FREE Bar Exam MBE (Constitutional Law II) Questions and Answers

Question 1

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?

Accepted Answer

No, because it is insufficiently dependable, and there was far too much speculation to make an exact identification.

Answer

No, because past identification claims are considered hearsay and are never admitted into evidence.

Answer

Yes, if the witness saw the perpetrator's eyes and made the identification based on that, it was trustworthy enough to be admitted.

Answer

Yes, because all that is required is for the witness to recognize someone; the witness' dependability or trustworthiness is subject to cross examination.

Question 2

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?

Accepted Answer

The MRI records must be produced since they are the best evidence under the best evidence criterion.

Answer

Because a layperson cannot testify to personal observations, she must present the MRI scan.

Answer

She is not required to produce the MRI scan since a layperson can testify to things like the appearance of a sponge.

Answer

She is exempt from producing the MRI scan because she can testify about the contents of her own medical records.

Question 3

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?

Accepted Answer

Yes, the modern law states that the landlord, like anybody else, has a responsibility to take reasonable precautions to safeguard its tenants and others from harm caused by a foreseeable danger of harm.

Answer

No, because even under current law, a landlord cannot be held accountable for faulty design or upkeep.

Answer

Yes, the landlord is solely responsible for the unreasonably unsafe state he allowed to exist.

Answer

No, because the landlord is still protected by the common law notion of "lessee beware," and residential property is still rented "as is."

Question 4

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?

Accepted Answer

Yes, since the search was unconstitutional because the officer lacked probable cause to search the vehicle.

Answer

Yes, because when a car is pulled over for speeding, the officer is required to get a search warrant before conducting any investigation.

Answer

No, because a fidgety driver is enough to warrant a comprehensive car search for probable cause.

Answer

No, the stop and search were legal and proper for a speeding stop.

Question 5

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?

Accepted Answer

No, because he had no interference with his personal property ownership or possession rights.

Answer

Yes, conversion is a deliberate tort, and the pizzeria owner did want to convert and did convert a portion of his burger operation.

Answer

Yes, since the pizza shop owner infringed on his right to quiet enjoyment of his business and disrupted his operations.

Answer

No, because conversion entails stealing someone else's real estate.

Question 6

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?

Accepted Answer

No, because the question has no bearing on the witness's or defendant's credibility or guilt.

Answer

No, because a witness can never be questioned about previous bad behavior.

Answer

Yes, because feeding pigeons in the park and continuing to do so after being ticketed may indicate that the witness is antisocial.

Answer

Yes, because the witness' attention was always drawn to the pigeons, according to the statement.

Question 7

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?

Accepted Answer

Yes, because he was only allowed to enter the property on a limited basis in order to protect his chattel.

Answer

Because of the tender pet doctrine, temporary admission is permitted to retrieve infant animals.

Answer

No, because any living chattels that passed onto his territory belonged to the neighbor.

Answer

No, because his status as a breeder disqualified him from obtaining a restricted license.

Question 8

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?

Accepted Answer

No, if the accused takes the stand, the statement can be utilized as impeachment as well as a party admission to prove the material facts of knowing the child and the family's financial situation.

Answer

Yes, the statement has no bearing on whether or not someone is guilty or innocent.

Answer

No, if the accused takes the stand, the statement can be used to impeach him and prove he is lying on the stand.

Answer

Yes, the statement's prejudicial value will surpass its probative value.

Question 9

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?

Accepted Answer

Yes, since this is an obnoxious question based only on assumption.

Answer

Yes, because it is illegal to call the police's credibility into question without significant evidence.

Answer

No, because a cross-examiner is granted broad questioning latitude because the witness may know something he isn't telling.

Answer

No, interrogation concerning the potential of other culprits or police malfeasance is always allowed.

Question 10

Which provision of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech?

Accepted Answer

First amendment

Answer

Second amendment

Answer

Fourth amendment

Answer

Fifth amendment