JD Evidence 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under FRE 702, expert testimony is admissible when the expert's opinion is based on:
- Personal observation of the events at issue
- Sufficient facts or data and reliable principles and methods (Correct answer)
- The same information available to lay witnesses
- Hearsay evidence specifically excluded under FRE 803
Correct answer: Sufficient facts or data and reliable principles and methods
FRE 702, as interpreted in Daubert, requires that expert testimony be grounded in sufficient facts, reliable methodology, and proper application of that methodology.
Question 2: Under FRE 407, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is inadmissible to prove:
- Ownership or control of a premises
- Negligence or culpable conduct related to the prior event (Correct answer)
- The feasibility of a precautionary measure when disputed
- Impeachment of a witness who denies making repairs
Correct answer: Negligence or culpable conduct related to the prior event
FRE 407 bars subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence or culpable conduct, encouraging defendants to make safety improvements without fear of that evidence being used against them.
Question 3: Which standard does a trial judge use under FRE 104(a) when deciding preliminary questions of admissibility?
- Beyond a reasonable doubt
- Clear and convincing evidence
- Preponderance of the evidence (Correct answer)
- Probable cause
Correct answer: Preponderance of the evidence
Under FRE 104(a), preliminary questions of admissibility are decided by the court by a preponderance of the evidence standard.
Question 4: Under the spousal testimonial privilege in federal courts, who holds the privilege?
- The defendant spouse only
- The testifying spouse only (Correct answer)
- Either spouse may assert it
- The court may assert it sua sponte
Correct answer: The testifying spouse only
In federal courts under Trammel v. United States, the testifying spouse holds the privilege and may choose to testify against the defendant spouse.
Question 5: Under FRE 613, a prior inconsistent statement of a witness may be used to:
- Prove the truth of what the prior statement asserts
- Impeach the witness's credibility (Correct answer)
- Establish an exception to the hearsay rule
- Substitute for the witness's in-court testimony
Correct answer: Impeach the witness's credibility
FRE 613 allows prior inconsistent statements to be used to impeach a witness's credibility by showing inconsistency, not as substantive proof.
Question 6: Under FRE 404(a)(2), in a criminal case, a defendant may offer evidence of their own character trait if it is:
- Pertinent to the charged offense (Correct answer)
- Supported by documentary evidence
- Corroborated by expert testimony
- Uncontested by the prosecution
Correct answer: Pertinent to the charged offense
FRE 404(a)(2)(A) allows a criminal defendant to offer evidence of a pertinent character trait, opening the door for the prosecution to rebut it.
Question 7: The excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (FRE 803(2)) requires that the statement:
- Be made in writing immediately after the startling event
- Relate to a startling event and be made under stress of excitement (Correct answer)
- Be corroborated by a second witness
- Be made before the declarant had time to speak with an attorney
Correct answer: Relate to a startling event and be made under stress of excitement
FRE 803(2) excepts statements relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event.
JD Evidence 2
Under FRE 702, expert testimony is admissible when the expert's opinion is based on: