Evidence Flashcards
(37 cards)
A driver has been charged with running a red light. At trial, the driver proposes to testify that the day after the accident, she met with the investigating police officer, and told him that she did not run the red light. The prosecutor objects to the testimony of the driver. How should the judge rule?
Hearsay…
Plaintiff is suing driver for injuries caused during a traffic accident. When a police officer arrived on the scene, a passerby heard the police office say: “what a mess. It looks to me like the driver ran the red light.” The passerby is called as a witness at the trial on behalf of the plaintiff. She wishes to testify about what the police officer said at the scene. Is her testimony admissible?
Hearsay, no exception, inadmissible.
A defendant was on trial for murdering his girlfriend. She was found shot to death in her bedroom. While the first officer to arrive was in the bedroom he saw the girlfriend’s open diary on her desk. The diary, which was confiscated by the police, was properly authenticated as being in the girlfriend’s handwriting. During the defendant’s murder trial, the prosecution called the officer to testify. He proposed to testify that when he looked at the open diary, he saw the following handwritten passage: “My boyfriend threatened to kill me today.” Upon objection, is the officer’s proposed testimony admissible?
No, because the passage in the diary is hearsay not within any recognized exception.
Marina, a famous pop singer, is involved in a car accident while driving under the influence of alcohol in which she hit and severely injured Hannah, a pedestrian, outside of a Miami night club. Hannah brings suit against Marina alleging damages for her injuries, but Marina maintains that she was not at fault for the accident. Due to the negative press surrounding the accident, Marina authorizes her spokesperson, Alana, to give a statement on her behalf. Alana addresses the press with the following statement: “Marina is extremely sorry for the injuries she caused to a pedestrian when she ran a red light while speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol last Saturday night.” If Hannah seeks to introduce Alana’s statement to prove Marina was at fault for the accident, the statement will be:
admissible, because it’s a statement of an opposing party.
Chelsey is on trial for the murder of her husband Jeff. As part of her defense, Chelsey claims that she has an alibi, as she was at the country club at the time the murder allegedly took place. While no one saw Chelsey at the country club on the afternoon in question, the country club has a system that keeps track of each member who uses her access card to enter the building. Chelsey wants to prove she was at the country club by showing that her access card was used on the date in question. This evidence will likely be:
admissible, because it is a record of regularly conducted activity.
Terry was badly beaten when he started making fun of some young men playing baseball in a Florida park, not realizing that the men were willing to use their baseball bat on him. As he lay in the hospital with many broken bones and internal injuries, he reasonably thought he was dying. Terry described the perpetrators to his roommate in the hospital. After about two months, Terry made a significant recovery and was released from the hospital. Around the same time, police made an arrest of two suspects in Terry’s beating, and he made the correct lineup identification. However, before the trials could take place, Terry crossed the street carelessly and was killed by a speeding truck. The prosecution could:
have Terry’s identification to his roommate admitted under the hearsay exception for statement under belief of impending death.
While Mary was driving her sister Sally to school, Mary’s car collided with one driven by Larry. That evening, at her attorney’s suggestion, Mary decided to write a summary of the accident while it remained fresh in her memory. Mary signed the document and showed it to Sally, who agreed to sign it as well. One month later, Larry sued Mary’s insurance company in Florida state court for compensation for his injuries. Because Mary had moved to Spain for school and would not appear as a witness, Larry called Sally to the stand and sought to have Mary’s summary admitted as Sally’s recorded recollection.
inadmissible, because Mary made the statement, not Sally.
A man and a woman were involved in a car accident that occurred when the man abruptly switched lanes in front of the woman without signaling. Unable to stop, the woman hit the man’s car into a median. Immediately after the accident, as the two drivers emerged from their vehicles, a pedestrian, obviously emotional and upset from having just observed an accident, ran up to the man and shouted, “You careless driver, you. Didn’t you ever learn that you’re supposed to use a turn signal when you switch lanes?” The pedestrian is never identified and is not present at trial.
Excited Utterance.
A woman suffered a broken arm in a car accident. She brings suit, but needs an expert to testify as to causation. She consults a doctor and says “my arm is in tremendous pain, it broke due to striking it on my car door in a car accident, when the other car ran a stop sign.” At trial, the defense objects to this conversation. What statements are admissible?
The statement ”my arm is in tremendous pain, it broke due to striking it on my car door in a car accident.”
Defendant is on trial for conspiracy to commit bank robbery. As part of her case-in-chief the prosecutor offers into evidence the grand jury testimony of a witness who gave incriminating testimony about Defendant before the grand jury, but who has since died prior to trial. The prosecutor offers the original stenographic record of the witness’ sworn testimony before the grand jury. Defense counsel objects. Should the court admit the testimony?
No, because the witness’ grand jury testimony is hearsay not within an exception.
A patient sued his doctor for malpractice. The patient called an expert witness. She testified that the drugs prescribed by the doctor were so experimental that it constituted negligence under accepted practices in the medical community. On cross-examination, the expert stated that Pharmacology: A Guide for the Practitioner was a reliable authority in her area of specialty. The expert testified that she, however, did not rely on that treatise in forming her opinion. The doctor’s attorney then proposed to read a portion from the treatise, which stated that the drugs prescribed by the doctor are widely used by other physicians in treating patients. The patient’s attorney objected.
Will the court admit the evidence?
Yes, to impeach the expert, but not as substantive evidence.
As a result of a collision, Dustin is injured by a car being driven by Kimberly. Dustin has brought suit against Kimberly, alleging that she is liable for causing the collision which resulted in his injuries. Overcome with guilt, Kimberly sends a note to Dustin which says, “I am so sorry about the accident, and the fact that you are still in the hospital. I feel so bad for causing this accident.” If Dustin tries to introduce this note into evidence, he will be able to introduce:
(A) the part of the statement in which Kimberly admits she caused the accident.
Mary sued John for injuries she sustained falling on John’s staircase as she left his apartment building. John’s attorney seeks to introduce evidence that the day after the accident, John’s landlord, Alice, repaired the staircase. The evidence is:
(B) admissible, because it is used to shift the blame to another party.
After Robert was assaulted at a fraternity party, he filed a civil action against the fraternity and its president. Robert subpoenaed Bill, a writer for the school newspaper who wrote extensively about the incident on his personal website. Robert sought the admission of Bill’s notes from his interviews with several students who attended the party.
Which of the following, if true, would be Bill’s strongest argument in favor of journalist privilege?
(D) Bill interviewed the students for a story for his newspaper.
Jason hires Shelley to walk his dogs three afternoons a week while he is at work. After several weeks, Jason realizes that Shelley has been stealing small trinkets from his apartment each time she comes to walk his dog. Most of the items are insignificant in value, but one is an antique paperweight worth over $3,000. At Shelley’s trial for wrongful taking of the paperweight, Jason seeks to introduce a picture of the paperweight in lieu of the actual paperweight. Pursuant to Florida law, Jason will:
be permitted to introduce a picture of the item, as long as the photograph has certain information written on the back.
Selby and Stefan, a married couple, live in Florida, where they support themselves by robbing stores. After a dozen or so robberies, they are apprehended and tried. The prosecutor puts pressure on Selby, encouraging her to testify against Stefan in exchange
for immunity, but Selby refuses. She seeks the advice of her lawyer as to what the prosecution can compel her to do. Her lawyer tells her that:
she can be compelled to testify at Stefan’s trial, but she cannot be compelled to disclose marital communications.
At the defendant’s trial for murder, the defendant sought to introduce the testimony of John, the defendant’s cousin, who was to testify that he was with the defendant out of state on the night of the murder. The prosecution then moved to introduce evidence that three years ago, John had been convicted of filing a false tax return. The defendant objected to the evidence of John’s conviction. Will the court overrule the objection?
Yes, because the crime of which John was convicted involved dishonesty or a false statement.
Olivia sued Jim for defamation after Jim wrote and published an untrue story about Olivia claiming that she used illegal drugs during school hours at the school where she was a teacher. Jim offered to settle the case, but Olivia was so enraged that she refused, and the parties proceeded to trial. During trial, Olivia’s co-worker Kate testified that she had never witnessed Olivia using drugs and, in fact, Olivia sponsored the anti-drug club at the school. On cross-examination, counsel for Jim asked Kate if two of Olivia’s brothers were heavy drug users who were able to keep their drug use a secret, which had not been addressed during Kate’s testimony on direct examination. Jim had a source who had given him information that this assertion was indeed true, and he expected Kate to say that she did not know; however, Kate answered with an unequivocal “no.” Jim would like to impeach Kate with evidence that Olivia’s brothers were indeed drug users. Pursuant to Florida law, which of the following is correct regarding Kate’s answer to Jim’s last question?
Jim is bound by Kate’s answer, and he is not permitted to impeach her on the matter.
During Mae’s criminal trial, the prosecution seeks to call several witnesses regarding Mae’s alibi. The prosecution is hoping to garner inconsistent statements from each witness, which will destroy their credibility and cast doubt on Mae’s alibi defense. In order for this plan to work, the prosecution does not want each witness to hear the testimony of the other witnesses, so the prosecution seeks to exclude each witness from the courtroom while the others are testifying. The prosecution’s motion will be:
Granted, as long as the witnesses do not fall within into any exceptions for people who may not be excluded from the courtroom.
A police officer investigating the theft of water skis from a water sports shop located the reportedly stolen items in plain view under Tom’s pier. The police officer photographed the water skis found under Tom’s pier. On the back of the photographs, the officer wrote out a detailed description of the water skis, the location of the shop where the alleged larceny had occurred, and the precise location where the water skis had been found. The officer also wrote his name on the photographs as the photographer and investigating officer as well as the time and date of the discovery of the stolen merchandise. With the assistance of another police officer who was a notary public, the officer then signed the statement under oath. Almost immediately thereafter an enormous wave washed the water skis out to sea. Tom was subsequently charged with burglary and larceny. At Tom’s criminal trial in a Florida court, the prosecution sought to admit the photographs of the water skis in lieu of the actual property to prove that Tom had stolen the skis. Which of the following statements is true?
The photographs may be admitted in lieu of the water skis, because the photographs satisfy the Florida requirements for admissibility of a photograph of wrongfully taken property in lieu of the actual property.
During a trial for damages arising from personal injuries sustained in a slip and fall accident, counsel for plaintiff, Helen, asks defendant Rich’s witness, Suzy, about the accident. Suzy was an eyewitness but now is unable to remember sufficient details to answer questions. Helen’s counsel seeks to introduce a memorandum of a statement made by a different eyewitness, Alex, as a recorded recollection. Assume that Suzy has adopted Alex’s statement. Rich’s counsel objects.
Sustained, because Suzy did not make the statement.
A non-expert may testify as to the genuineness of handwriting as long as the testimony:
Is not based on opinion that was formed in preparation for litigation.
Pursuant to Florida law, for what purpose(s) may evidence of subsequent remedial measures be admissible?
I. To prove ownership or control.
II. To prove negligence.
III. To shift blame to a third party.
I and III.
Paul, a prosecutor, is trying a case in which there are three joint defendants. Each defendant is given six peremptory challenges to use during the voir dire process. Paul is entitled to use:
Eighteen peremptory challenges.
