TRY ME!
Impeachment And Evidence Rules
Summary
In legal proceedings, witness impeachment can involve questioning their truthfulness, and specific acts of dishonesty may be relevant. Extrinsic evidence is generally inadmissible for collateral matters. Convictions within ten years may be admissible if their probative value outweighs prejudice. Lay opinions are admissible if based on perception and helpful to the jury. Police officers can offer lay opinions based on observations. Expert testimony requires reliable methods and qualifications. Marital communications privilege does not apply if communications further criminal activity.Full Conversation
*) During a robbery trial, the defendant testifies in his own defense, claiming he was home at the time of the robbery. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks the defendant whether he previously lied to a police officer during a * traffic stop by giving a false name. The defendant denies it. The prosecutor then seeks to introduce the police report from the * traffic stop, which states that the defendant admitted he gave a false name to avoid an outstanding warrant. Which of the following is the most accurate?
a. The report is admissible because the defendant opened the door by testifying.
b. The report is admissible to impeach the defendant’s credibility with extrinsic evidence of prior dishonesty.
c. The report is inadmissible because extrinsic evidence of collateral matters is not permitted for impeachment.
d. The report is inadmissible hearsay not subject to any exception.
In the situation you described, the correct answer would be:
c. The report is inadmissible because extrinsic evidence of collateral matters is not permitted for impeachment.
This is because introducing extrinsic evidence to impeach a defendant's credibility on a collateral matter (like a prior instance of lying during a traffic stop) is generally not allowed in court.
c. The report is inadmissible because extrinsic evidence of collateral matters is not permitted for impeachment.
This is because introducing extrinsic evidence to impeach a defendant's credibility on a collateral matter (like a prior instance of lying during a traffic stop) is generally not allowed in court.
*) During a federal trial for mail fraud, the defendant takes the stand to testify in his own defense. On cross-examination, the prosecutor seeks to impeach him by introducing certified records of a nine-year-old felony conviction for bank fraud, for which the defendant served three years in prison. The defense objects, arguing the conviction is too prejudicial and too old. How should the court rule on the admissibility of the conviction for impeachment purposes?
a. The conviction is inadmissible because it is more than five years old and thus too remote to be relevant.
b. The conviction is admissible because it is a felony that occurred within the last ten years and involves a dishonest act, which is automatically admissible.
c. The conviction is admissible only if the court finds that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant.
d. The conviction is inadmissible unless the defendant opens the door to it by testifying about his good character.
In the scenario you described, the most accurate answer is:
c. The conviction is admissible only if the court finds that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a conviction that's older than 10 years is generally inadmissible. However, if it's within 10 years, the court must weigh its probative value against potential prejudice. The rule considers both the nature of the crime and its relevance to the current case.
c. The conviction is admissible only if the court finds that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a conviction that's older than 10 years is generally inadmissible. However, if it's within 10 years, the court must weigh its probative value against potential prejudice. The rule considers both the nature of the crime and its relevance to the current case.
*) During a civil trial for personal injury following a bar fight, the plaintiff calls a bystander, Leo, who testifies that he saw the defendant strike the plaintiff during a bar fight. The plaintiff then asks Leo, “Did it seem to you that the plaintiff was in pain after the punch?” The defense objects on the ground that Leo is not a medical expert and cannot testify about the plaintiff’s condition. How should the court rule?
a. Sustain the objection, because only expert witnesses may testify about physical or emotional pain.
b. Overrule the objection, because a lay person’s opinion is admissible if it is rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to the jury’s understanding.
c. Sustain the objection, because pain is a subjective experience that cannot be inferred by a third party.
d. Overrule the objection, because any opinion testimony is automatically admissible in a civil case.
Case Rating: *
The court should rule to overrule the objection based on option b: "Overrule the objection, because a lay person’s opinion is admissible if it is rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to the jury’s understanding." Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, lay witnesses can provide opinions if they are based on their own perceptions and helpful to understanding a fact in issue.
The court should rule to overrule the objection based on option b: "Overrule the objection, because a lay person’s opinion is admissible if it is rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to the jury’s understanding." Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, lay witnesses can provide opinions if they are based on their own perceptions and helpful to understanding a fact in issue.
*) During a criminal trial for driving under the influence (DUI), a police officer who was not certified as a drug recognition expert testifies, “In my opinion, the defendant was drunk when I pulled him over.” The defense objects, arguing that the officer is offering an impermissible expert opinion. How should the court rule?
a. Sustain the objection, because the officer is offering a medical diagnosis that requires expert testimony.
b. Overrule the objection, because the officer’s opinion is based on personal observations and falls within permissible lay opinion.
c. Sustain the objection, because any opinion about intoxication must be supported by chemical testing or expert certification.
d. Overrule the objection, because law enforcement officers are exempt from the expert testimony requirements.
Case Rating: *
In the scenario you described, the court should likely overrule the objection based on option b: "Overrule the objection, because the officer’s opinion is based on personal observations and falls within permissible lay opinion." Lay witnesses, like police officers, can provide opinions based on their own observations, such as a driver's behavior, speech, or smell of alcohol, which they perceive during a DUI stop.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
In the scenario you described, the court should likely overrule the objection based on option b: "Overrule the objection, because the officer’s opinion is based on personal observations and falls within permissible lay opinion." Lay witnesses, like police officers, can provide opinions based on their own observations, such as a driver's behavior, speech, or smell of alcohol, which they perceive during a DUI stop.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
*) In a product liability case, the plaintiff seeks to introduce the testimony of Dr. Perez, who has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and has published widely on industrial machinery. Dr. Perez has never worked with the specific type of machine at issue in the case but reviewed its schematics and conducted simulations based on industry standards. The defense objects, arguing that Dr. Perez is not qualified as an expert. How should the court rule on whether Dr. Perez may testify as an expert?
a. Exclude the testimony because expert qualification requires direct experience with the specific product at issue.
b. Admit the testimony because any person with an advanced degree can testify as an expert.
c. Admit the testimony if the court finds that Dr. Perez’s knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education qualifies him to give helpful opinion testimony.
d. Exclude the testimony unless Dr. Perez personally inspected the machine involved in the accident.
Case Rating: *
The court should rule to admit the testimony based on option c: "Admit the testimony if the court finds that Dr. Perez’s knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education qualifies him to give helpful opinion testimony."
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, an expert's qualifications are not limited to direct experience with the specific product. The court considers the expert's overall qualifications and whether their testimony will aid the jury.
The court should rule to admit the testimony based on option c: "Admit the testimony if the court finds that Dr. Perez’s knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education qualifies him to give helpful opinion testimony."
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, an expert's qualifications are not limited to direct experience with the specific product. The court considers the expert's overall qualifications and whether their testimony will aid the jury.
*) In a federal toxic tort case, the plaintiff offers the testimony of Dr. Lang, a biochemist, to establish that exposure to a specific industrial solvent caused the plaintiff’s neurological condition. Dr. Lang bases her opinion on her own unpublished data, anecdotal case reports, and an experimental method she developed but which has not been subjected to peer review or general scientific acceptance. Should the court:
a. Exclude the testimony, because expert opinions must be based on generally accepted scientific methods.
b. Admit the testimony, because any relevant opinion from a qualified expert is admissible, regardless of methodology.
c. Exclude the testimony, because the methodology lacks sufficient indicia of reliability, including testability, peer review, known error rates, and general acceptance.
d. Admit the testimony, because experts are permitted to rely on personal experience and anecdotal evidence so long as it helps the jury.
Case Rating: *
In the scenario you described, the court would likely exclude the testimony based on option c: "Exclude the testimony, because the methodology lacks sufficient indicia of reliability, including testability, peer review, known error rates, and general acceptance." Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, expert testimony must be based on reliable principles and methods that are scientifically accepted.
In the scenario you described, the court would likely exclude the testimony based on option c: "Exclude the testimony, because the methodology lacks sufficient indicia of reliability, including testability, peer review, known error rates, and general acceptance." Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, expert testimony must be based on reliable principles and methods that are scientifically accepted.
In a prosecution for armed robbery, the defendant asserts an insanity defense. The defense calls Dr. M testifies: “Based on my evaluation and testing, the defendant suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. During the time of the offense, his symptoms included auditory hallucinations, disorganized thinking, and impaired judgment. These symptoms would have significantly interfered with his ability to understand reality.” The prosecutor objects. How should the court rule?
a. Overrule the objection, because Dr. M describes defendant’s general mental condition without addressing the ultimate issue of his guilt or appreciation of the wrongfulness of his actions.
b. Sustain the objection, because any testimony on mental illness is barred in federal criminal trials.
c. Sustain the objection, because expert testimony is never permitted in support of an insanity defense.
d. Overrule the objection, because the federal rules on expert testimony only applies in civil cases, not criminal cases.
Case Rating: *
In the scenario you described, the court should likely overrule the objection based on option a: "Overrule the objection, because Dr. M describes defendant’s general mental condition without addressing the ultimate issue of his guilt or appreciation of the wrongfulness of his actions." Expert testimony regarding mental conditions is admissible to help the jury understand the defendant's mental state, as long as it does not directly address the ultimate issue of legal guilt.
In the scenario you described, the court should likely overrule the objection based on option a: "Overrule the objection, because Dr. M describes defendant’s general mental condition without addressing the ultimate issue of his guilt or appreciation of the wrongfulness of his actions." Expert testimony regarding mental conditions is admissible to help the jury understand the defendant's mental state, as long as it does not directly address the ultimate issue of legal guilt.
In a NY case for drug trafficking, the prosecutor seeks to introduce testimony from the defendant’s wife, Karen, that during their marriage the defendant told her, “The cocaine is hidden in the garage under the floorboards.” The statement was made in their home one evening while they were alone. The defendant objects on the ground of marital privilege. Which of the following best describes the admissibility of the statement?
a. The statement is inadmissible because the spousal testimonial privilege prohibits one spouse from testifying against the other in a criminal case.
b. The statement is inadmissible because it is a confidential communication made during the marriage and protected by the marital communications privilege.
c. The statement is admissible because the privilege does not apply in criminal cases involving drugs.
d. The statement is admissible because the marital communications privilege does not apply where the communication furthered ongoing or future criminal activity.
Case Rating: *
In this scenario, the best answer is:
d. The statement is admissible because the marital communications privilege does not apply where the communication furthered ongoing or future criminal activity.
The marital communications privilege generally protects confidential communications between spouses. However, it does not apply if the communication involves or furthers criminal activity.
In this scenario, the best answer is:
d. The statement is admissible because the marital communications privilege does not apply where the communication furthered ongoing or future criminal activity.
The marital communications privilege generally protects confidential communications between spouses. However, it does not apply if the communication involves or furthers criminal activity.
Start a new chat