Class 6 questions

4.3

This is a criminal case in which the defendant is charged with income tax evasion. The

defendant is representing himself without a lawyer.

Before trial, defendant files a "Motion to Challenge the Oath." In the motion defendant

states that he is unable to take the traditional oath, and proposes an alternative oath that would replace the word "truth" with the phrase "fully integrated honesty." Thus, the oath would read: "Do you affirm to speak with fully integrated honesty, only fully integrated honesty and nothing but fully integrated honesty?" At the hearing, the following happens:

Judge: Mr. Ward, I understand that you for personal reasons have a preference for an

alternative oath, and object to the traditional oath. My question is, what law is there that requires the court to administer your proposed alternative oath?

What Objections and/or Rulings should be made in this case? Cite a Rule and how the rule is applied.

4.19

Plaintiff sues her employer for wrongful termination, which she claims occurred after

she complained about sexual harassment from her supervisor.

One of the defendant's in-house lawyers made notes during the meeting at which the

decision to terminate the plaintiff was made. During the discovery stage of the litigation, that lawyer was deposed. Before his deposition the lawyer reviewed his notes of the meeting to prepare for the deposition. This fact came out during the deposition.

Following the deposition, the plaintiff made a motion that the defendant be compelled to

turn over the notes. At a hearing on the motion, the following happens:

Judge: Plaintiff, it's your motion. Why are you entitled to get the lawyer's notes of the meeting?

What Objections or Rulings should be made in this case? Cite a Rule and how the rule

is applied.

13.1

The defendant and co-defendant are charged with armed robbery. The co-defendant's

trial has been severed.

The case is now on trial. In the prosecution's case-in-chief, the victim testifies and

identifies the defendant as the man who robbed him on the street.

The next witness, Randolph, testifies that the defendant told him, on the day of the

robbery, that he was planning on robbing someone, and afterward told him that he had robbed someone. On cross-examination, Randolph admits that he didn't tell the police about the defendant's statement until six months later. On redirect examination, the following happens:

Q. (By prosecutor) Why did you wait six months before reporting this to the police?

Defense: Objection, your honor. May we be heard?

Judge: Please approach. [Lawyers come to the bench.] What's the witness going to say?

Prosecutor: He's going to say that six months later the co-defendant threatened him not to talk, and that's why he decided to tell the police everything.

Judge: What's the basis for your objection?

What Objections and/or Rulings should be made in this case? Cite a Rule and how the rule is applied.

Class 7 questions

12.12

Defendant is charged with sexual assault. The defense is consent. The prosecution's theory is that the defendant, the owner of a restaurant, sexually assaulted the victim, who was in the restaurant attending an after-hours party. The defense theory is that the victim brought a false charge against him to pressure him to make a financial payment to resolve the charge. The defendant had won a lawsuit in an unrelated matter and collected damages of $2.4 million shortly before the charge was brought. In addition, the defendant intends to call as a witness the victim's former boyfriend, who will testify that the victim told him she was trying to get financial compensation from the defendant.

The case is now on trial. The victim on direct examination testified about the defendant's sexual assault. On cross-examination the following happens:

Q. (By defense lawyer) You wanted Mr. Mink to pay you off to drop the charges, right?

A. No.

Q. Well, you told your former boyfriend that you were looking for financial compensation from

him, isn't that right?

Prosecutor: Objection, your honor. Judge: Basis?

Later in the cross-examination the following happens:

Q. (By defense lawyer) You also knew that Mr. Mink owned the restaurant?

A. Yes.

Q. And you knew that he had recently received $2.4 million dollars from a lawsuit, isn't that right?

Prosecutor: Objection again. Judge: Basis?

What Objections and/or Rulings should be made in this case. Cite a Rule and how the rule is applied.

12.17

Defendant is charged with armed robbery, attempted murder, and first-degree murder.

The two victims were robbed, shot in the head, and had their throats slit. One of the victims died, but the other survived the attack and identified the defendant as the attacker.

Before trial the prosecution served notice on the defense of its intent to impeach the defendant, if he testifies at trial, with one prior armed robbery conviction and three prior burglary convictions. The armed robbery conviction was four years ago, and the defendant was released from prison last year. The first burglary conviction was 12 years ago, and the defendant received a three-year term of probation. The second burglary conviction was 11 years ago, and the defendant was sentenced to two years in prison. The third burglary conviction was seven years ago, and the defendant was sentenced to two years in prison.

The defendant objects and asks for a pretrial hearing to determine admissibility of the

prior convictions. In his written objection the defense states that if the court permits the use of any of the prior convictions at trial, the defendant will not take the stand and testify.

At a hearing on the motion, the following happens:

Judge: This is the defendant's motion to preclude the defendant's prior convictions at trial.

Defense, proceed with your argument.

What Objections and/or Rulings should be made in this case. Cite a Rule and how the rule is applied.

Class 8 Questions

5.15

Defendant is charged with numerous counts of conspiracy, bank fraud, and false statements on income tax returns. The charges are based on several schemes to obtain bank loans by misrepresenting his financial condition.

The case is now on trial. In its opening statement, the defense stated that Moore was an honest man and that the defense would present character witnesses about Moore's general reputation. In the defense case-in-chief, the defense called several witnesses who described Moore as someone known to be honest and trustworthy in his personal and business dealings. One of those witnesses was Love, who had been Moore's lawyer in the past. During cross- examination of Love, the following happens:

Q. (By prosecutor) Mr. Love, did you know that Mr. Moore declared bankruptcy this year?

Defendant: Objection.

Q. Did you know that Mr. Moore defaulted on loans at five banks this year that totaled hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Defendant: Objection again, your honor. May we be heard?

Judge: Yes. Come to the bench. [Lawyers approach.] What's the basis for your objections?

What Objections and/or Rulings should be made in this case. Cite a Rule and how the rule is applied.

5.27

This is a criminal assault case. The defense is self-defense. The case is now on trial. The defendant, Lewis, testifies in the defense's case-in-chief. During the direct examination, the following happens:

Q. (By defense) Mr. Lewis, exactly what happened in the pool hall that night?

A. I was minding my own business, shooting pool with a friend and nursing a beer. Suddenly that guy, Jones, screamed and came at me with a pool cue. That's the only reason I stabbed him. I'm not the kind of guy who stabs people for no reason.

Later in the defense case Smith testifies. During the direct examination, the following happens:

Q. Mr. Smith, do you know Jones?

A. I do.

Q. How long have you known him?

A. Several years.

Q. How have you come to know him?

A. He lives in my neighborhood. I see him all the time.

Q. Do you have a personal opinion whether Jones is a violent person?

A. I sure do.

Q. What's your opinion?

A. He's a real violent person, a real hothead.

Q. What do you base your opinion on?

A. Several things he's done in the past. For instance...

Prosecution: Objection, your honor. Judge: Basis?

In the prosecution's rebuttal case, Wilson testifies. During the direct examination, the following happens:

Q. (By prosecutor) Mr. Wilson, are you familiar with Mr. Lewis' reputation in the community for violence?

Defense: I object. Judge: Basis?

What Objections and/or Rulings should be made in this case. Cite a Rule and how the rule is applied.