In a sexual harassment suit by Typist against Boss, Typist alleged that promotions went to those who granted sexual favors to Boss and were denied to those who refused him such favors. On the question whether a former employee who was promoted, Secretary, had had sexual intercourse with Boss, Typist calls W to testify that Typist had said to Secretary in W's presence, "Of course you were promoted instead of me. I didn't sleep with Boss, like you did." The evidence is

Question 1 options:

a)	Not hearsay.

b)	Hearsay but admissible as an adoptive admission.

c)	Hearsay but admissible as an agent admission.

d)	Hearsay, not within any exception or exclusion.

Question 2 (1 point)

In a sexual harassment suit by Typist against Boss, Typist alleged that promotions went to those who granted sexual favors to Boss and were denied to those who refused him such favors. On the question whether Secretary had had sexual intercourse with Boss, W is offered to testify that when Typist made the statement, "Of course you were promoted instead of me. I didn't sleep with Boss, like you did," Secretary heard the statement and did not respond. Assume Secretary was no longer employed by Boss at the time. The evidence is

Question 2 options:

a)	Not hearsay.

b)	Hearsay not within any exception or exclusion.

c)	Hearsay but admissible as an admission.

d)	Hearsay, admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.

Question 3 (1 point)

In a sexual harassment suit by Typist against Boss, Typist alleged that promotions went to those who granted sexual favors to Boss and were denied to those who refused him such favors. On the question whether a former employee, Secretary, had had sexual intercourse with Boss, Y is offered to testify that when Boss heard about the discussion between Typist and Secretary referenced in the prior question, Boss had mused, "I wonder how Typist found out." The evidence is

Question 3 options:

a)	Not hearsay.

b)	Hearsay, but admissible as an admission.

c)	Hearsay, but admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.

d)	Hearsay, not within any exception.

Question 4 (1 point)

In a sexual harassment suit by Typist against Boss, Typist alleged that promotions went to those who granted sexual favors to Boss and were denied to those who refused him such favors. At trial, Boss denies having ever demanded sex from Typist. Typist then offers testimony that, at a settlement conference, Boss stated, "Look, I see you're upset. Why don't I pay you $10,000 and we can just forget about your turning me down or how badly I reacted at work, ok?"

Question 4 options:

a)	Hearsay, but admissible as an admission by a party opponent.

b)	Hearsay, but admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.

c)	Hearsay, not within any exception or exemption.

d)	Inadmissible for reasons of public policy.

Question 5 (1 point)

Joe tried to convince Vince to let him join Vince's high-stakes poker game by telling Vince (falsely) that he had an original Delorean car that was worth six figures. Joe lost all his money in the game and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. In a hearing to determine the validity of Joe's claim of insolvency, a creditor sought to introduce Joe's claim to Vince that had an original Delorean car that was worth six figures. Over a hearsay objection by Joe's counsel, the statement is

Question 5 options:

a)	Admissible because it is not offered for its truth, but rather for its falsity.

b)	Admissible for its truth.

c)	Not admissible because Joe believed the statement was in his interest when he made it.

d)	Not admissible because Joe lacked personal knowledge of the value of an original Delorean.

Question 6 (1 point)

Deakins, an accountant, is on trial for money laundering. At trial, the prosecution calls Ward, who testifies, "I spoke to Eddie, who told me that Deakins had fired him a month earlier. He said that Deakins was a notorious money launderer, and that back when he worked for Deakins, Deakins routinely asked him to 'cook the books.'" Over a hearsay objection by defense counsel, the testimony is:

Question 6 options:

a)	Admissible as a coconspirator admission.

b)	Admissible as an agent admission.

c)	Inadmissible if offered for its truth.

d)	Inadmissible because, as an ex-employee of Deakins, his statement against Deakins is suspect.

Question 7 (1 point)

In a murder prosecution, to show D's consciousness of guilt after the killing, the prosecutor offers Witness to testify that he saw D bury his bloodstained clothes in the woods by moonlight. The evidence is

Question 7 options:

a)	Inadmissible hearsay.

b)	Hearsay, but admissible as an admission.

c)	Inadmissible as unduly prejudicial.

d)	Not Hearsay.