1. Medical malpractice action by P against D Utility Co following the death of X,P's father. from cancer. P's theory is that D caused X's cancer by placing high voltage electrical lines too close to X's residence. D denies that the high voltage Jines could have cause X's cancer. At trial. P wishes to call W, an MD (doctor) engaged in cancer research who holds a faculty position at a major research hospital. If permitted, W will testify that the electromagnetic fields produced by high voltage lines are capable of causing cancer. Assume W's view is held by only a small minority of cancer experts. D objects to P's (W's) testimony. How should the court analyze this problem?
2. Prosecution of D for bank robbery. D denies involvement. A few days beforetrial. X, an eyewitness who would have identified Das the perpetrator, suddenly left the country for a foreign destination. X refuses to return and is beyond the court's subpoena power. The prosecution calls PO, a police officer, to testify that shortly after the robbery, X told PO that she saw D rob the bank. D objects on hearsay grounds. The prosecution responds that D threatened to kill X unless X left the country. How should the court rule on D's hearsay objection and why?