The P sued the D for shooting and killing her husband. The P offers to testify that the day before her husband was killed, he described to her a chance meeting with the D on the street in which the D said, "I'm going to blow your head off one of these days." The P's testimony concerning her husband's statement is:

D is charged with obtaining property by false pretenses in the sale of an attachment to a heating system which he claimed would reduce fuel bills by 40%, but which in fact had no effect on fuel consumption.

If D takes the stand and offers to testify that he was told by an eminent heating engineer that the attachment would cut fuel bills by 40%, his testimony would be

Mary Potts and her parents sued Dixon for $1000 compensatory damages, claiming pain and suffering and medical expense in that amount arising from a dog bite. The identity of the dog which bit Mary and the amount f damage done were the only issues in the case.

Mary's mother testified that about 10 minutes after the biting, Mary case to the front door bleeding from a dog bite. She offers to testify that when she asked Mary "Who bit you," Mary pointed to a dog later identified as Dixon's

Upon proper objection, Mary's mother's testimony would be:

In a lawsuit heard on April 1st where the condition of the P's back is a relevant issue, Witt is called to the stand to testify that on March 1st, he and the P were discussing the P's back and the P said, "My back really hurt around the first part of February." Upon objection by the D, that statement is:

In a jurisdiction without a Dead Man's Statute, the decedent's estate sued the D, a friend of the decedent, claiming that the friend had borrowed $10,000 from the decedent that had not been repaid as of the decedent's death. The decedent was run over by a truck. At the accident scene, while dying from massive injuries, the decedent told a police officer to "make sure my estate collects the $10,000 that I loaned to my friend." The officer's testimony about the decedent's statement is:

Clarence, an informant working for the FBI, arranged to sell a kilogram of cocaine to Angelo who agreed to find individuals to distribute the drug. In a tape-recorded telephone coversation with Clarence, Angelo said that he had a "friend" to distribute the cocaine but the "friend" had some questions and wanted to speak to Clarence. In a subsequent telephone call which was also recorded, Clarence spoke to the "friend" about the quality of the cocaine and the price. Clarence and Angelo arranged the details of the purchase which would take place in a designated hotel parking lot.

The "friend" would be in the parking lot in his own car. Angelo received $20,000 in case from the "friend" and gave it to Clarence. The FBI then moved in and arrested Angelo and the "friend" who was identified as Tony. At Tony's trial, the government attempted to introduce Angelo's telephone statements regarding the participation of the "friend" in the drug transaction. Tony's lawyer objected, and the court's ruling should be that the statements are:

larence, an informant working for the FBI, arranged to sell a kilogram of cocaine to Angelo who agreed to find individuals to distribute the drug. In a tape-recorded telephone coversation with Clarence, Angelo said that he had a "friend" to distribute the cocaine but the "friend" had some questions and wanted to speak to Clarence. In a subsequent telephone call which was also recorded, Clarence spoke to the "friend" about the quality of the cocaine and the price. Clarence and Angelo arranged the details of the purchase which would take place in a designated hotel parking lot.

The "friend" would be in the parking lot in his own car. Angelo received $20,000 in case from the "friend" and gave it to Clarence. The FBI then moved in and arrested Angelo and the "friend" who was identified as Tony.

After Angelo is arrested he is interrogated by the FBI. He told the FBI about numerous other cocaine transactions involving Tony and that Tony had once had a person killed that he suspected of cooperatiing with the police. At trial, the government attempted to also introduce Angelo's post-arrest statements to the FBI. ToTony'slawyer objected and the court should have ruled that the statements are:

Phelps is on trial for possession of marijuana. Phelps attempts to introduce through cross-examination of the arresting officer his statement to the officer, "That is my gym bag but Taylor put it in the trunk." The marijuana was discovered int he gym bag. Phelp's statement to the officer is:

In a medical malpractice case by Penny against Dr. Cooper, Penny seeks to introduce a properly authenticated photocopy of her hospital chart. The chart contained a notation made by the medical resident that an aortic clamp had broken during Penny's surgery. The resident made the notation in the regular course of practice, but had no personal knowledge of the operation and cannot remember which of the actual operating physicians gave him the information. The document is:

Paul sues David for injuries he received when his car collided with a car driven by David. To prove the causal connection b/w the accident and his injuries, Paul's attorney calls Dr. Brown, who gives his expert opinion that Paul's injuries are causally connected to the accident. On cross-examination, David's attorney produces a medical treatise on causation and asks Dr. Brown if he is familiar with it. Dr. Brown answers "no." He then asks Dr. Brown to read a passage from teh treatise and asks if his opinion is consistent with the passage in the book. Upon objection, the court should rule the question:

Driver ran into and injured Walker, a pedestrian. Paul and Ralph were passengers in Driver's car. Passerby saw the accident and called the police, which sent Officer to investigate. All these people are available as potential W's in the case of Walker v. Driver. Walker alleges that Driver was drunk and struck Walker while he was in a duly marked crosswalk. Walker's counsel calls Officer to testify that in Driver's presence, Paul said, "We hit him while he was in the crosswalk and Driver remained silent. The court should rule Officer's testimony:

A real estate developer was making a slide presentation before the town board of appeals. The developer was required to make this presentation b/c the town building inspector refused to give him a building permit. At the end of the presentation, the developer showed a slide on the screen which said, "The only reason I am forced to make this presentation is b/c I refused to pay the bribe which the inspector requested." The inspector is suing the developer for defamation and calls te chairman of the board of appeals to testify and describe the message that the developer shown on the screen. If the developer objects to the chairman's testimony on hearsay grounds, the court should:

A heavyset man with long red hair robbed a liquor store. Thereafter, a man was arrested an charged with armed robbery. At the man's trial, the owner of the liquor store was called to testify. He admitted that he was unable to identify the man, who now had a shaven head, as the robber. The prosecutor then handed the owner 6 photographs. He proposed to testify, over the defense's objection, that he previously told the prosecutor that photo #4, admittedly a picture of the D before he shaved his head, was a photo of the person who robbed his store. The owner's proffered testimony should be:

A deliveryman sed a homeowner for injuries resulting when the deliveryman tripped on a broken step leading to the homeowner's front door. At trial, the delivery man's attorney called a bystander to testify that just before the deliveryman was injured, he hears him say, "it is so dark out here I can't even see where I'm walking." The homeowner's attorney objected to the bystander's testimony. Is the bystander's testimony admissible?

Can a party call a witness for the primary purpose of impeaching the W with prior statements that would be otherwise inadmissible?

A prior inconsistent statement does not qualify as substantive evidence under Rule 801(d)(1)(A) is hearsay.

A government W is impeached with contradictory statements that he made to an investigator. On re-direct, he testifies that the reason he made the contradictory statements was that he was approached by an individual named Tom who told him that if he testified against the D, his job would be safe. If offered to prove why the government W made contradictory statements, is Tom’s statement admissible?

A Union official is prosecuted for embezzlement after taking unauthorized salary increases. He attempts to testify that the union president told him that the union constitution was to be interpreted flexibly, not strictly. Is his testimony admissible?

April made a statement that Chaz would not come home as long as the police were there. If the statement is offered to prove that Chaz lived at the house, is the statement admissible?

D2 made the following statement to D1, in the presence of the arresting officer, “I didn’t tell them anything about you” Prosecution calls arresting officer to testify to D2’s statement. If offered to prove D1 complicity  in the crime, is D2’s statement admissible?

Officer asks informant to locate the course of the drugs, and the informant pointed to a particular vehicle. Is the officer’s testimony that the informant pointed to a particular vehicle when asked to locate the source of the drugs admissible to prove that the drugs were in the vehicle?

A D was charged with murdering his cousin, shoe body was found near the D's office. The prosecution alleged that the cousin, who lived in another state, confronted the D to tell him about an affair that the cousin was having with the D's wife. The D denied having even seen the cousin for several weeks before he was murdered. The prosecution wishes to introduce a properly authenticated letter from the cousin to the D's wife, dated the day before the cousin's death, that stated: "I am going to go to your husband's office and tell him face-to face that he must let us be together." Defense counsel objects. How should the judge rule on the objection?

In a personal injury case involving a 2 car collision, the P wishes to introduce a sworn deposition taken from a W who died 2 weeks before the case came to trial. In the deposition, the W stated that she saw the D run a red light at the time of the collision with the P's car. Both the P's and the D's attorneys were present at the deposition. The D objects in the appropriate manner to the introduction of the W's statement. How should the court rule on the admissibility of the deposition?

The owner of a jewelry store brought a civil action against a former clerk for the value of various pieces of jewelry missing from the store. The D had been fired after another employee had reported that the D was stealing jewelry. At the trial, the P calls his employee as a W. The W testifies that he does not remember either having seen the D take anything from the store or having told the P that she had done so. The P then takes the W stand and proposes to testify to what the W had told him about seeing the D stealing pieces of jewelry from the store. Assuming appropriate objection by the D, would such testimony by the P be admissible?

The P is suing the D for misrepresentation, alleging that the D claimed his business was valued at $250K when he sold it to the P, but that an appraiser hired by the P concluded that it was only worth $150K. At trial, the D's atty offers a report prepared by an accountant shortly after the transfer agreement was signed. While reports of this kind are not normally prepared by the accountant, he prepared this one as a favor to the D. The report contained an extensive analysis of the financial condition of the business and concludes that the value of the business could be placed at $250K instead of $150K. The P's attorney objects to the introduction of the report as evidence of the value of the business. How should the court rule on the report?

A motorist who failed to stop at a stop sign was struck by a car being taken for a test drive by a mechanic who had repaired the car's brakes. The motorist sued the repair shop that employed her to recover for his injuries. At trial, the motorist called a bystander to testify that when the mechanic saw that the motorist was injured, she ran over and told him, "I'm really sorry. I guess I didn't fix the brakes as well as I thought." Should the repair shop's objection to the bystander's testimony be sustained?

A V was struck by a car in a hit-and-run accident. A police officer arrived half an hour after the accident. The V was in shock and came in and out of consciousness. As the officer applied first aid, the V muttered, "I know I'm going to die. Oh my, he ran the light!" The V fell back into unconsciousness, but revived again and muttered, "Why didn't he stop?" The officer heard the comments clearly and made a note of them. Good police work by the officer and others led to the discovery of the driver of the car that struck the V. The V survived and filed a tort action against the driver. Before the case came to trial, the V died of a heart attack. The causes of the heart attack were totally unrelated to the accident. The laws of the jurisdiction allow for survival of personal injury actions. Thus, the V's estate is substituted for the V as a P. If the P's attorney seeks to have the officer testify to the V's statements at the time of the accident, how will the court rule?

Undercover police arrested a brother and a sister after a 4-month investigation into a series of residential burglaries. During interrogation, the brother admitted that he had committed 8 of the burglaries, including 1 where he stole a valuable painting that he "fenced" to the sister. According to the brother, the sister subsequently sold the painting and gave the brother a share of the sale price. The sister was charged with receipt of stolen property, a misdemeanor offense, and was subsequently convicted. The painting was not recovered and the owners filed suit against the sister for damages. At trial, the brother testified to having "fenced" the painting to the sister. If the owners' attorney tried to introduce a certified copy of the record of the sister's conviction to corroborate the brother's testimony that the sister possessed and sold th painting, on proper motion will this evidence be admitted?

A W was stopped at an intersection when she saw a car run a red light, strike the V in the crosswalk, and proceed through the intersection. The W gave a very detailed description of the driver to the police officer at the scene. Based on this description, the police apprehended the D and charged him with several criminal counts for the accident that seriously injured the V. The W testified at the trial, but the D was acquitted. The V then filed a civil suit against the D to recover for her injuries. Before the trial of the V's suit, the W died. In her suit against the D, the V offers into evidence the police report containing the W's description of the driver. The D objects. How should the court rule on the admissibility of the report?

A decedent was prosecuted for criminal violations of a hazardous waste disposal act and convicted, in part on the testimony of a W. After the decedent's death, the P on whose property the decedent dumped the hazardous waste brought suit to recover the cleanup costs against the executor of the decedent's estate. Because the W is currently incarcerated in another state and beyond the reach of the court's subpoena powers, the P seeks to intorduce the transcript of the W's testimony from the decedent's criminal trial in the present action. The executor objects to its admission. How should the court rule on the admissibility of the transcript?

Several members of a small terorist group are on trial in federal court for conspiring to bomb a military guard at one of the installation's gates. The guard had been present when a bomb that was being planted by a member of the group had exploded prematurely. The guard will testify that she ran over to administer first aid to the member, who in great pain told her that his group was in the process of planting 3 other bombs in other areas of the military installation and was going to detonate them all at the same time to get publicity for their cause. The guard will also testify that the member disclosed the locations of the other bombs and the names of 2 other members of the group. The authorities were able to prevent the other bombings and arrest the other members of the group. The member died from his injuries. What is the best basis for allowing the guard to testify a to the members of the group. The member died from his injuries. What is the best basis for allowing the guard to testify as to the member's statements?

A P brought a malpractice action against a law firm that had represented him in a personal injury suit. The P alleges that the firm was derelict in failing to interview a doctor he suggested as a prospective expert W. The firm's pleadings contend that the doctor was never brought to the attention of anyone at the firm and was never considered as a W. The P wants to introduce a "proposed W list" from his case file at the firm. After the name of the doctor is the notation, "the P wants us to check this guy out before trial." The notation is in the handwriting of a paralegal with the firm who is responsible for updating various case files as part of his regular duties. The paralegal did no direct work on the P's case and the cannot remember which attorney in the firm asked him to make the notation. The defense objects to the introduction of the proposed W list containing the noation. Is the proposed W list and notation admissible?

A W's nephew was visiting her from a foreign country. One evening, the nephew went out with friends. At 11pm that night, he appeared back at the W's house, pounding ludly on the door. She let him in, and noted that he was panting and out of breath. He immediately told her, "You won't believe what I just saw! I was walking past your neighbor's house just now and the wife ran up to me with a gun in her hand. She looked me straight in the eyes and said, 'I killed the philandering fool' before running off down the street." After the nephew returned to his country, the wife was put on trial for the murder of her husband. The prosecution wants to put the W on the the stand to testify regarding the nephew's statement to her. The defense objects. Can the W testify to the nephew's statement?

An elderly woman was the only eyewitness to an automobile accident that occurred one block from her nursing home residence. During the ensuing trial, the P calls the W to the stand. After a few questions, it becomes clear that the W remembers having seen the accident, but her memory of the details has grown fuzzy. The P's attorney wishes to introduce into evidence the contents of some handwritten notes made by the W after she returned to her room after witnessing the accident. Which of the following is a FALSE statement with respect to the admissibility of the contents of the notes?

A D is charged with the burglary of a warehouse. At the request of the police investigating the burglary, the night watchman at the warehouse who had seen the thief leaving the premises wrote out a description of the thief, who bore a strong likeness to the D. However, the night watchman died of a heart attack before the D was arrested and brought to trial. The prosecution attempts to offer the description written out by the night watchman into evidence. Is the description admissible?

A husband and a wife were arrested by federal agents and charged with distributing obscene materials through the U.S. mail. when called before a grand jury, the wife refused to say anything, invoking her 5th Amendment right to be protected from compelled self-incrimination. The husband was terrified of the grand jury and readily admitted under questioning that he sent obscene matter through the mail. He also incriminated his wife in the illegal activity. The thought of a trial and a prison term drove the husband over the edge, and he committed suicide 2 days before his trial was to begin. a month later the wife was put on trial in federal district court. The federal prosecutor seeks to introduce a transcript of the husband's grand jury testimony into evidence against the wife. The defense attorney objects. How should the court rule on the admissibility of the GJ transcript?

During his lunch break one day, an employee took a company vehicle to a fast food restaurant and got into an accident on the way back. The driver of the other car sued the company. The company, in its defense, claimed that the employee's use of the vehicle was unauthorized. At trial, the company calls the employee's boss. The boss offers to testify that the employee called him 5 minutes after the accident and stated, "I hope you won't be sore, but I took the company car without permission, and I don't want to be fired." The court should rule that the evidence is

The D is being charged with having been 1 of 2 men who robbed a tavern and its patrons at gunpoint at 5:30pm on December 16th. The D calls a W to testify that he was at the D's house about 9:30am on December 16th, and that as he was leaving, the D said to him, "I'm going to my mther in law's house this afternoon for a birthday party. Is the W's testimony admissible

The issue at trial is whether snow was falling in the early morning hours in the mountains in New Hampshire on a particular day. A waiter testified that he was serving a customer that particular day and the customer saie, "Now that it is snowing, I'll be able to ski all day!" Is the testimony by the waiter of the customer's statement admissible?

A confession of co-conspirator naming the D as the head of a drug smuggling ring is introduced by the government to prove the D's guilt. The D's counsel objects. The trial court should rule that the statement is