Question 1

All statements by a co-conspirator are admissible against other co-conspirators at trial.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False  False

Question 2

Statements police obtain from the crime victim are admissible at a criminal trial:

Accepted Answer

A)  Only if they qualify as excited utterances. 
B)  Officer may testify about nontestimonial hearsay statements  made by victim. 
C)  Officer may testify about testimonial hearsay statements made by victim. 
D)  Victim's statements admissible only if the victim testifies 
A)  Only if they qualify as excited utterances. 
B)  Officer may testify about nontestimonial hearsay statements  made by victim. 
C)  Officer may testify about testimonial hearsay statements made by victim. 
D)  Victim's statements admissible only if the victim testifies B

Question 3

All statements not made in court are hearsay.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False  False

Question 4

Hearsay is admissible in court only if the declarant is unavailable to testify.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 5

The Ancient Documents Exception to the Hearsay Rule is no longer used in United States courts.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 6

Prior consistent statements are admissible:

Accepted Answer

A)  To impeach a witness 
B)  To rehabilitate a witness 
C)  To corroborate testimony 
D)  Prior consistent statements are admissible for all of these purposes 
A)  To impeach a witness 
B)  To rehabilitate a witness 
C)  To corroborate testimony 
D)  Prior consistent statements are admissible for all of these purposes

Question 7

A hearsay declarant is considered unavailable as a witness at trial if:

Accepted Answer

A)  the declarant cannot testify because the statements are privileged. 
B)  the declarant no longer recalls the statement. 
C)  the declarant cannot attend court due to severe mental illness. 
D)  All of these qualify as unavailable witnesses 
A)  the declarant cannot testify because the statements are privileged. 
B)  the declarant no longer recalls the statement. 
C)  the declarant cannot attend court due to severe mental illness. 
D)  All of these qualify as unavailable witnesses

Question 8

A person's explanation to the police that last year he/she stole money while under extreme duress is admissible under the Mental or Physical State Exception to the Hearsay Rule.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 9

When would a statement made to a police officer qualify under the Spontaneous Statement Exception to the Hearsay Rule?

Accepted Answer

A)  when suspect is detained in the field and only asked a few questions 
B)  when victim makes statement before officers asks him/her questions 
C)  after suspect who is in custody waives Miranda rights 
D)  all of these qualify for the Spontaneous Statement Exception to the Hearsay Rule 
A)  when suspect is detained in the field and only asked a few questions 
B)  when victim makes statement before officers asks him/her questions 
C)  after suspect who is in custody waives Miranda rights 
D)  all of these qualify for the Spontaneous Statement Exception to the Hearsay Rule

Question 10

Statements the defendant made during the time the crime was being committed can be admitted as contemporaneous declarations.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 11

Statements are admissible under the Mental and Physical State Exception to the Hearsay Rule only if they describe a condition that existed at the time the statement was made.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 12

A statement may be introduced as a declaration against interest only if the person who made the statement testifies at trial.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 13

Prior inconsistent statements are admissible to impeach and prior consistent statements can be used to rehabilitate a witness who has been impeached. Discuss the benefit of using these statements at trial versus the confusion they may cause the jurors.

Accepted Answer

Evidence introduced for impeachment and

Question 14

Mary worked at a bank. Ned approached her teller's cage and gave her a demand note that said, "Go to the vault. Fill this sack with $20 bills. I've got a gun aimed at your head, so don't try anything heroic." Mary screamed. Ned shot her and ran out the door. Just before she died, Mary told an officer that Ned was her ex-husband and he had been robbing banks for years. Can Mary's statement be used at Ned's trial for the prior bank robberies?

Accepted Answer

A)  Yes, the statement was made when Mary believed that death was imminent. 
B)  Yes, if Ned told her that he committed the robberies. 
C)  No, there is no corroboration for the statement. 
D)  No, the statement does not relate to the cause of Mary's death. 
A)  Yes, the statement was made when Mary believed that death was imminent. 
B)  Yes, if Ned told her that he committed the robberies. 
C)  No, there is no corroboration for the statement. 
D)  No, the statement does not relate to the cause of Mary's death.

Question 15

Prior inconsistent statements are admissible to impeach the person who made them.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 16

Which is more important under the Dying Declaration Exception to the Hearsay Rule?

Accepted Answer

A)  Doctor's prognosis that death is near 
B)  Injured person's subject belief death is near 
C)  Injured person's objective belief that death is near 
D)  All of these receive equal weight when evaluating if the Dying Declaration Exception can be used at trial 
A)  Doctor's prognosis that death is near 
B)  Injured person's subject belief death is near 
C)  Injured person's objective belief that death is near 
D)  All of these receive equal weight when evaluating if the Dying Declaration Exception can be used at trial

Question 17

Jerry and Kim were charged with grand theft for stealing a famous painting from a museum. The prosecution claims that Jerry planned the heist but the theft was carried out by Kim and Lewis. Lewis was given immunity in exchange for testifying against Jerry. Kim entered a guilty plea. If Lewis is impeached based on prior inconsistent statements he made to the police on April 1,the day he was arrested, will the prosecution be allowed to introduce a transcript of Lewis's testimony at the preliminary hearing on April 12 to establish a prior consistent statement?

Accepted Answer

A)  Yes, transcripts of preliminary hearings are admissible as Former Testimony. 
B)  Yes, consistent statements made before trial are admissible to rehabilitate a witness. 
C)  No, the consistent statement must have been made before the inconsistent statement was made. 
D)  No, Lewis accepted immunity when he agreed to testify for the prosecution. 
A)  Yes, transcripts of preliminary hearings are admissible as Former Testimony. 
B)  Yes, consistent statements made before trial are admissible to rehabilitate a witness. 
C)  No, the consistent statement must have been made before the inconsistent statement was made. 
D)  No, Lewis accepted immunity when he agreed to testify for the prosecution.

Question 18

Jerry and Kim were charged with grand theft for stealing a famous painting from a museum. The prosecution claims that Jerry planned the heist but the theft was carried out by Kim and Lewis. Lewis was given immunity in exchange for testifying against Jerry. Kim entered a guilty plea. Will Lewis be allowed to testify that Jerry became frightened when the police sounded their sirens and said, "This reminds me of years ago when I got caught trying to rob a bank."

Accepted Answer

A)  Yes, it is an excited utterance. 
B)  Yes, it is a statement of mental state. 
C)  No, it does not relate to the events occurring at the time he made the statement. 
D)  No, Lewis has a reputation for untruthfulness. 
A)  Yes, it is an excited utterance. 
B)  Yes, it is a statement of mental state. 
C)  No, it does not relate to the events occurring at the time he made the statement. 
D)  No, Lewis has a reputation for untruthfulness.

Question 19

A statement qualifies as a spontaneous statement only if it was made while the declarant was still under the stress and excitement of the event.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 20

Which of the following statements best describes the decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court since 2000 about the use of hearsay in criminal trials?

Accepted Answer

A)  The Supreme Court has not changed the rules on using hearsay at criminal trials. 
B)  Hearsay is no longer admissible if the declarant does not take the witness stand. 
C)  Testimonial hearsay is no longer admissible if the declarant does not take the stand. 
D)  Hearsay is no longer admissible at criminal trials. 
A)  The Supreme Court has not changed the rules on using hearsay at criminal trials. 
B)  Hearsay is no longer admissible if the declarant does not take the witness stand. 
C)  Testimonial hearsay is no longer admissible if the declarant does not take the stand. 
D)  Hearsay is no longer admissible at criminal trials.

All statements by a co-conspirator are admissible against other co-conspirators at trial.

Statements police obtain from the crime victim are admissible at a criminal trial:

All statements not made in court are hearsay.

Hearsay is admissible in court only if the declarant is unavailable to testify.

The Ancient Documents Exception to the Hearsay Rule is no longer used in United States courts.

Prior consistent statements are admissible:

A hearsay declarant is considered unavailable as a witness at trial if:

A person's explanation to the police that last year he/she stole money while under extreme duress is admissible under the Mental or Physical State Exception to the Hearsay Rule.

When would a statement made to a police officer qualify under the Spontaneous Statement Exception to the Hearsay Rule?

Statements the defendant made during the time the crime was being committed can be admitted as contemporaneous declarations.

Statements are admissible under the Mental and Physical State Exception to the Hearsay Rule only if they describe a condition that existed at the time the statement was made.

A statement may be introduced as a declaration against interest only if the person who made the statement testifies at trial.

Prior inconsistent statements are admissible to impeach and prior consistent statements can be used to rehabilitate a witness who has been impeached. Discuss the benefit of using these statements at trial versus the confusion they may cause the jurors.

Prior inconsistent statements are admissible to impeach the person who made them.

Which is more important under the Dying Declaration Exception to the Hearsay Rule?

A statement qualifies as a spontaneous statement only if it was made while the declarant was still under the stress and excitement of the event.

Which of the following statements best describes the decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court since 2000 about the use of hearsay in criminal trials?

Introduction

The Role of the Courts

The Adjudication Process

Types of Evidence

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

Witnesses

Crime Scene Evidence and Experiments

Documentary Evidence, Models, Maps, and Diagrams

Privileged Communications

Developing Law of Search and Seizure

Field Interviews, Arrests and Jail Searches

Plain View, Consent, Vehicle, and Administrative Searches

USA Patriot Act, Foreign Intelligence, and Other Types of Electronic Surveillance Covered by Federal Law

Self-Incrimination

Identification Procedures

Preparing the Case for Court

Filters

Exam 9: Hearsay and Its Exceptions

All statements by a co-conspirator are admissible against other co-conspirators at trial.

Statements police obtain from the crime victim are admissible at a criminal trial:

All statements not made in court are hearsay.

Hearsay is admissible in court only if the declarant is unavailable to testify.

The Ancient Documents Exception to the Hearsay Rule is no longer used in United States courts.

Prior consistent statements are admissible:

A hearsay declarant is considered unavailable as a witness at trial if:

A person's explanation to the police that last year he/she stole money while under extreme duress is admissible under the Mental or Physical State Exception to the Hearsay Rule.

When would a statement made to a police officer qualify under the Spontaneous Statement Exception to the Hearsay Rule?

Statements the defendant made during the time the crime was being committed can be admitted as contemporaneous declarations.

Statements are admissible under the Mental and Physical State Exception to the Hearsay Rule only if they describe a condition that existed at the time the statement was made.

A statement may be introduced as a declaration against interest only if the person who made the statement testifies at trial.

Prior inconsistent statements are admissible to impeach and prior consistent statements can be used to rehabilitate a witness who has been impeached. Discuss the benefit of using these statements at trial versus the confusion they may cause the jurors.

Prior inconsistent statements are admissible to impeach the person who made them.

Which is more important under the Dying Declaration Exception to the Hearsay Rule?

A statement qualifies as a spontaneous statement only if it was made while the declarant was still under the stress and excitement of the event.

Which of the following statements best describes the decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court since 2000 about the use of hearsay in criminal trials?

Introduction

The Role of the Courts

The Adjudication Process

Types of Evidence

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

Witnesses

Crime Scene Evidence and Experiments

Documentary Evidence, Models, Maps, and Diagrams

Privileged Communications

Developing Law of Search and Seizure

Field Interviews, Arrests and Jail Searches

Plain View, Consent, Vehicle, and Administrative Searches

USA Patriot Act, Foreign Intelligence, and Other Types of Electronic Surveillance Covered by Federal Law

Self-Incrimination

Identification Procedures

Preparing the Case for Court

Filters