WY Bar Evidence 3

Question 1

Under FRE 404(a)(2), a criminal defendant may introduce evidence of a pertinent character trait. If the defendant does so, the prosecution may then:

Accepted Answer

Rebut with reputation or opinion evidence of the defendant's bad character for that same trait

Answer

Introduce evidence of any prior bad acts committed by the defendant

Answer

Introduce the defendant's full criminal history regardless of relevance

Answer

Call character witnesses only after the defendant has testified

Question 2

Under FRE 803(6), the business records exception requires all of the following EXCEPT:

Accepted Answer

The record was authenticated by an expert witness at trial

Answer

The record was made at or near the time of the event

Answer

The record was made by or from information transmitted by someone with knowledge

Answer

The record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity

Question 3

Under FRE 901, authentication of evidence requires:

Accepted Answer

Evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims

Answer

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the item is what the proponent claims

Answer

A chain of custody affidavit signed by all persons who handled the evidence

Answer

Judicial notice that the evidence is genuine

Question 4

Under FRE 407, subsequent remedial measures evidence may nonetheless be admitted to prove:

Accepted Answer

Ownership or control, or to impeach a witness who claims no safer design existed

Answer

Negligence per se in a products liability case

Answer

That the defendant had prior knowledge of a dangerous condition

Answer

Punitive damages where the defendant showed conscious disregard

Question 5

Under FRE 615, the rule on exclusion of witnesses (sequestration) does NOT apply to:

Accepted Answer

A party who is a natural person

Answer

Expert witnesses designated as the party's representative

Answer

Fact witnesses who have already testified

Answer

Witnesses who are members of the public

Question 6

Under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment as interpreted in Crawford v. Washington, testimonial hearsay statements by unavailable declarants are admissible only if:

Accepted Answer

The defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant

Answer

They fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception

Answer

The statements were voluntarily made without government inducement

Answer

A judge finds the statements reliable under the totality of the circumstances

Question 7

Under FRE 801(d)(2)(E), a co-conspirator's statement is admissible as non-hearsay if the statement was made:

Accepted Answer

During the conspiracy, in furtherance of the conspiracy, by a member of the conspiracy

Answer

At any time, by any person associated with the conspiracy, about any topic related to the case

Answer

After the conspiracy ended but before the defendant was arrested

Answer

By any co-defendant, regardless of whether a conspiracy has been charged