Free Doctor of Jurisprudence Questions and Answers

Question 1

After his fiancée vanished, a man was escorted to a police station to be questioned. No Miranda warnings were issued to the man. After being questioned by a police officer for a short while, the man confessed to killing his fiancée and said that he discarded the gun he used to shoot her in a swamp several miles outside of the city. The cops spent several weeks conducting a thorough search of the marsh before discovering the gun. Murder in the first degree is the man's alleged crime. The gun will be used as evidence against the individual at trial by the prosecutor.

The man makes a case for suppressing the gun throughout the trial. Will he succeed?

Accepted Answer

No, because the exclusionary rule will not serve to exclude the gun from evidence.

Answer

No, pursuant to the “inevitable discovery” exception to the exclusionary rule.

Answer

Yes, because the man was not given Miranda warnings.

Answer

Yes, because the interrogation violated the man’s due process rights.

Question 2

The plaintiff calls a witness to testify on her behalf in a civil battery lawsuit where the defendant was accused of tripping the plaintiff as she descended the stairs. The testimony of the plaintiff is verified by the witness.

The defendant's attorney then asks the witness during cross-examination, "Isn't it true that you tried to glance at your notes during the CPA exam last year in order to cheat?" The plaintiff's attorney raises an objection to the inquiry.

How should the court decide in regards to the objection?

Accepted Answer

It should be overruled because the question regards the credibility of the witness.

Answer

It should be overruled because it is permissible character evidence.

Answer

It should be sustained because character cannot be proved by specific instances of conduct.

Answer

It should be sustained because the question is irrelevant to the civil battery case.

Question 3

A man was attending a neighborhood get-together at his neighbor's home. The neighbor's new garden hose caught the man's attention. The man remembered that he needed to water his plants when he saw the garden hose. While the neighbor was having visitors over, the man made the decision to utilize the garden hose. In his backyard, the man extended the garden hose and started watering the plants. The garden hose, however, was stretched too thinly, split in half, and was irreparably damaged.

Will the neighbor win if they file a lawsuit for damages?

Accepted Answer

Yes, for the value of the garden hose before the neighbor broke it.

Answer

No, because the neighbor did not intend to damage the garden hose.

Answer

Yes, for the actual damage to the garden hose.

Answer

No, because the neighbor did not intend to keep the garden hose.

Question 4

Testator's son, a 70-year-old widower, had one unmarried adult son and one unmarried adult daughter. Testator designed his home "to my son for life, then to my son's children and their heirs."

The court will decide that the following is the appropriate course of action to interpret the words of the will:

Accepted Answer

Vested, subject to partial divestment.

Answer

Contingent.

Answer

Indefeasibly vested.

Answer

Vested, subject to total divestment.

Question 5

In a legal case for the conversion of her car, the plaintiff is seeking to present evidence that the defendant approached her at her place of employment after her car vanished and claimed, ""I just stole your car. How does being stranded feel?The entire exchange was captured on camera by the company's security system. Regarding the plaintiff's testimony regarding his statement, the respondent objects.

Is the plaintiff's testimony about the comment made by the defendant admissible?

Accepted Answer

Yes, because it is not hearsay.

Answer

No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.

Answer

Yes, as a declaration against interest.

Answer

No, because the tape recording is the best evidence.

Question 6

A man made the decision to break into a property since he knew the owner had a sizable collection of expensive jewelry. The man smashed the latch on the door and entered during the day when he believed the owner was at work. He could hear footsteps upstairs, where the owner was actually located. When the man noticed a necklace lying on a coffee table, he grabbed it out of nervousness. The man busted a window in a hurry as soon as he heard the owner start to descend the stairs. In fact, the owner had just begun making his way downstairs when the man arrived, and he saw him taking the necklace and breaking the glass.The owner was extremely alarmed by the latter behavior, and the police were contacted.

What crime(s) might the man have committed under common law?

Accepted Answer

Larceny.

Answer

Robbery.

Answer

Robbey and burglary.

Answer

Larceny and burglary.

Question 7

A contract was signed by a seller to transfer Blackacre to a buyer. The buyer was ready to perform on May 1, but the seller was not, even though the contract indicated that the closing had to take place ""on May 1."" The seller was prepared to close on Blackacre on June 1. The buyer alleges that the seller has broken the contract and does not want to proceed with the closing.

Does the buyer have to complete the closing?

Accepted Answer

Yes, unless the contract or the circumstances indicate that time is of the essence.

Answer

No, because the closing date is an express term of the contract that must be complied with exactly.

Answer

No, because one month is not a reasonable time after the initial closing date.

Answer

Yes, unless the buyer can show the delay of closing caused the buyer to suffer undue harm.