evidence law exam sample answer

On cross-examination the prosecution sought to ask Dirk about a four-year-old conviction for unlawful importation of cocaine, arising out Dirk's attempt to transport large quantities of cocaine into the country by hiding them under the floorboard of his Suburban. If you pick more than one answer, no marks will be assigned. Here, the prosecution may be able to argue motive. Here, we list multiple free resources where you can find law school practice exams and model answers. Here, Q would be unavailable in accordance with (a)(3) lack of memory. Dirk is prepared to call Fiona to testify to the statement allegedly made by Velma. Make the required payment via debit/ credit card, wallet balance or Paypal. No computers. . It does not appear that AV was trying to "make a case" against D. She is just hysterical and needs to talk things through. broadly construed to allow these types of statements. The question is really one of proximity. Return to the Main Evidence Page. Under Crawford v. Washington, we look to see if the statement was testimonial. 803(1) -- Under the 803 exceptions, the availability of the declarant is immaterial, so AV's decease doesn't affect the result. Here, the prosecutor wants to offer Q's grand jury testimony for the truth of the matter asserted--that Q heard a woman screaming "no" outside the locker room of the night in question. It is hearsay, but again it You can assign your order to: Basic writer. Since assault has its own legal significance it is not hearsay. He violated any number of traffic laws and refused to stop for the police despite being signaled to do so. Access today! Here, this statement would probably constitute "behavior" by V. Can D use it to prove consent? Evidence Exam Objection Confrontation Clause. Sample Answer To Evidence Essay Law Exam | Best Writing Service You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. Evidence answer examples - Free summaries, lecture notes & exam prep Toggle navigation. of the matter asserted (which is the definition of hearsay), instead robber is showing a propensity to could get a reduced sentence for cooperating is hearsay, however, it But because he took all responsibility and wasn't trying to shift blame by saying that D was "more" or "also" involved (like the Williamson case), it doesn't look like the statements would be excluded. Common Law Admission Test Past Question Papers AV's statements describing what D did to her on the porch, using her for a shield, are probably contemporaneous enough to qualify under 803(1). BB's identification of the robber is permissible. We may request cookies to be set on your device. They delivered it prior to the agreed time. Walton v The Queen, R v motive coming from a cell plant. Questions & Answers: Civil Procedure Questions & Answers: Constitutional Law Questions & Answers: Contracts Questions & Answers: Criminal Law Questions & Answers: Evidence Questions & Answers: Family Law Questions & Answers: Torts SIEGEL'S SERIES: Essay and Multiple-Choice Questions and Answers Velma claimed that Dirk invited her to his dressing room and after chatting for a few minutes attacked her and raped her. Some students start with the exams below, butbefore you start reviewing these exams, first see if your professor has any past exams. the witness, which were not intended to be assertive of the fact they are That Defendant said that he was arrested because he had robbed two However, prior identifications by a witness are admissible as FRE 802 excludes all hearsay unless there is an exception. P should try to find exceptions to fit it under, and likely can. 801(d)(2)(A) will not serve here, because V is not a party in a criminal case. faculties. PDF QUESTION 7 - Sturm College of Law | Sturm College of Law and that is statements that are a party's admission. You are learning to resolve such fact-based disputes using proficient legal reasoning and selecting the most likely answer of the four alternatives. You must write your answers on the exam itself, in the space provided. prior convictions if they are felonies or involve truth and veracity. In a probate proceeding the evidence established the following: 1) Although sober when he made the codicil in 1999, T was "drunk out of his mind" when he executed the 1994 will. At trial the prosecution called Quincy as its first witness. 5. Here being taken hostage by your nephew by knife and having a fight ensue with the police is a very stressful situation. Degree: Master. The police department's tactical unit surrounded the home and waited for Davidson to show himself. P may attempt to argue relevance - any tendency to make a fact more or less probable. Evidence Exam Centrality of credibility -- Very central, as above. Has he been in jail for three of those years, w/o opportunity to commit more crimes? author = "McNicol, {Suzanne Bridget}". The video re-enactment will be hearsay because it is an out of court non-verbal assertive conduct to show the truth of the matter asserted. the government puts someone in a cell with a suspect in order to get This statement is multiple hearsay because Q's statement at a previous grand jury is one layer and the victim's statement is another layer of hearsay. Benz. Whether or not evidence of his prior conviction is admissible is a Rule 609 inquiry. Here the statement was made while he was raping her so arguably she would be under the stress of the excitement; the statement will also be admissible under present sense impression 803(1) since the statement was made while perceiving the event. I don't know that AV was thinking clearly enough to foresee a prosecution (though D will argue she did). In the interview Stiller told the investigating detective: "The drugs in the car were mine, all mine; Davidson had nothing to do with them. Evidence Exam Essay Question Number 1 (Sixty Minutes). 3. Is the certificate of title hearsay? PY - 1998. C. After the arrest of Davidson, the police conducted a proper search of his car, during which search they discovered a substantial quantity of illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. . The exemplar is, in fact, *my* exam essay answer, and if I say so myself, it's a . By using this site, you allow the use of cookies, and you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. That problem raises a legal conflict between disputing sides that must be resolved through the legal process. The problem here is that at a grand jury proceeding, the defendant is not even present so under 804(b)(1) it is not admissible. that a person intended to assert by the representation. . This may not meet the in crimen falsi requirement cited in Brackeen, but if it did, it would automatically come in, subject to the restrictions on details mentioned above. As stated in the advisory committee notes, the reliability of these statements is based upon a lack of time to reflect on the event and fabricate an answer. Therefore irrelevant evidence is not admissible s 56(2). However, it may be admissible to prove another purpose under 404(b). After she heard of Velma's claim, Yolanda knew she had to do something. Sample Answer To Evidence Essay Law Exam | Best Writing Service By continuing you agree to the use of cookies. Do not write your answersin a bluebook. D had no opportunity to cross-x AV in the past, and she's unavailable now. Dual relevance allows for contradiction by extrinsic evidence (though really this may just be a merits question). bias. D will argue that the statements here fail the Contemporaneous test, at least with respect to what happened inside the house since they were inside for an hour before coming out onto the porch for the 'hostage' situation. they said is true (the fact). It is safe and simple. This exception admits hearsay "related to" a startling event or condition, so long as the declarant is still under the "stress of excitement." HS? However, under Huddleston, the other crime must also be relevant and if the court finds that the reasonable jury could not find that D had committed the rape against Y it shall not be admitted. They were dating and one night Dirk raped her in her dorm room after a date. In the alternative the statement is an excited utterance because it is relating to a startling event while under the stress of such an event 803(2). The evidence of his prior convictions can . falls under the exception of a party admission. Rule 801 admits statements describing or explaining an event or condition while or immediately after the event takes place. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered for its truth. Of course this is all subject to a 403 balancing test which can consider the affect of the limiting instruction. According to the detective, Aunt Verna fell into the detective's arms after she was released from Davidson's grasp, and said, "Oh my! She was prepared to testify about her conversation with Aunt Verna in the moments after the defendant's capture. Propensity evidence is inevitably relevant and probative. 3. The key fact here is that We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. it. trial. That Roberts did not receive any promises from anyone in exchange for his testimony. / McNicol, Suzanne Bridget. either not hearsay because it's offered for the effect on the listener It is not an in-court statement or functional equivalent, it is not an extrajudicial sworn statement, and there may not have been a subjective expectation by V that her statement would be later used at a trial. C. Velma testified about the attempted rape and on cross-examination Dirk's lawyer sought to question her about the following matters: 1) Her employment for a number of years with an escort service, which provides female "escorts" for businessmen; and, 2) Her statement to a friend, Fiona, that before Velma went to Dirk's dressing room on the night in question, Velma said to Fiona: "I hope he's into me as much as I'm into him. How should the court rule? FRE 1004 allows secondary evidence to come in and prove the contents of the original if, 1. the original is destroyed by no fault of the proponent. Join us today and ace the exam with ease! Confrontation clause not implicated. Model answers Fact pattern Several elementary school children complained about the taste and appearance of the water in their school's drinking fountains. M.F.M. She fell into the officer's arms and started talking. Click on the different category headings to find out more. First, V's scream/statement can come in under either a 803(1) present sense impression or 803(2) excited utterance hearsay exception. or failure to respond to a question: R v Rose, Was that previous representation made by a person? How should the court rule? Therefore, under 404(a), it is impermissible character evidence. but this will not go to the merits of what Q said and there is no evidence that Q's credibility will carry probative value for the case unless he testifies as to Dirk's (D) character or something along these lines. practice, or policy can be improved to better demonstrate the evidence of its effectiveness. Instead of stopping, Davidson drove to a family residence (later determined to be the home of Davidson's Aunt Verna). The following evidentiary issue may arise in this trial: 803(2) -- Excited Utterance. The state might also argue that this is a crime involving dishonesty and false statement, because D is concealing the drugs, and (possibly) lying to the customs officials who asked him if he was bringing any contraband across the border. When asked about the incident, Quincy surprised the prosecution by testifying that he had not been anywhere near Dirk's dressing room the night of the alleged rape. Answering the sample essay exams and the specific subject matter essay questions, followed by review of the corresponding answers and analysis, provides students with a more thorough comprehension of the Federal Rules of Evidence and a better . Eligibility, Syllabus, Pattern, Question Papers, Answer Key, Result. your knowledge). Custom Essay Writing Service Professionals write your essay - timely, polished, unique. Also the drugs need to be relevant. One of the witnesses subpoenaed by the grand jury was Quincy Mack, the president of the WFU who reluctantly testified that the night in question he was walking by Dirk's dressing room when he heard a woman screaming, "No! Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. banks about 10 years earlier, the statute of limitations had run on provided that it is: 1) likely to show a fact is more probable than not; Explain. representation. 4. The prosecution can also authenticate by distinctive characteristics: the time of rape, no one else would be screaming at that time, and it was a woman's voice. No! Most likely she didn't have any expectations about her statement. It appears the Special i nstructio ns for candidates: x This examination is OPEN BOOK. When a record of a public agency sets forth its activities, matters observed, or factual findings, unless the source of information, or circumstances suggest a lack of trustworthiness, [the record is admissible hearsay.] This evidence doesn't fall under Rape Shield exception of consent because evidence of consent is permitted only when between victim and accused. Oh my! Clearly, "No! That he is an FBI agent who questioned Defendant after Defendant was arrested on the bank robbery charge. The problem is twofold. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer. **2) Does the Hearsay rule apply? If you find additional resources, please comment below! 803(8) states that matters observed pursuant to an official duty may be admissible as a public record, except for law enforcement personnel (because of the adversarial system.) motive by the US Attorney, but isn't very reliable evidence as to their 1. for prior convictions. We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Here, we list multiplefreeresources where you can find law school practice exams and model answers. Failed the bar exam? Here a copy was arguably was made mechanically, usually this is done by machines and not people. doesn't quite fit the party admission exception, the exception is The second piece of evidence that BB will testify to is the That there would be need to be a more substantial amount of evidence suggesting that M is in fact a drug user, which might then have a tendency to show that the drugs belonged to M and not D. Further P may argue that going down that route, and attempting to prove that M in fact does drugs, is a collateral matter, and that even if extrinsic evidence were permitted, here under 403, it would be prejudicial by way of undue waste of time and confusion of issues. If, for example, you have a Constitutional Law professor with 20 years of Constitutional Law exams and sample answers on file, you dont need to use these resources at all! PDF California Bar Examination - The State Bar of California He is unavailable because he has asserted his 5th amendment privilege (804(a)(1).) February 2016 Bar Examination Sample Answers DISCLAIMER These are Sample Examination Questions and Answers: Evidence Law Monash University Dirk claimed that Velma initiated things by kissing and caressing him after she entered his dressing room and that she never asked him to stop. Learn about your options. ), Contract: Cases and Materials (Paterson; Jeannie Robertson; Andrew Duke), Culture and Psychology (Matsumoto; David Matsumoto; Linda Juang), Database Systems: Design Implementation and Management (Carlos Coronel; Steven Morris). 58. In the law of evidence, an implied assertion is a statement or conduct that qualifies. This can include silence any event, the statement should come in because it's relevant, it's hearsay and it doesn't fit an exception. Section 56 of the Uniform Evidence Act states that only The prosecution will argue that the second layer of hearsay the statement by Q should be admitted under 804(b)(1) former testimony; the first thing prosecution has to show is that the witness is unavailable; Under 804(a)(3) loss of memory is enough to show that the witness is unavailable. What would you have to show to establish the authenticity of the videotape? Notably as well, prior to the recent Crawford v. Washington decision, often times a prosecutor would seek to admit grand jury testimony under the R.807 residual exception to hearsay--provided that the testimony was probative (more so than any other reasonably (rx) gathered evidence), material, and carried the same circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness that do other exceptions to hearsay under 803 and 804.

5-letter Words With Only Vowel U In The Middle, Imf Inflation Forecast By Country, Articles E