This is an extract of our Practice Exam Answers document, which we sell as part of our Evidence (Duke Beskind) Outlines collection written by the top tier of Duke University School Of Law students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Evidence (Duke Beskind) Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Practice Exam Answers
a. Question 1 Charles Charles' scream is probably hearsay. 801 defines hearsay as an OCS made for TOMA. The scream is probably a statement because it's not reflexive and is intended for positive information transfer. It's offered for TOMA because Charles is accusing Dan for stealing the jacket. 802 provides that hearsay is inadmissible unless there is an exception. Here, Prosecution may argue an "excited utterance" exception under 803. An excited utterance is a statement made by the declarant while still under the stress of a startling event. Prosecution can argue that the startling event is seeing Mrs. Charles wearing the stolen jacket. Dan can argue that Charles isn't under stress of the burglary since one week has passed since the burglary. Seeing someone wearing the same jacket doesn't mean it's been stolen and a reasonable person would not been startled when he sees someone wearing the same jacket as his on a street. 801(d)(2) also provides exclusions for hearsay. Prosecution can argue that Charles' statement is a tacit adopted statement. When Dan hears Charles' statement, Dan ran away. However, an ordinary person with FHK would reply if he doesn't mean to accept the statement. Therefore, Dan seems to tacitly adopt the statement. Therefore it's not hearsay because of this exclusion. A fact is relevant if it's probative and material. Dan can argue that the fact that he runs away is not relevant, because he just wants to avoid a confrontation with Charles. Therefore it doesn't make the proposition that Dan commits the burglary more probable. Prosecution can argue that Dan's behavior indicates a consciousness of guilt and therefore makes it more likely that Dan commits the burglary. No original writing, authentication, or privilege problems. Yank 702 allows expert testimony if he's qualified, his opinion's based on sufficient data and reliable principles and methods, and his application of scientific principles is reliable. Here the doctor hasn't been qualified by Prosecution. Prosecution can argue that a dentist who regularly examines teeth has the qualifications. But Dan can argue that examining teeth and comparing teeth with bite mart are two different things. No proof is offered to show that his methods are reliable and are applied reliably. Bob Prosecution can object that Bob's testimony is hearsay because it's an OCS made by Dan and is used to prove Dan plans to use the cabin for 2 days. Dan can use R803 "state of mind" exception because the statement is forward looking statement showing Dan's plan from 4/16 to 4/18. D's comments about the stove are not hearsay because it's not TOMA, it simply shows Dan's knowledge that the damage occurs and can corroborate his alibi. Abel Impeachment by PIS is not hearsay: while it's an OCS by Bob, it's not for TOMA. It's used to impair Bob's credibility by showing that he made a PIS. Impeachment by PIS through extrinsic evidence (Abel's testimony) is proper here because the issue is not collateral: the fact that Dan is away for two days is his alibi and is not a collateral matter, but rather the essence of Dan's defense. b. Question 2 Guard Guard's testimony is hearsay within hearsay. Each step needs to have an exclusion or exception for the testimony to be admissible. Watcher to Guard: hearsay because it's Watcher's OCS offered to prove TOMA that the car is
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Evidence (Duke Beskind) Outlines.