Choose the true STATEMENT: O BACKGROUND: Callie is a non-party witness testifying at a state court's jury trial concerning serious tort claims allegedly involving over $400,000 in damages. Callie is asked a question about some events that transpired, and Callie answers, "Well, I was a little far away and couldn't hear what was being said between Shula and Judie, but my best friend Sallie who was right next to them later told me that they were fighting over who was going to get their mother's famous Chanel lipstick." A lawyer asks that her testimony be disregarded and, in fact, stricken from the record (not be treated as evidence). STATEMENT: As long as she was properly sequestered during the trial before her testimony took place (assuming a judge had granted a motion to sequester), then - ordinarily - Callie's testimony would be admitted as evidence, to be considered but not necessarily accepted by the jury, because to the best of Callie's knowledge it is true and thus she is not perjuring herself. O STATEMENT: Both comparative fault and contributory negligence (each of them together) tend to be standards for deciding some defenses to negligence cases in almost every one of the 50 U.S. states. O STATEMENT: The example involving a possible bone-marrow donation from a boy to his half-sister, who had leukemia, and another example involving two 18-year-old males and a heinous crime which one of them committed upon a 7-year-old girl at a Nevada casino, were both discussed to illustrate the limits of the usual common-law approach to judicial recognition of someone's duty to intervene on behalf of and rescue or assist others. O STATEMENT: Legal commentators, judges, and regulators generally agree that RICO is increasingly less important as a tool for civil lawsuits arising from alleged business crimes. O STATEMENT: Misuse of a defibrillator, but not the failure to have or use a defibrillator, can be the basis for a suit based on negligence, either by a layperson or a medical professional (malpractice in the latter case)