General Objections
Hearsay Objections
Procedures
Scenarios
Scenarios
100
Full name of the person that is in charge of KMTA
Dan Meadors
100
What is hearsay? (definition)
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. (Rule 801)
100
Time stops for objections. True or False?
True!
100
Ricky, a short Asian man with long dark hair, is charged with robbing a bank. The prosecution offers a surveillance tape of the robbery, which shows that the robber is short with long dark hair but which does not show enough detail to demonstrate that the robber is or is not the defendant. Is the tape relevant and admissible?
The tape is relevant and admissible , because it tends to show that the robber was a short man with long dark hair and this fact makes it more likely than not that the robber is the defendant than would be the case if the tape was not in evidence.
100
Katie is injured when she is hit by Tiffany's car. In a prosecution for negligent homicide, the prosecution offers testimony by Katie that she saw Tiffany driving at a speed of about 55 miles per hour. Is Katie’s testimony relevant?
Yes, it is relevant because Katie’s testimony makes it more likely than not that Tiffany was traveling at 55 miles per hour.
200
How many mock trial tournaments has Yujeong participated in?
4
200
Plaintiff: Hope Defense: Claire Claire: "Hope came up to me and told me I can't tell anyone that she cheated and if I do, she's going to tell everyone who my crush is." Is this a hearsay exception, and if so, which one?
Hearsay exception: "party opponent"= Hope
200
When can you challenge stipulations?
Before the court takes session. Stipulations require agreements from both parties and thus must be configured before the trial begins.
200
Leanne enters Grace’s living room and says, “I am marrying JJ.” JJ has been Grace’s boyfriend for five years. Grace takes a paper weight and smashes it on Leanne’s head, killing her. At Grace's trial for murder, Leanne's statement is offered by Grace’s attorney to show that the killing was provoked. Hearsay?
No, this is not hearsay. It is an out of court statement, but it is not being offered to prove the truth of what it asserts, that Carla was marrying Jack, but that Jill was provoked by Carla—In other words, it is being offered to show its effect on the listener.
200
Joe is arrested for possession of cocaine, which the prosecution asserts was contained in the “salt” shaker on Joe’s kitchen table. The prosecutor offers as evidence a lab report stating, “The “salt” in the shaker is 90% cocaine.” Is the report Hearsay?
Yes, the report is inadmissible hearsay, because it is an out-of-court statement being offered to prove that the “salt” is cocaine
300
Explain "probative value"
evidence which is sufficiently useful to prove something important in a trial
300
There's an exhibit that shows Nathan's medical history. You try to enter it as evidence, but they object to hearsay. Is this a hearsay?
No, because it falls under Rule 803 4b. describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.
300
The prosecution can't reserve time for closing statements because it's a criminal court.
True or False? False. Regardless of whether it is a criminal case our a civil one, the plaintiff/prosecution side can reserve time for closing statements.
300
Joe is was inside a grocery store shopping when it was robbed. The assailants escape from the scene just as the police arrive. Joe runs up to the police and exclaims in a highly excited state, ”It was Linda Jones who robbed the store!!!” This statement is offered by the police officer to show that Linda Jones robbed the store. The declarant, Joe, died of a stroke ten days later. Hearsay?
Yes, this is hearsay because it is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the matter that it asserts, that Linda Jones robbed the grocery store. However, it is admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.
300
The little pig runs away and the fox eats him. At the fox’s murder trial, the Mad Hatter, a witness, testifies; ”When they were searching for the “little pig”, Alice told me that the fox said he’d eaten the little pig.” The statement is offered by the prosecution to prove that fox ate the little pig. Is this admissible or is it hearsay?
It is “multiple hearsay.” It is an out-of-court declaration which quotes another out-of-court declaration. The main out-of-court declarant is Alice whose statement is offered to show that fox ate the little pig. Even though the statement of fox to Alice may fit into an exception, admission of a party opponent, it doesn’t matter. For it to have been admissible, both out-of-court statements must have fit into an exception
400
Under what conditions would a fact/evidence be inadmissible in court?
excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice, misleading the jury etc
400
Joe is was inside a grocery store shopping when it was robbed. The assailants escape from the scene just as the police arrive. Joe runs up to the police and exclaims in a highly excited state, ”It was Linda Jones who robbed the store!!!” This statement is offered by the police officer to show that Linda Jones robbed the store. The declarant, Joe, died of a stroke ten days later. Hearsay?
It is admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.
400
True or False? The credibility of a witness can be attacked [impeachment] by any party, including the party calling the witness.
True. Rule 607
400
Claire is charged with fraud because she swindled the elderly Clara out of her retirement money. The prosecutor wants to show that the Claire owed money to other people and always failed pay these people back even when she had money to do so. What objection would you raise to this?
This is improper evidence of other bad acts that is obviously being offered to show that the defendant is a bad character who has the propensity to do bad things. This is highly prejudicial evidence and is not relevant to show that it was more or less likely that the defendant committed fraud.
400
Annie and Diane are sitting on their front porch one day when they see Suahn zoom buy in her beat up BMW and run through the stop sign at the end of the street and hit the side of Clara's new Porsche. Annie observes calmly, and comments, “there goes Suahn, watching the girls instead of the road again.” At a subsequent trial, Annie's comment is offered into evidence to prove that Suahn was not paying attention to the road. Is this an admissible statement? Is it hearsay?
Admissible: Present sense impression
500
Describe character evidence
Any testimony or document submitted for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on the character or disposition of that person
500
Joe is walking along a sidewalk with Martha in New York City. Jim White walks up behind them and says, “Look!! can you believe how fast that guy on the skateboard is moving?” The guy on the skateboard, the defendant Carl Culpable, runs right into Martha and Martha falls backward, cracks her head on the pavement and dies. Jim White is unavailable to testify at trial. The statement is offered by the State during the testimony of Joe in a prosecution for the negligent homicide of Martha. It is offered to show the guy of the skateboard was going really fast. Hearsay?
It is admissible under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule
500
What are the 5 criteria for laying foundation to the expertise of a [expert] witness? list at least three.
knowledge skill experience training education
500
Ricky is on trial for larceny for stealing a stereo. Ricky defends himself on the grounds that he did not realize that the stereo was not his stereo. Alice, his neighbor, testifies: “just before Joe took the stereo, Joe told me, “I’m taking this stereo because it’s mine’
Admissible under the “then existing state of mind” exception to the hearsay rule and would be admissible to show Joe’s lack of intent to deprive another of his property.
500
In a criminal prosecution for assault and battery, the prosecution seeks to admit the testimony of a witness, who did not see the assault and battery, that one week later he saw the victim holding his jaw and crying from the apparent agony of his injury. Is this relevant?
No, this is not relevant. It is not evidence that would make any issue regarding the guilt of the defendant, whether or not the defendant committed an assault and battery more or less likely. The testimony is also to inflammatory as likely to unfairly arouse an emotional response from the trier of fact.
M
e
n
u