staying at a hotel, but was two weeks behind on his room charges. The hotel desk clerk permitted the police to search Defendant's room while he was out. The police found in the room contraband of which defendant was subsequently charged with possession B. Defendant was riding in a car (\"WWI by Baxter. Police stopped the car and asked to see Baxter's driver's license. After Baxter showed it to them, they asked his permission to search the car. Baxter said, \"Sure, go ahead.\" Upon under the seat in which defendant had been sitting the police found a package of heroin which was offered at Defendant's trial for illegally possessing narcotics C. Defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated. After he was taken to jail, his car was towed to the police auto impound. There, a police officer taking inventory of the car's contents found a weapon in the car which had been used in the commission of a crime with which defendant was subsequently charged D. While defendant was driving, police ofcers stopped him for going through a red light. A routine check of his license through the police department computer indicated that a bench warrant had been issued for his arrest for failing to appear in connection with four parking tickets which had been issued to vehicles registered to him. The ofcers advised him that he was under arrest. Although they did not handcuff him, they ordered him to empty his pockets onto the hood of the police car. A one gram piece of cocaine which was in one of the pockets was later offered against him at his trial for possession of a controlled substance 44. Hijackers of a truck carrying dog food were arrested and indicted by a grandjury. During the grand jury's investigation, the district attorney's office subpoenaed the truck driver as a witness. To her relief, she was not asked questions about a series of thefts of shipments of dog chewtoys that she was involved in, but believes that the subject might be brought up at trial by the defense lawyers. She is afraid that she likely will be red if she invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on the witness stand, so she wants to avoid testifying at all at the trial, even if she is subpoenaed by the defense. As her lawyer, what advice should you give her about complying with a subpoena? a. She cannot avoid testifying, because she can plead the Fifth Amendment on the stand b. She cannot avoid testifying, and she must answer all questions truthfully, even if her answers will incriminate her, because she is not on trial c. She can avoid testifying, because she is not a party to the action d. She can avoid testifying because the potential that she will incriminate herself is greater than the interest the defense has in calling her as a witness 42. A police officer often visited an art gallery on his lunch break and became friends with one of the gallery's salespersons, whom he found to be honest and forthright. After hearing rumors that the gallery's owner sometimes dealt in stolen artwork, the officer decided to investigate. Acting without a warrant, he snuck into a back room and discovered crates addressed to and from a country that was a well-known conduit for stolen artwork. The officer questioned his salesperson friend about the crates. She told the officer that she never saw what was inside any of the crates, but that she assumed they contained artwork for the owner's private collection that he maintained at home. The officer obtained a search warrant for the owner's home based on the foregoing information. Upon executing the warrant, the officer found several pieces of stolen artwork at the owner's home. The owner was subsequently tried for receiving stolen property. The salesperson was to be called to testify about what she knew about the gallery owner's activities related to the procurement of artwork. The salesperson's testimony will most likely be: a. Inadmissible, because it is the fruit of the poisonous tree b. Inadmissible, because she is an unindicted co-conspirator c. Admissible, because she is unindicted and therefore has no privilege against compelled self-incriminatin d. Admissible36. Embezzlement is a white-collar crime that was not recognized by common law. In a prosecution for embezzlement, a. b. The intent of the defendant to return the property is usually a complete defense The state must only show that a duciary ha converted or appropriated the property The elements the state must prove are the same elements as for larceny Entrustment is a crucial element of the prima facie case
