FREE Evidence MBE Questions And Answers

Question 1

A witness in a murder case doesn't always offer the same account truthfully; instead, he has given many accounts of his observations to various people and investigators throughout the course of time.
The witness was called to the stand by the prosecution during the trial to describe what he saw.
By referencing earlier contradictory statements and charging him with fabricating his testimony, the defendant's attorney attacked the credibility of the witness's testimony.
The prosecution then made an effort to restore his credibility by bringing up earlier, reliable remarks.
Since prior consistent comments are alleged to be repetitive, cumulative, and to unfairly enhance the witness's credibility, they are typically not admissible.
Will the court probably permit the prosecution to rehabilitate the witness based on earlier reliable testimony in light of these circumstances?

Accepted Answer

Yes, because it is being used to rehabilitate a witness whose credibility was attacked.

Answer

Yes, because all repetitive prior statements are important to show the consistency of the witness’ testimony.

Answer

No, because the witness cannot be rehabilitated once a successful impeachment has occurred.

Answer

No, because it would tend to confuse the jury with too much conflicting evidence.

Question 2

When she was seven months pregnant, a female executive assistant employee was let go from her job. She filed a Title VII civil rights lawsuit against the company in federal court alleging gender discrimination. The proposed witness had been a vice-president of the company and a close adviser to the president; at trial, she was not permitted to testify that she heard the human relations manager say in an informal meeting that the plaintiff and her predecessor were both fired due to what the manager described as "pregnancy complications." The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant employer without the benefit of such crucial testimony. The plaintiff maintained that the testimony should have been accepted and that it did not qualify as hearsay under federal regulations in the appeal. The court is likely to rule in favor of the appeal and mandate a fresh trial.

Accepted Answer

Yes, because that kind of testimony is reliable and not excludable as hearsay.

Answer

No, because it was based on things that the co-worker heard from others, making double-hearsay that is never admissible.

Answer

Yes, because it was admissible under the "spontaneous utterance" exception to the hearsay rules.

Answer

No, because the statement is clearly hearsay with no exception to the hearsay rule being applicable.

Question 3

An undergraduate went to a fraternity party. He caught a young woman making sexually provocative eye contact with him. He took her home, raped her without her consent, and then left. After being raped, she ran away and went straight to the police. The rape case was reported by the police. Many guys agreed to testify that the woman was promiscuous, that they had intercourse with her, and that she was quite prolific in her sexual life, according to the student-defendant, who found them willing witnesses. According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, will the trial court likely allow the witnesses to testify about the woman's sexual propensities?

Accepted Answer

No, because such "sexual predisposition" evidence is generally prohibited by the rules of evidence except under narrow exceptions.

Answer

No, because the rules of evidence prohibit all evidence of a victim’s prior sexual history.

Answer

Yes, because the rules permit evidence of a victim’s sexual predisposition to test credibility.

Answer

Yes, because the evidence will help the jury see that there may be two sides to the story and that the woman was thus the sexual predator instead of the man.

Question 4

When a truck rushing on the sand mowed down an elderly person sunbathing, the man was peacefully and relaxedly resting in a beach chair. Oh my God, see what that truck driver did, the man exclaimed aloud. The truck's driver was racing while traveling at a speed of roughly 100 mph. Please dial 911.When the case goes to trial, would the court allow both the guy and the lady to testify about the man's statements? " A woman, who was sitting on the beach close but looking the other direction, heard the man's outcry.

Accepted Answer

Yes, both the woman and the man can testify because it is an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule that goes to the material issue of the case.

Answer

No, neither of them can testify because the man was impaired due to being too relaxed from his meditation, and the woman cannot repeat the utterances of an impaired witness.

Answer

No, neither can testify because the utterances do not fit any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Answer

Yes, because this is not hearsay and it is not being entered for the truth of the statement by either witness so that they can both testify.

Question 5

After his home theater ignited a devastating fire that destroyed the equipment and a portion of his home, the owner filed a lawsuit against the maker of video and home theater products. He filed a federal lawsuit against the manufacturer. The plaintiff's expert's report and testimony were challenged at trial by the defendants in a motion made according to Federal Rule of Evidence. 702. The defendants assert bias, a lack of scientific backing, a lack of testing, differences in expert opinions, and the fact that the expert was prepared to deal with big commercial fires. Over 500 fires had been investigated by the expert, who also published a book that was used in classrooms across the country and instructed a course in forensic fire investigations at a university. Her report ruled out every other scenario. As required by Rule 702, the court conducted a gate-keeping review and determined that the expert was highly competent and that she had followed recognized scientific procedures to form her conclusion. The verdict was appealed by the defendants. Given these circumstances, is the appellate court likely to disagree with the judgment?

Accepted Answer

No, the court did the required gate-keeping inquiry and found that the witness was not only qualified and competent, but also used the accepted methodologies.

Answer

Yes, because whenever the expert does not back up her conclusion with experimental testing, an expert's opinion will be insufficiently reliable to be allowed.

Answer

No, the court has absolute discretion in deciding the competency of the expert for purposes of giving expert trial testimony and evidence.

Answer

Yes, because the charge of bias against an expert witness requires a "trial within a trial" and that was not done.

Question 6

A painting was stolen collectively from an art gallery. One of them—the driver—was apprehended while committing another crime. "I didn't even get any money from the art museum," he admitted to the cops. Is the driver's statement admissible in court when the first and second guy stand trial for the theft of the art painting?

Accepted Answer

No, because the statement was not made in the course of or in furtherance of the conspiracy and thus it is hearsay.

Answer

No, because it was made while in custody and therefore is unreliable.

Answer

Yes, as an admission by a party opponent.

Answer

Yes, as a statement against the interests of the other defendants.

Question 7

A foreign visitor who had abducted a young child was on trial. The prosecutor claimed that the visitor personally knew the youngster, which is why the child accompanied him, and that the offender was aware that the child's parents were wealthy. A witness was produced by the prosecution to attest that the offender informed him, "I am looking forward to visiting with the boy and his parents. The suggested testimony was rejected by the defense because of the couple's gorgeously opulent home. Will the court probably uphold the protest?

Accepted Answer

No, the statement can come in as impeachment if the accused takes the stand, and as a party admission to show the material facts of knowing the child and that the family had money.

Answer

Yes, the prejudice of the statement will greatly outweigh its probative value.

Answer

Yes, the statement is irrelevant to the issue of guilt or innocence.

Answer

No, the statement is admissible to impeach the accused and establish he is lying on cross, if he takes the stand.