8.The losing party in a civil case seeks to have a new trial ordered on the ground of jury misconduct.He has found out that at the start of deliberations the jurors agreed to write down what they believe the verdict should be and then pull a piece of paper out and everyone would agree to that verdict.A juror would be willing to testify that the foreman had recommended this approach for the sake of efficiency in their work.The same juror also would be willing to testify that a great deal of weight was given to the testimony of Samuel Sly, a witness whose testimony was largely, but not entirely struck from the record due to a procedural objection sustained by the court.Should the juror be permitted to testify as to these matters?Why/Why not?Site any rule(s) you believe applicable.

9. Henry Jones was the plaintiff in a very contentious law suit.Despite the very bestefforts of his attorney Henry lost the case.A few weeks later one of the jurors in the case reached out to Henry's attorney by email and stated as follows:

Mrs. Ford,

I am writing to you because I feel that you need to be aware of how the verdict in your recent case was reached.Before we began deliberation, Mr. Solo, the foreperson, directed all of us to join together in prayer for divine guidance in our deliberation.There was then a discussion as to whether we felt particular witnesses were credible based upon whether we believed them to be Christian or not.Looking back, I do not believe we were fair to your client.

Sincerely,

Leia

Henry's Attorney requests the court to allow her to call Ms. Fisher to testify about the possible misconduct.What, if any, of Ms. Fisher's statements would be admissible?What, if any, of Ms. 's statements would be prohibited?How should the court ultimately rule of the question of whether the juror's engaged impermissible conduct?

10.In a suit seeking damages for , the plaintiff testified that she was hurt in the lobby of a bank when someone entering the bank pushed a door open, towards the inside of the lobby, and banged it into her.At the close of direct examination the judge said to the witness, "I use that bank all the time, and it's got revolving doors into the lobby, no regular doors that push open.Are you sure you're remembering this right?"Plaintiff's counsel objects.Upon what rule(s) might the objection be raised?Why?How should the court rule?

11.The defendant is accused of embezzling money from a church where he used to work.He has decided, against advice of counsel, to testify on his own behalf.Prior to taking the stand, but outside the presence of the jury, he affirmed his intention to tell the truth, but declined to swear on oath on the Bible.On cross examination the prosecutor asks "You didn't swear on the Bible today, did you."Is this a permissible question to be asked on cross examination?What, if any, rule(s) would form the basis of the Defense objection?How and why should the judge rule.

12.In a robbery trial a defense witness testifies only about the defendant's whereabouts on the date of the crime.On cross examination the prosecution asks whether the defendant had experienced a sudden need for a large sum of on the day prior to the robbery.What, if any, rule would form the basis of a Defense objection?How and why should the judge rule?

13. Oliver is being prosecuted for murdering his girlfriend with a baseball bat.At trial the State calls Peter Parker to testify that "The defendant beat up Lois with a baseball bat until she wasn't moving anymore.I know because it is all anyone in the neighborhood has talked about for weeks.I came outside and saw her body on the ground a few minutes after it all happened."

Oliver's attorney objects to this testimony.What arguments might Oliver's attorney make as to the above statement?How should the court rule?Why?

14. For the purposes of this question only you should assume that there is a legal presumption that a person is dead if they have been absent from their home without explanation for at least 7 years.

Carl's wife Christine left their home to get groceries on March 1, 2009.She has not been seen by any member of the family since that date.Despite numerous efforts no member of the family has been able to establish any contact with her.Carl sought to collect on a policy but the denies the claim.Carl sues.The only matter in dispute is whether Christine is, in fact, dead.

At trial Carl testifies as to the last date of contact with his wife.The company introduces evidence that Christine had been hospitalized and successfully treated for an in Nevada approximately 4 years ago.

Considering the burden of production and burden of persuasion is either side entitled to a directed verdict if only the above evidence is introduced?Why/why not?

15.Timothy is on trial for attempted murder of his roommate Thomas.At trial the state intends to call Becky as their very first witness.Becky will testify that Timothy has a reputation for being a particularly violent individual with a hot-temper.Timothy's attorney objects.How should the court rule on the objection?Why?

16.Meghan is on trial for simple battery after an altercation in the parking lot of a local movie theater.At trial Meghan's attorney introduces evidence of Meghan's general reputation for being peaceful.The State then seeks to introduce testimony from Erin that Meghan is a violent person with no respect for law and order.Erin Maslanik will describe that she came to this opinion over the past several years while serving as Meghan's probation officer following her entering a plea of no-contest to the charge of aggravated assault where the court withheld adjudication.Can Erin Maslink testify as to her opinion?Could she offer specific examples? Would it be appropriate for her to mention Meghan's earlier charges?What additional information would you need to know to determine whether Meghan's earlier aggravated assault charge would be admissible pursuant to 404(b)?

17.Paul's Pens Inc. has a patented ink delivery system in its line of professional writing tools.Irina's Ink, LLC., has released a pen that utilizes an ink delivery system that closely resembles Paul's Pens proprietary method.Paul sues Irina in Federal Court for patent infringement.At trial Irina seeks to introduce as evidence in her defense of patent infringement that Paul's Pens Inc. moved their corporate headquarters from Clearwater, Florida, to Boise, Idaho.Paul's attorney objects.

a)What rule of evidence is Paul's attorney most likely relying upon for his objection? (5 )

b)How should the judge rule on the objection based on the information you know?Why? (5 points)

Paul wants to testify that Irina had purchased one of Paul's Pens writing tools approximately one year before Irina's Ink, LLC., began production of their pens.He had obtained an email from Irina's Ink, LLC., in which Irina communicated to her head of research and design that she loved the quality of Paul's Pens and wanted to focus research on inventing a pen that worked as well.

Irina's attorney objects to the introduction of Irina's purchase of a Paul's Pen, and objects to the introduction of her email to her head of research and design.

c)Assuming there are no hearsay issues and Paul is personally aware of Irina's purchase, what rule(s) of evidence would Irina's attorney likely base her objection? (5 points)

d)How should the judge rule on the objection based upon the information you know?Why? (5 points)

18.Certain types of prior criminal convictions may be used for the purposes of impeachment at trial.What types of prior criminal adjudications can be used for the purposes of impeachment?What types of crimes are encompassed within this rule.(5 points)

19.Thomas West is arrested and charged with first degree murder and attempted armed robbery.At trial, the State called the emergency room physician who testified that the victim told him that "West tried to steal his gold neck chain and shot him."The defense argued that the testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay.The state argued that the statement that West tried to steal the victim's neck chain was not hearsay and was admissible as a statement of identification.The state further argued that the statement that the victim was shot was admissible as a statement for the purpose of medical treatment.

a)(5 points) Following the testimony of the physician, the State offered into evidence a copy of the accident report of the investigating police officer setting forth the officer's observations at the scene of the crime.The evidence is:

A)Admissible as a recorded recollection.

B)Admissible as a public report.

C)Inadmissible because it is prohibited from being used in criminal and civil cases.

D)Inadmissible because the original report is required.

b)(5 points) Explain your answer to 18a.

20.Joanne Murphy and Johnny Goode are driving in Saint

Petersburg when their vehicles collide.Immediately after the accident Murphy tells Goode that he was sorry for running the red light and offers to settle the claim for $500.Goode refuses to accept it.Murphy then sues Goode for her personal injuries and property damage, and Goode, who was not injured counterclaims for property damage.

a. (5 points) At trial, Goode's attorney calls his client to the stand and asks him if Murphy has ever made any offers to settle the dispute.If Murphy's counsel objects the court's proper ruling would be to:

A.Sustain the objection because offers to compromise are inadmissible to prove liability.

B.Overrule the objection because the offer was made prior to the filing of a lawsuit.

C.Overrule the objection because only an offer to pay medical expenses is inadmissible under the Florida Evidence Code.

D.Overrule the objection because Murphy's statement was an admission.

b.(5 Points) Explain your answer to 19a.

Part 4: True or False (48 points)

21.Whenever something would be inadmissible under one rule ofevidence but admissible under another there is likely a viable argument to be made under 90.403.

22.Conditionally relevant facts are inadmissible until the condition issatisfied.

23.Judges can call witnesses during civil trials, but not criminal trials.

24.Relevant evidence is always admissible.

25.Only the defense can open the door to character evidence thatgoes to propensity.

26.Florida relies on common law for privileges.

27.The Federal Courts only recognize a marital privilege while manystates recognize both a marital and spousal privilege.

28.The Florida rules of Evidence specifically identify a

Doctor/Patient privilege that would apply to all medical doctors.

29.Judges can dictate which witnesses are called by the partiesand in what order.

30.A juror who had a change of heart about their verdict can testifyas having mistakenly given a police officer extra consideration and enhanced credibility during deliberation.

31.An attorney can raise the fact that a witness belongs to a cult inan effort to diminish their credibility in front of the jury.

32.Refreshing recollection and impeachment of a witness arefunctionally the same.

33.Under 90.601 a 4 year old would be presumed competent to

testify in court.

34.Only an adverse party can impeach a witness.

35.While Judges cannot be witnesses during a trial, they can calland question witnesses.

36.A prior unsworn statement made by a witness can be used forimpeachment purposes at trial and argued to be the truth to the jury.

37.Only prior sworn statements may be used to impeach a witness

at trial.

Part 5: Long Answers

There has been a recent surge in bank robberies in Pinellas County, Florida, 4 banks were robbed in less than a month. In three of the banks the suspect can be seen on video and is very clearly identified as Reginald Schmidt, a felon with a history of bank robberies.In each instance the video clearly shows Reginald enter the bank wearing a Tampa Bay Rays baseball hat pulled low so as to conceal his face.He would approach a desk and retrieve a withdrawal slip and using a pen he retrieved from his front right pocket scribble a short note before entering the queue to be seen be a teller.When approaching the teller he would hold the withdrawal slip up to the glass and then wait.The slip was described by each teller as containing the following message: "$1000 in 20's or your life.Tick, Tick, Boom.Choice is yours."The tellers would provide the $1,000.00 as demanded and Reginald would leave with the money and the written note.Exterior cameras from 2 of the banks showed Reginald getting on a blue and orange road bike and pedaling away.

The fourth bank was a credit union undergoing some renovations.At the time of the robbery there were no cameras functioning inside the bank.The teller describes seeing a man come in wearing a baseball hat, she believes it was a red Boston Red Sox hat.When the man approached the window he held a deposit slip to the glass that said the following: "I don't want to kill you, give me $2,000.00 in $50s or we all go BANG!"She slid the money to the individual as requested and observed the individual to run out the front door and immediately get into a waiting dark colored sedan.

Reginald is willing to enter a plea to the three bank robberies on video and has offered to serve 15 years in prison for those offenses.The State has rejected that offer and countered with 20 years for all four bank robberies.Reginald, through his attorney, has emphatically denied being responsible for the 4^th bank robbery and refuses to enter a plea to any facts that place him in a Boston Red Sox hat.Unable to reach an agreement the 4^th bank robbery is set for trial.

The State files a procedurally sufficient notice of intent to rely upon Williams Rule Evidence 10 days before the trial of the 4^th bank robbery.

38. (25 points) What, if any, evidence of the earlier three bank robberies should be admitted?Why?What arguments should be made by the defense to limit the introduction of this evidence.If some, or all, is admitted what limitations can be placed on the use of that evidence?Can the state offer evidence of Reginald's prior convictions for bank robbery even if they share no similar facts?Under what circumstances could those prior convictions be introduced?How could Reginald's attorney best avoid those prior convictions coming into evidence? Would your analysis change if Reginald hasn't plead yet to the other three robberies? How/why?

Mary is out walking her dog around 11pm when she hears a loud scream coming from Samantha's house.She stops and looks through an open window and sees Samantha and her boyfriend Jimmy in a heated argument.A few minutes later she watches Jimmy leave the house walking funny and holding one of his shoes in his hand.He then gets in his car and drives away in a fast and reckless manner.

The next day police come to Mary's home to ask if she heard any sort of disturbance the night before.She tells of the argument she observed.The police inform her that Samantha had been murdered sometime overnight.

The coroner determines that Samantha had died by asphyxiation by strangulation sometime between midnight and 4am.

Forensic specialists recover a brown shoelace in the garbage can of Samantha's kitchen.It appears to be consistent with the ligature marks on Samantha's neck.A partial DNA profile is obtained from a mixture of DNA present on the shoelace.Samantha's DNA is confirmed to be present as is an unknown source of male DNA.

Detectives interview Jimmy and his sister Jane's condo.Jimmy exercises his right to remain silent.They observe that his left shoe has a black shoelace while his right shoe has a brown shoelace.

Jane tells the detectives that Jimmy had arrived at her apartment around 11:30pm and did not leave again until the following morning.She admits she was asleep most of the night but is confident he did not leave as she would have had to buzz him back in when he returned.She describes Jimmy as being very upset because he had discovered another man in Samantha's home, hiding in her closet, naked, when he had come over to surprise her.

Police find Samantha's diary and find an entry from two days before her death where she describes having recently met a man named Mark and having had sex with him within hours of meeting him.The entry goes on to express her intent to end things with Mark and apologize to Jimmy and hope she hasn't irreparably damaged their relationship.

Mark is not able to be identified or interviewed.

39.(25 points) Define the terms "direct evidence" and "circumstantial evidence."Then describe what evidence in the above example would constitute each type (some evidence may fall into both categories) of evidence and why.What facts can be drawn directly from the above example?What facts can be inferred?Who do you think killed Samantha?Why?

Part 6: Witness Recap (17 Points)

40.(2 points) What is the rule of sequestration?Why is itimportant?

41.(2 points) Which of the following is an example of a leadingquestion?

1)Where did you go that night?

2)Did you go to the store?

3)What store did you go to?

4)You bought a ham.

42.(6 points) Jamie and Sam are married.Sam is being prosecuted for the armed robbery of a local bank.After the robbery, but before the trial, the two have an argument in their home.

Jamie accused Sam of being lazy and never making any money.Sam responded to this accusation by opening a bedside drawer, pulling out a stack of $100 bills wrapped in a bank wrapper, and tossed it on the bed.The wrappers clearly showed the name of the local bank.

Jamie calls the police the following morning and tells the police about the money.The police come and collect the money from the drawer to be used as evidence against Sam at trial.

A)Can Jamie testify against Sam at trial?What, if any, privilege may be at issue.Under these facts who would own the privilege?

B)Suppose that instead of showing Jamie the cash Sam simply stated "You weren't complaing about the cash I brought home after the bank job."Would your response to question 1 change?If so, how and why?

C)Prior to trial Sam's attorney takes Jamie's deposition.During the deposition Jamie says she doesn't know where Sam was at the time of the bank robbery.At trial can Sam's attorney impeach Jamie's testimony by showing pictures from her Instagram that show her dropping Sam off at a fishing carter an hour before the robbery?

43.(2 points) What would happen if a witness refused to swear or affirm to tell the truth?

44.(5 points) What are the differences between the Marital

Privilege and Spousal Privilege?Consider their application in

Federal Court and State Court, and other distinctions between them.

Bonus Questions: (Max of 15 points)

1.What is the official weight of a newly minted US Nickel, and the standard length of a newly printed $50 dollar bill?What rule of evidence might be relied upon to introduce these facts to a jury?What is the procedure by which a party should follow to make sure these facts are introduced? (5 points)

2.A 60 year-old man is on trial for sexual assault on a 14-year old girl.The prosecution knows that he was once married to a woman significantly younger than he was, and that he has also had consensual sexual relations on several occasions with women much younger than himself.If the defendant denies committing the charged crime, can the prosecution introduce evidence of his past marriage and other sexual relationships?Why?What rules of evidence would govern this question?What if he testified that he prefers women of the same age as himself?Would that alter your analysis and conclusion?Why? (10 points)