WorksheetsEvidence (Chernoff) Class 1-4
Total questions: 20
Worksheet time: 2hrs 40mins
In a bank robbery case, the prosecution seeks to introduce the following evidence against the defendant. Select all the items of evidence that are DIRECT evidence.
To prove defendant knew where the bank vault was, the blueprints of the bank found in Defendant’s home
To prove defendant robbed the bank, testimony from an eyewitness that defendant was the robber
To prove that defendant robbed the bank, proof that he owned the getaway car
To prove it was raining, testimony that witness saw it raining
To prove it was raining, testimony that witness saw people entering the building and shaking water from their umbrellas
Which of the following is not evidence?
Testimony from a witness
A gun allegedly used during the crime
A hospital record from a victim of the crime
The attorney’s opening statement
Assume during a trial a lawyer asks the witness a question, and the witness answers the question.
Which of the following is evidence the jury can consider when deliberating?
The lawyer’s question.
The witness’ answer.
The lawyer’s question and the witness’ answer.
Complete the legal definition:
Objections must be timely and ________
Notarized
Supported by an offer of proof
Include a reference to a Federal rule number
Specific
An offer of proof is _____________
A response to a summary judgement motion
A bribe to the judge
A demonstration of the importance of challenged evidence
Evidence requiring a limiting instruction
If you are objecting to a piece of evidence that has not yet been admitted, you will never make ___________
A motion to strike
A specific objection
An offer of proof
A motion to strike or an offer of proof
A defendant was on trial for a criminal charge. At his trial, a witness for prosecution testified that the D has a violent character and the D's lawyer immediately jumped up and said "OBJECTION! This is improper character evidence under Rule 404(a)" The trial judge overruled the objection and the D was convicted. The D is now appealing the case , and claims that the witness should not have been allowed to testify about his character.
How should the appellate court rule?
Affirm the conviction because the admission of the witness' testimony did not result in a plain error
Reverse the conviction if the appellate court determines that the trial court was incorrect in admitting the witness' testimony
Reverse the conviction if the appellate court determines the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the witness' testimony
Reverse the conviction if the appellate court determines that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly admitting the evidence and the mistake affected a substantial right of the D
Defendant is charged with a crime. The government seeks to introduce an item of evidence and the defense objects. In which of the following scenarios would a limiting instruction be the most appropriate?
The trial judge concludes that the proffered evidence has very little probative value, but it has some probative value.
The trial judge concludes that the proffered evidence has no probative value and introduces the risk that jury will be unfairly prejudiced against the defendant
The trial judge concludes the proffered evidence is admissible to show the Defendant's motive, and is admissible as evidence of the Defendant's character.
The trial judge concludes the proffered evidence is admissible to show the Defendant's motive, but is not admissible as evidence of the Defendant's character.
Greg is suing the Ohio State University for age discrimination. Through discovery, Greg discloses that he intends to introduce evidence that Ohio State has fired ten assistant choices over the past 3 years, all of them have been over 50 years old. Before trial, the attorney for Ohio State files a motion in limine, seeking to suppress the evidence of the previous firings on the grounds they are irrelevant.
Greg's response should be:
"Your Honor, the jury decides questions of relevance, not the judge"
"Your Honor, the fact that Ohio State has fired so many other coaches over a short period of time proves by a preponderance of evidence that the institution discriminates against older coaches"
"Your Honor, the evidence of these prior firings tends to make the fact that Greg was fired because of his age more likely than the fact would be without this evidence"
"Your Honor, the defendant's objections to my evidence must wait until after I formally offer it"
Paul is suing the police department for using excessive force when they pulled him over, resulting in the officers hitting Paul on the head with their nightsticks. Although Paul did use verbally abused the officers, at no time did Paul act violently or physically threaten the officers. The police argue that its officers acted in reasonable belief that their force was necessary at the time nd in order to prove that, the police wish to introduce evidence that on three prior occasions, Paul has physically attacked police officers who have pulled him over.
The evidence is:
Relevant, since it tends to prove that Paul has a violent nature
Relevant, but only if the police officers on the scene were aware of Paul's previous confrontations with the police
Irrelevant, since Paul took no violent action towards the police officers on this occasion
Irrelevant, since past actions by Paul are no indication of what may or may not have happened in this circumstance.
The defendant is on trial for a bank robbery. The government introduces evidence that at 11am, a federal bank was robbed by an armed gunman wearing a red sweater, and present two witnesses who will testify that they saw the D enter the bank at 10:30 am wearing a red sweater.
The defense then seeks to introduce evidence that 5 years ago, one of the witnesses cheated on a college exam. The government objects on the grounds that whether the witness cheated on a college exam is not relevant.
How should the court rule?
Exclude the evidence that the witness cheated on a college exam b/c something that happened 5 years ago in the witness' personal life is not relevant to whether the D robbed the bank
Exclude the evidence that the witness cheated on a college exam b/c it does not change whether the witness saw the D enter the bank at 10:30 wearing a red sweater
Admit the evidence that the witness cheated on a college exam because the act of cheating makes the witness less credible
Admit the evidence that the witness cheated on a college exam b/c it is connected to the substantive legal question in the case
A victim was assaulted in an ice cream shop in Brooklyn at 4pm. The victim ID's the defendant as his assailant in a line-up, and the D is prosecuted for the assault. At trial, the government seeks to call a witness who will testify that the day of the assault, the witness saw the D at 10am in the Bronx. The D lives in the Bronx and objects on the grounds of relevance.
How should the court rule?
Admit the witness' testimony because evidence that the D was in New York on the same day of the assault makes it more likely than not that the D was the assailant.
Admit the witness' testimony because evidence that the D was in New York on the same day of the assault makes it a little more likely that the D was the assailant than it would be without the witness' testimony
Exclude the witness' testimony because evidence that D was in the location where he lives on a given date has no probative value
Exclude the witness' testimony because evidence that the D was in the state of New York on the same day of the assault does not make it more likely than not hat he D was the assailant
Abuse of discretion when a district court's decision rests upon all of the following EXCEPT
The judge made a decision that the appellate court thinks was incorrect.
A clearly erroneous finding of fact was made
An errant conclusion of law was made
An improper application of law to fact was made
When a court is deciding whether an item is relevant under Rule 401::
It should consider other available evidence
It should not consider other available evidence
When a court is deciding whether an item of evidence should be excluded under Rule 403
It should consider other available evidence
It should not consider other availble evidence
George is being prosecuted for breaking into Victor's home in downtown Columbus the night of Dec. 28th. George takes the stand in his own defense and claims that he was in Florida from Christmas until New Year's Day. On cross-examination, the prosecution wishes to introduce evidence that early morning on Dec. 30th, the Defendant was arrested in Columbus for drunk driving.
The evidence is :
Irrelevant, since it does not make that fact that the D robbed the house on Dec. 28th any more of less likely
Probably inadmissible, since it will unfairly bias the jury by exposing them to prejudicial information about he D and the information, though technically relevant, has very little probative value.
Probably admissible, since it tends to prove that the D was lying when he claimed to be in Florida. Any issue of unfair prejudice can be cured with a limiting instruction to the jury
Probably admissible, since it proves the D has a propensity to break the law and thus is more likely than a law-abiding citizen to have committed the robbery.
Plaintiff has filed an employment-discrimination case against her employer, The Company. At trial, the defendant calls Will Witness to testify that he worked with Plaintiff at a previous job, and at that previous job, Plaintiff was a bad employee who was always complaining and overreacting. Plaintiff objects as soon as The Company calls Will, and argues that his testimony is not relevant and should be excluded. The trial judge overrules her objection and allows Will to testify. Plaintiff loses at trial, and appeals the case, on the grounds that the trial judge should have excluded Will’s testimony under Rule 403.
Which of the following statements is the most accurate?
A. The appellate court will reverse only if the trial court judge abused her discretion and Plaintiff’s substantial rights were affected.
The appellate court will reverse only if the trial court judge abused her discretion and the admission of Will’s testimony was plain error.
The appellate court will reverse only if the admission of Will’s testimony was an egregious and obvious error.
The appellate court will reverse only if Plaintiff’s substantial rights were affected and the admission of Will’s testimony seriously affected the fairness of the proceedings.
The government is prosecuting Dave for grand larceny that occurred on June 4th. At trial, the government calls Walter to the stand and Walter testifies that on June 4th he saw Dave carrying an armful of necklaces into an alley. On cross, the defense asks Walter, “Didn’t you call your friend Joe on June 4th and say ‘I think Sue stole a bunch of necklaces!’” Walter denies ever saying that and the defense calls Joe to the stand. The prosecution does not object, and Joe testifies that on June 4th, Walter called him and said “I think Sue stole a bunch of necklaces!” The prosecution requests a limiting instruction.
Which of these instructions to the jury is the court most likely to give?
You may consider Walter’s statement to Joe when evaluating Walter’s credibility.
You may consider Walter’s statement to Joe when deciding whether Sue stole the necklaces.
You may consider Walter’s statement to Joe when deciding whether Dave stole the necklaces.
You may consider Walter’s statement to Joe when evaluating Dave’s credibility.
Defendant leant his car to Sam, and Sam got into an accident with Plaintiff. Plaintiff has sued Defendant for the tort of negligent entrustment, alleging that Defendant should have known not to lend his car to a dangerous driver like Sam. At trial, Plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence of Sam’s 58 speeding violations. The defendant objects.
How should the court rule?
Exclude evidence of the tickets because their probative value is outweighed by the cumulative nature of the tickets and the time it would take to introduce all 58.
Exclude evidence of the tickets unless there is evidence that Defendant knew about these tickets when he loaned Sam his car.
Admit the evidence of the tickets because they are relevant to the question of whether Sam is dangerous driver.
Admit the evidence of the tickets because they are relevant to the question of Defendant was negligent in lending his car to Sam.
Defendant is charged with tax fraud and calls Wilma as a witness. The government objects to Wilma’s testimony, arguing that Wilma is addicted to heroin and as a result, she has slurred speech, a poor memory, and is usually not paying attention to what is going on around her.
How is the judge most likely to rule?
Exclude Wilma’s testimony because she is not competent by a preponderance of the evidence.
Exclude Wilma’s testimony because she is not competent beyond a reasonable doubt
Admit Wilma’s testimony because people who have drug addictions can be competent witnesses.
Admit Wilma’s testimony because she is competent by a preponderance of the evidence.
