US — Evidence — Quiz 1
US evidence under the Federal Rules — relevance, hearsay and its exceptions, character, privilege, and impeachment.
- 1.
At trial for armed robbery, the prosecution offers testimony that the defendant was convicted of armed robbery seven years ago. The defendant has not testified and has not offered any character evidence. The prosecutor argues the prior conviction shows a 'signature' pattern. Under FRE 404(b), what is the most accurate statement?
- 2.
Plaintiff sues Defendant for breach of contract. Plaintiff calls an expert witness who holds a Ph.D. in economics and has written peer-reviewed articles on market valuation. The expert proposes to testify that, based on her proprietary model not yet published or peer-reviewed, the plaintiff's lost profits were $2 million. Defendant objects under FRE 702. Which ruling is most consistent with FRE 702 as amended?
- 3.
During cross-examination of the defendant in a criminal case, the prosecutor asks: 'Isn't it true you were arrested for fraud five years ago but never convicted?' Defense counsel objects. How should the court rule?
- 4.
In a federal civil case, a plaintiff seeks to introduce a printout from a company's internal database showing sales figures to prove the defendant's profits. The defendant stipulates the printout is genuine. The defendant objects that the original database entries, not the printout, must be produced. What is the correct analysis under FRE 1002 and 1001?
- 5.
An attorney representing a corporate client receives a memorandum prepared by the corporation's in-house counsel summarizing employee interviews conducted specifically to provide legal advice after a workplace accident. The opposing party subpoenas the memo. The corporation asserts attorney-client privilege. Which statement best describes the applicable privilege analysis?
- 6.
In a murder trial, the defense calls a witness who testifies that the victim had a reputation in the community for extreme violence. The prosecution objects. Under FRE 404 and 405, which is the most accurate ruling?
- 7.
At a civil trial, plaintiff's counsel wants to introduce a statement made by the defendant's employee to an insurance adjuster: 'The forklift's brakes failed two weeks before the accident and we knew about it.' The employee is unavailable. The defendant argues the statement is hearsay. Which analysis is correct?
- 8.
A defendant charged with tax fraud seeks to authenticate a spreadsheet allegedly created by the IRS and found on the defendant's computer. The government offers a witness who testifies she observed the defendant open the file from his desktop. Under FRE 901, is this authentication sufficient?
- 9.
During plaintiff's case-in-chief in a negligence suit, counsel offers evidence that the defendant routinely failed to maintain equipment at its facility over the past three years. The defendant objects under FRE 401 and 403. What is the strongest basis for admitting this evidence?
- 10.
A witness for the prosecution in a federal criminal trial is asked on cross-examination about a prior inconsistent statement she made to police three months before trial. She denies making the statement. Defense counsel then calls another witness to testify about the prior statement. Under FRE 613, is the extrinsic evidence of the prior inconsistent statement admissible?
- 11.
A patient sues her physician for malpractice. The physician seeks to admit the hospital's patient-intake records showing the patient listed a pre-existing heart condition at admission, to show that condition caused her injury. The records were kept in the regular course of hospital business, entered by admissions staff at the time of intake. Under FRE 803(6), are the records admissible?
Questions & answers
1. At trial for armed robbery, the prosecution offers testimony that the defendant was convicted of armed robbery seven years ago. The defendant has not testified and has not offered any character evidence. The prosecutor argues the prior conviction shows a 'signature' pattern. Under FRE 404(b), what is the most accurate statement?
Answer: The evidence may be admissible if offered for a proper non-propensity purpose such as identity, but only if the prior act is sufficiently similar and the probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under FRE 403.
FRE 404(b)(1) bars prior-act evidence to prove propensity, but FRE 404(b)(2) permits it for non-propensity purposes including identity. Even when a proper purpose exists, the court must still apply the FRE 403 balancing test. Options A and D incorrectly bypass the propensity bar; B misstates the rule (404(b) is not a categorical bar for non-testifying defendants); E confuses 404(a) character-opening with the 404(b) framework.
2. Plaintiff sues Defendant for breach of contract. Plaintiff calls an expert witness who holds a Ph.D. in economics and has written peer-reviewed articles on market valuation. The expert proposes to testify that, based on her proprietary model not yet published or peer-reviewed, the plaintiff's lost profits were $2 million. Defendant objects under FRE 702. Which ruling is most consistent with FRE 702 as amended?
Answer: The court must act as gatekeeper and assess whether the expert's methodology is sufficiently reliable — peer review is one relevant factor but not an absolute requirement.
FRE 702 requires the court to ensure expert testimony rests on sufficient facts, reliable methodology, and reliable application of that methodology to the facts. Peer review is a relevant consideration but not a mandatory requirement. Option A imposes a categorical rule FRE 702 does not contain; B ignores the methodological inquiry; D and E are incorrect on the law.
3. During cross-examination of the defendant in a criminal case, the prosecutor asks: 'Isn't it true you were arrested for fraud five years ago but never convicted?' Defense counsel objects. How should the court rule?