Bar Exam MBE (Constitutional Law) Practice Test
A psychopathic personality that has a long history of criminal violence frequently relishes the act of brutally brutalizing old people through cruel and shocking physical torture. For no apparent reason, he chooses to torture the victim's father. Following the assault, the father was taken to the hospital and placed in intensive care. The victim was not present, but learned about it through the authorities and read about it in the press. The victim was in excruciating emotional pain and needs medical attention. Is it possible for a victim to sue a perpetrator for intentional infliction of mental distress?
The plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress; (2) the defendant's conduct is the legal cause of the plaintiff's emotional distress; and (3) the defendant's conduct is the legal cause of the plaintiff's emotional distress. When the outrageous conduct are directed at someone other than the plaintiff, such as a family member or a third party, most jurisdictions need the plaintiff to be "present" for tortious intent to transit from the real subject of torture to the spectator. Only present third parties may recover for an IIED claim, according to the Restatement (Second) of Torts 46(2).
However, new case law may change the concept slightly. A federal court, for example, has ruled that if a terrorist attack on servicemen occurs, the plaintiff's family member does not need to be present. 515 F. Supp. 2d 25 (DC, District of Columbia, 2007); Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F. Supp. 2d 25 (DC, District of Columbia, 2007). However, because the hypothetical test question does not include a terrorist assault, the regular rule applies.
A writer gave a Hollywood producer a four-page summary of a new television series proposal. He sent it in answer to an advertisement in an industry newsletter looking for innovative ideas. In a phone conversation with the producer's assistant, he indicated his expectation of pay. "Of course, we always pay for a writer's work," she replied. She stated that she would discuss it with her employer to see whether he approved. After a few months, the writer came upon a casting call for a new show. His synopsis outlined a plot and characters that were remarkably identical to those described in his book. He filed a lawsuit against the production for breach of contract. The producer defended himself by claiming that no contract existed.What is the court's most likely decision?
This is a fact contract that has been suggested. The provisions of an express contract are expressed in express words. Conduct and interpretation of the surrounding circumstances reveal an implied contract and its contents. A voluntary acceptance of a transaction's benefit entails consent to all of the transaction's liabilities. Reading diverse cases in case law and comprehending the variations highlighted by the courts might help us better understand and identify implied contracts.
Some homeless persons began to live on a strip of land beneath a bridge. A local chemical plant owned the land. The squatters did not seek permission, and the corporation did not consider the situation to be urgent. The squatters bathed and drank water from a small lake on the site. Two squatters died within days from what was later discovered to be highly toxic water from the company's waste discharges. The corporation was well aware that it had a trash disposal issue. The two decedents' estates filed a lawsuit against the corporation. Despite the company's contention that the decedents were trespassers, are they likely to win their tort claim?
Landowner's knowledge of the danger increases the duty owed.
Negligence, according to common law, necessitates the breach of a duty. In general, a trespasser has no responsibility to anyone except to refrain from acting in a reckless and willful manner. When the owner is aware of the trespassers and the hazardous condition, the owner must take reasonable steps to alert trespassers and others of the danger. 144 NJ. 479, 677 A. 2d 705 (lL Supreme Court 1992); Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority, 605 NE 2d 493, 498-99 (lL Supreme Court 1992).
In federal court, a waitress sued her former employer, a restaurant, under Title VII. She alleged that the business owner had sexually harassed her and then fired her without cause. A jury awarded the former employee $100,000 in damages. The employer filed a petition to dismiss under Fed. Rule 12(b)(6) two weeks after the court delivered judgment on the verdict, arguing that it did not have at least 15 employees as needed under the civil rights statute's definition of "employer." As a result, the employer claimed there was no federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The lower court concurred, dismissing the case and declaring the decision null and void. Will the appellate court likely affirm the lower court's ruling if the case is appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals?
Did the federal trial court still have the authority to conduct a jury trial and determine the case on the merits despite the fact that there were possibly less than 15 employees?
Subject matter jurisdiction in federal-question cases is sometimes erroneously conflated with a plaintiff's need to prove the defendant liable under the statute, the latter being a merits-related determination that does not concern the court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court in Arbaugh stated the issue was whether the numerical qualification contained in Title VII's definition of "employer" affects federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction or, instead, delineates only a substantive ingredient of a Title VII claim for relief. Id. U.S. at 503. The Supreme Court in an 8-0 opinion answered that the definition of “employer” did not go to subject matter jurisdiction but instead was an element of a Title VII claim for relief. Id at 516. Arbaugh held that when Congress does not state in the statute that the definitional requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite, courts should treat it as nonjurisdictional. Id. Arbaugh appears to be on “all fours” with our hypothetical in that the lower court in Arbaugh had already entered judgment in favor of Arbaugh.
In one state, the state constitution guaranteed the right to marriage to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. A political group got a proposition on the ballot, and a majority of voters decided to take away the right to marry for same-sex couples. The proposal had no bearing on any other rights that same-sex couples might have derived from state law.People impacted sued the state government for taking away their rights in an unconstitutional and illegitimate manner, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process requirement. Will the court approve the lawsuit's requests, declaring the proposition void and restoring the ability to marry for same-sex couples?
Can a vested constitutional right be taken away by a majority vote?
A vested constitutional right cannot be taken away by a majority vote of a state’s voters. The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees due process of law before the government can deprive an individual of life, liberty or property and it prevents a state from ''enforcing, facilitating, encouraging or authorizing such private discrimination." It also guarantees equal protection of the law, which was denied by this referendum by the act of singling out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and stripping them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry. The foregoing reasoning and the full recognition of the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry was mandated in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), where the Court held that, “[T]he right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry . No longer may this liberty be denied to them.
After drinking for several hours, an extremely drunk man approached another man in a convenience shop and demanded $5. The drunk man knocked the customer down and began bashing his head on the floor when he refused. The drunk man awoke in jail hours later, with no recall of what had happened. He was charged with serious assault, which required specific intent proof. The drunk man requested an additional jury charge of simple assault, which did not require specific intent, during his trial. The drunk man was convicted of serious assault when the trial court refused to let him go. Will the appeals court likely overturn the conviction and order a fresh trial with a charge of simple assault added?
The defendant's voluntary intoxication may have an impact on the proof of mens rea in a criminal prosecution.
Answer 2 is the correct selection. Voluntary intoxication like this would be a defense if it rendered him incapable of forming the required specific intent that is an element of the crime charged. For the meaning of lesser included offense see, generally, State v. Campos, 122 N.M. 148, 155 (N.M. 1996) (“"A lesser included offense is one that includes some, but not all, of the elements of a greater offense and that does not have any element not included in the greater offense, so that it is impossible to commit the greater offense without necessarily committing the lesser offense.").”) The purposes for the rule are set forth, for example, in Harrison v. State, 198 Md. App. 236, 251 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011) (“The doctrine is a valuable tool for defendant, prosecutor, and society.
The “American Morality Leadership Act” was approved by the US Congress and signed by the President, limiting the amount of cosmetics that women and men can wear in public and prohibiting the wearing of short dresses. Except when exercising or working physically, men over 65 must wear only brown or grey clothing, while those under 65 must wear button down dress shirts with neckties. Other limits and requirements for men and women's attire and grooming are included in the Act. On the basis of a constitutional issue, a class action lawsuit was brought to attack the Act. Which of the following arguments most closely resembles the constitutional argument that is most likely to win in court?
The right to free expression encompasses fundamental rights of appearance and uniqueness.
This is an example of egregious, irrational government regulation of dress and grooming of the public at large. See, generally, Williams v. Pryor, 229 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2000). Governmental actions that infringe a fundamental right will generally receive strict scrutiny; other claims receive rational basis review. Seal v. Morgan, 229 F.3d 567, 574 (6th Cir.2000). Rational basis requires proof that the law is "rationally related to a legitimate state interest." Id. at 575. In this case, the right to dress individually and with distinct appearance are basic to the right of expression under the First Amendment. Furthermore, it is today settled that the right of a person to have a certain look or way of dress elicits concepts of fundamental liberty.
A married couple signed a contract to sell their home, stating that they were unaware of any structural flaws in the property. The purchasers spotted peeling paint and plaster degradation in a corner of a ceiling near the fireplace prior to closing. They also found water marks on the basement's inside walls. The sellers indicated that these were previous issues that had been resolved, but they had not yet completed the aesthetic repairs and painting.The parties went to closing to complete the transaction. The buyers discovered a virtual flood plain in their basement during their first week in the house, with water streaming in at the corner sections around the fireplace. They engaged a contractor who advised them that major structural repairs were required. They sued the sellers for fraud, misrepresentation, and implied guarantees of habitability, as well as money to repair the property. Do they have a legal basis for suing the sellers?
How would you characterize the sellers' statements about the problem areas that the buyers inquired about?
Relief for fraudulent misrepresentation may be granted if there is: (1) a false statement concerning a material fact; (2) the representor‘s knowledge that the representation is false; (3) an intention that the representation induce another to act on it; and, (4) consequent injury by the party acting in justifiable reliance on the representation.
For $1,000,000.00, the buyer ordered a manufacturer to build 100,000 widgets. The buyer wanted to sell them through mail order. The buyer's branding had to be imprinted on the widgets. The factory placed an order for raw materials and created a new widget mold with the buyer's logo. The buyer required immediate delivery of at least 10,000 units. The purchase was hurried, and 10,000 conforming widgets arrived two days later. The buyer paid for the widgets but refused delivery of the other 90,000.The manufacturer filed a lawsuit, alleging breach of contract and seeking damages. Defendant buyer filed a request to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the statute of frauds had been broken because the contract was for more than $500 and was therefore invalid under state law. Is the move to dismiss likely to be granted?
Despite the lack of written confirmation, circumstances may indicate a contract.
The rule does have a few exceptions. The defendant will be accountable for the remainder if there is complete performance. Another exemption is when the things were custom-made for the purchaser. Another situation is when the commodities are unable to be sold to others on the market. It's also significant that the company had already begun the production process, using an unique mold created for the purpose.
On July 3, a man was involved in an accident while driving his car. The other driver served him with an injury notification and requested compensation. When the man called his insurance company, he was advised that his policy had expired on July 2. He had previously received a renewal letter along with a bill with a June 28 due date and a July 2 policy expiration date. The notification stated that payment by mail was encouraged, but did not state that renewal was contingent on physical receipt of the check. On June 28, he mailed the check and the form to the insurer, but it was not received until July 5. According to the firm, the insurance company reinstated the policy on July 5, creating a coverage gap between July 2 and July 5. Will the courts likely rule that the coverage was still valid on the day of the accident, July 3?
The premium was not required to be physically received by the insurer prior to the renewal.
The "mail box rule" governs the case. In these circumstances, prompt mailing of the renewal premium represented acceptance of the insurer's renewal offer. The notice of renewal does not specify that money must be received before acceptance became effective. The offeree/insured accepts the renewal notice by paying premium payments. When an insurer accepts mail-in premiums, it appoints the postal service as its agent, and payment to that agent signifies acceptance of coverage.
A creditor filed a garnishment action against a lady who owed the creditor money that was past due. This was the creditor's first action, and he didn't have a judgment. The garnishee, the woman's employer, was issued with the garnishment notice. The employer complied with the notice by putting all of the woman's wages into escrow pending the creditor's litigation and the entry of a final judgment against her. Pre-judgment garnishment was allowed in the state where defendant resided and worked, as long as the money was retained and not released until a judgment was made.If a judgment was not issued within the next 120 days, the money would be paid to the woman. The woman filed a lawsuit against her employer and a creditor, seeking that her wages be released. Will the garnishee be ordered to release the funds to the woman by the court?
The case raises constitutional concerns about a person's right to keep her own earnings until a court decides on a judgment against her.
The salary freeze in the interim without a hearing is a violation of procedural due process. A pre-judgment garnishment proceeding like this might bankrupt a wage-earning family, and it is a breach of fundamental due process norms.The procedure is unconstitutional without prior notice and a hearing.
In a new town, a pet store owner opened a business. She had no idea that the municipal council had just approved an ordinance restricting the sale of cats and dogs from retail pet stores. A provision in the statute permitted a pet store to lend space to a non-profit humane society for the adoption of animals from the business. The owner filed a federal lawsuit against the city, alleging a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses. The logical basis test was used by the court to determine whether the statute served a genuine state purpose and was enforceable. The ruling was overturned on appeal by the pet business owner. Will the appellate court most likely uphold the lower court's decision?
Is the pet store owner a protected class of people who warrants a close examination of the ordinance in question?
In general, social and economic regulation is subject to rational basis evaluation and so has a presumption of legality. Legislation requires simply some reasonably plausible collection of facts to establish a logical relationship between the challenged laws and the government's legitimate goals under rational basis scrutiny. The government's interest in preventing the evils connected with "puppy mills," such as harsh animal treatment and overcrowding, are acceptable government goals.
When a truck racing on the sand mowed over a sunbathing elderly person, a man was sitting comfortably and in a relaxed meditative condition on a beach chair. “Oh God, see what that truck driver did,” the man exclaimed aloud. That truck's driver was speeding at almost 100 miles per hour! "Please dial 911!!" The man's scream was heard by a woman who was sitting on the beach close but facing the wrong way. Will the court allow both the guy and the woman to testify about the man's utterances if the case goes to trial?
Is there a hearsay exception that applies in this case?
This falls under the category of an agitated utterance, which is one that is made in response to a stunning or alarming incident or circumstance. It's an exception to the hearsay rule that allows both parties to testify. "Circumstances may induce a state of agitation which temporarily stills the capacity of contemplation and produces words free of conscious invention," according to the excited speech exception. 742 F. 3d 792, 796-97 (US v. Boyce) (7th Cir. 2014). To put it another way, the statement had to have been a spontaneous reaction to the unexpected incident rather than the consequence of deliberate thought. 2 McCormick on Evidence, 7th ed., p. 272.
A homeowner buys a new leaf blower and is so taken aback by its power that he gets carried away and blows a substantial portion of his work onto the yard of his next-door neighbor. He blew significant volumes of pest-infested plant debris into the neighbor's yard in addition to leaves. The trash has piled up into enormous, unattractive heaps, causing damage to the neighbor's thriving plants. He has to hire people to remove the debris, and he has to pay to replace infected perennials.The neighbor files a trespass lawsuit. Because the neighbor cannot prove that the homeowner acted with the intent to trespass or cause harm, the homeowner files a petition to dismiss. Will the move to dismiss be granted by the court?
The term "intent" refers to the fact that the act has predictable outcomes.
Explanation: <br. Despite the fact that trespass is an intentional tort, it does not need proof of intent to trespass or hurt. All that is required is proof of intent to commit the act that leads to the trespass. Trespass is defined as causing something to enter the land without the defendant's personal involvement. Thus, all that is required here is the intention to blow the leaves. Trespassing is an intentional tort because it entails the purpose to conduct an act that violates a property right, or would be virtually certain to do so, even if the actor is unaware that the act he intends to commit violates that right.
A businessperson dispatched an administrative assistant to attend a conference where business agreements are frequently arranged. The assistant was given all of the resources needed to put up a table with the principal's cards, brochures, promotional materials, pricing lists, and even some purchase forms with the businessperson's symbol on them by the principal. In addition, the assistant misrepresented herself to third parties as to the principal's official representative and that she was allowed to sign contracts on his part. The assistant arranged an agreement with a third party for the businessperson, which the businessperson refused to respect because he did not like the terms. Will the third party have a good chance of getting the contract enforced against the businessperson?
What would a third party who wants to negotiate a transaction with the assistant's perception be given these facts?
When a reasonable person would believe that the assistant had permission to act, this is known as seeming authority. Giving the assistant the supplies to set up an official table at the convention is sufficient in this case, barring any extraordinary qualifying facts, to lead a reasonable person to conclude there is actual authority. As a result, the principal is bound by the agent's acts. This is true even if there is no formal authority. When the principal has bestowed what reasonably looks to be the authority to the apparent agent, it is said that the principal is estopped from denying the agent's authority.
A dance student put in a lot of effort to develop her legs, which included doing things like leaping and bounding up numerous flights of stairs in her apartment complex. One of the janitors in the building advised her that if she kept doing her workouts, “she was going to get wounded since there are problems with the floor.”She sued the building owner after breaking her leg after falling due to a loose floorboard. "I warned her that jogging so fast is unsafe and she was likely to be wounded," the janitor told me," the building owner wants to testify." Is it likely that the building owner's statement would be accepted as evidence?
Is allowing the owner to testify about what a third party informed him a reliable method of obtaining the facts?
This is a statement made outside of court that quotes another statement made outside of court. To be admissible in these circumstances, each statement must meet an exception to the hearsay rule. Allowing it also removes the janitor's right to cross-examine him. If each portion of the combined utterances meets an exception to the hearsay rule, hearsay within hearsay is admissible. Furthermore, as the amount of hearsay increases, the credibility of the information decreases. Every level of hearsay adds to the potential that the facts were misreported by the declarant, either intentionally or inadvertently, or that the person to whom the statement was made misinterpreted the facts.
On a public street, an elderly woman was mugged and robbed. The victim only saw her assailant's eyes at the time of the crime. The remainder of his face was hidden by a hooded sweatshirt and a bandana. While waiting to be interrogated a few days later, the victim noticed the defendant being led through the courts in jail garb and restrained by handcuffs and leg irons. He was soon identified as the offender by her. Will the court accept such identification as proof?
Concentrate on the issue of identification's reliability.
When it comes to eyewitness testimony, the most important question is whether or not it can be trusted. It may be admitted without violating due process if it is proved to have adequate indicia of credibility. In this case, the circumstances revealed a past identification that was so impermissibly suggestive that there was a very high risk of irreversible misidentification. Eyewitness misidentification is now widely recognized as the major cause of erroneous convictions across the country.
Due to intense agony, a patient who had surgery to correct a spleen rupture got a complete body MRI. The technicians discovered at least two distinguishable sponges in her body during the MRI. She needed to be admitted to the hospital for more surgery. The patient filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the hospital and the doctor. She failed to present the MRI printouts. Rather, she tried to testify about what she saw on the MRI scan. The defense raised an objection and demanded that she present the original MRI reports. What is the most likely outcome of the judge's decision on the objection?
Is a layperson qualified to give an opinion on the interpretation of a complicated diagnostic test?
The best evidence rule applies where a party attempts to introduce outside evidence to prove what the contents of a document are. In our hypothetical, the patient-plaintiff is trying to prove the contents and meaning of the diagnostic printout instead of using the correct procedure, which is to produce the printout or film and having a qualified professional explain its contents. The patient herself cannot identify or explain the medical content and meaning of diagnostic test documents. The best evidence rule was created to prevent fraud and inaccuracy in evidence.
A four-year-old tenant's daughter fell from their apartment building's second-floor outside stairwell. The renter sued the landlord for the negligent stairwell, step, and railing construction and maintenance. The stairwell was designed on a dangerously steep inclination, the steps were loose, and the railing was inadequate to prevent the baby from slipping over the edge. The jury determined that the landlord was negligent in the design and construction of the stairs, as well as in neglecting to keep the stairs, steps, and railing in good condition. The landlord appealed based on his immunity from suit and the tenant's inability to state any exception to his immunity. Will the appellate court uphold the jury's verdict against the landlord under modern rule?
The property was rented as-is under common law, and the rallying cry was "buyer beware." In general, landlords can now be held accountable for carelessness when they expose renters to hazardous situations. This is linked to the implied warranty of habitability that landlords are now required to provide.This is a seminal decision that ushered in a trend of state court rulings holding landlords liable for general torts.
A police officer in a small town stopped a motorist for speeding. He thought the driver was impatient and fidgety, but he couldn't put his finger on why. He checked the car nevertheless and discovered two boxes of freshly canned peaches that had been reported stolen from the driver's neighbor's porch 24 hours before. According to the state criminal law, he was charged with theft. His plea for the evidence to be suppressed due to an illegal search was refused. Will the appellate court likely overturn the lower court's denial of the motion to suppress on appeal?
What are the legal requirements for searching a car that has been pulled over during a traffic stop?
A traffic stop for speeding is similar to a Terry stop in that it simply requires reasonable suspicion. The fact that the vehicle was pulled over for a suspected traffic violation does not imply that the vehicle was searched. However, probable cause to search a vehicle must be shown separately from the basis for the traffic stop. The officer did not have probable cause to search the vehicle in our example. There was no evidence or indicators that anything criminal was going on, according to the officer. As a result, the search was clearly illegal under the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence must be suppressed.
A pizza and Italian food restaurant owner establishes a new site on a street where another restaurant owner operates a burger joint. The pizza shop owner notices that sales is slow and blames it on his competitor, the burger vendor. The pizzeria proprietor begins to make false claims about the burger joint's inferior ingredients, which he claims are causing ptomaine poisoning in some of the restaurant's patrons. Can a burger establishment owner sue for conversion if he loses customers and revenue to a pizza joint owner?
Was there an interference with and a taking of the owner's personal property?
Conversion is the substantial and intentional interference with another person’s right of ownership over his personal property, such as goods or personal chattels. The unauthorized exercising of total control and dominion over it to the exclusion of the owner is the tort of conversion. The burger restaurateur may be able to sue for defamation, interference with business relationships, or a related tort, but not conversion because there was no interference with his ownership rights to personal property. The taking of "business" is not taking or converting personal property, such as goods or chattels.
A witness to a murder in the park is summoned to testify in court. Is it permissible for the defense attorney to question her about her practice of feeding pigeons during cross examination? She was cited for illegally feeding the pigeons many times, according to the defense. “You have a long history of feeding the pigeons, don't you?” defense counsel tries to question. You've been ticketed countless times for feeding pigeons, haven't you, and you still do it?" Will the witness be questioned about these topics by the trial court?
Is the inquiry useful in debating the witness's credibility or showing the defendant's guilt?
The question is meaningless in terms of determining the witness's credibility or the defendant's guilt. There is no problem with feeding birds or seeing pigeons in this situation. The citations are far too little and irrelevant to call her veracity into question. The issues in the murder case have no bearing on this. It would also be a side issue that would cause the trial's flow to be disrupted for no reason. The question would be an illegal journey into foreign territory that would serve no good purpose
At his cattle ranch, where he has a stable of prolific, fertile cows, a pet breeder is in the business of producing calves. The newborn calves require regular care and attention. One of the employees mistakenly leaves the fence door open one day, and a freshly born calf escapes to his neighbor's property. The breeder went to the neighbor's property to get the calf and ensure that it was secure. However, after accessing the property, he was detained for trespassing. The breeder filed an appeal. Will the charge be dismissed by the court?
For certain essential or justified intrusions onto another's territory, a trespasser may become a licensee.
Restatement 345 makes an exception for someone who enters another's territory under a public or private privilege. Under Restatement 198, one has the right to enter to collect chattel that he or she has immediate possession of and that was placed on the land without permission. "A person is entitled to enter or remain on land in the property of another if it is or reasonably appears to be required to avert substantial harm to... the individual, or his land or chattels," as per Restatement 197. The invader would be classified as a licensee in both cases.
A foreign visitor was accused of snatching a little child and was on trial. According to the prosecutor, the visitor knew the child personally, which is why the child accompanied him, and the culprit was aware that the child's parents were rich. “I am looking forward to visiting with the child and his parents,” the culprit told the witness, according to the prosecutor. The defense objected to the proposed testimony, saying, "They have a great luxurious mansion that I will enjoy staying there." Will the objection be upheld by the court?
If the information appears to be relevant to the concerns, the court is more likely to accept it.
All of the aforementioned purposes are material to the case and proper uses of a party admission, and impeachment is allowed for material problems in the case. Because the culprit made the statement, it is not hearsay but rather a party acknowledgment. Out-of-court statements are admissible if they are used against the person who made them.
A juvenile was on trial for illegally invading another person's property and stealing an automobile. For the prosecution, the witness can simply affirm that a car was stolen, the model and kind of automobile, and that it was taken from the property on a specific day. “Isn't it possible that my client did not steal the automobile, that someone else stole it, and that the police are lying about the charges against him?” the defense asks the witness. The question was opposed to by the prosecution. Will the objection be upheld by the court?
In situations like this, practical concerns such as the utility of questioning and common sense come into play.
Cross-examination questions must be related to evidence or information already on the record. Leading inquiries are admissible, but random, non-case-related, or speculative questions are not permitted. Irrelevant, contentious, and speculative queries are likewise inefficient and waste time.