Deck 9: Hearsay

Question 1

Who is responsible for making hearsay evidence inadmissible in courts in the United States?

A) Supreme Court Justice John Marshall
B) Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren
C) Supreme Court Justice John Roberts
D) Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall

Answer 1

A

Question 2

Which of the following is a statement under Federal Rule 801?

A) An oral statement
B) Pointing a finger
C) A nod of the head
D) An entry in a diary
E) All of the above

Answer 2

E

Question 3

A statement under Federal Rule 801 includes all of the following. except:

A) Spoken words
B) Written words
C) Gestures
D) Thoughts

Answer 3

D

Question 4

In Williamson v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the hearsay rule is based on the assumption that:

A) It is difficult to recall statements that are made out of court.
B) Out-of-court statements are subject to hazards because of the inability to cross-examine the person who made the statement.
C) Admitting out-of-court statements runs the risk of violating an individual's right against self-incrimination.
D) Out-of-court statements are made in a manner that impedes their evidentiary value.

Question 5

The ____________________ of the Sixth Amendment limits the use of hearsay.

A) double jeopardy clause
B) Confrontation Clause
C) right to an attorney
D) right against self-incrimination

Question 6

In ________________ the Court held that a judge may admit into evidence testimony regarding the content of another person's statement when the declarant is unavailable to testify, if the statement was made under circumstances providing sufficient indicia of reliability.

A) Crawford v. Washington
B) Ohio v. Roberts
C) Davis. v. Washington
D) Michigan v. Bryant

Question 7

Marty testified as a witness at the preliminary hearing in State v. Harris and was subjected to cross-examination by Harris's attorney. Marty died in a car accident 2 weeks before Harris's trial. The prosecution wants to introduce portions of Marty's testimony from the preliminary hearing at Harris's trial. The defense attorney objects. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Ohio v. Roberts, how will the judge rule on this issue?

A) Marty's testimony is inadmissible as hearsay evidence.
B) Marty's testimony will be admissible since the statement was made under circumstances providing sufficient indicia of reliability that the statement had actually been made.
C) Marty's testimony will be inadmissible because although it meets the Court's test of sufficient indicia of reliability that the stamen was made, it does not meet the Court's requirement that the defense have an opportunity to cross-examine Marty in front of the finder of fact.
D) Marty's testimony will be admissible as having been subject to cross-examination in a previous related legal proceeding, which gives the testimony conclusive proof of Marty's truthfulness.

Question 8

Marty made a statement to the police during their investigation of Sam Harris for a series of neighborhood burglaries that occurred the previous week. Harris was arrested 2 weeks later following the police investigation. Marty died in a car accident 2 weeks before Harris's trial. The prosecution wants to introduce portions of Marty's statement at Harris's trial. The defense attorney objects. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Crawford v. Washington, how will the judge rule on this issue?

A) Marty's testimony will be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule as established in Ohio v. Roberts.
B) Marty's statement can be admitted if the judge finds sufficient indicia of reliability, despite the fact that the statement had never been subjected to cross-examination by the defendant.
C) Because Marty's testimony was provided during an official police investigation, it is presumed reliable and was subjected to the equivalent of cross-examiner by a neutral party and, as such, is admissible in Harris' trial.
D) Marty's statement will be inadmissible because it is testimonial in nature and was never subjected to cross-examination by a lawyer representing Harris.

Question 9

Marty called 911 to report a fight between Harris and Colten. In the 911 call, Marty related to the dispatcher that a person he identified as Harris had jumped Colten from behind and was stabbing Colten. Marty stated that Colten was lying on the ground bleeding from the stab wounds. Marty remained on the telephone with dispatch and related that Harris was running from the scene. Harris was arrested 2 weeks later and charged with the attack on Colten. Marty died in a car accident 2 weeks before Harris's trial. The prosecution wants to introduce portions of Marty's statement at Harris's trial. The defense attorney objects. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Davis v. Washington, how will the judge rule on this issue?

A) Marty's statements to the 911 dispatcher are inadmissible hearsay.
B) Marty's statements to the 911 dispatcher are admissible if the judge finds sufficient indicia of reliability even though the statements were not subjected to cross-examination by Harris's attorney.
C) Marty's statements, made during an on-going emergency, are non-testimonial and, since Marty was not actually testifying against the accused, his statements to the 911 dispatched are admissible.
D) Marty's statements, made during an on-going emergency automatically have sufficient indicia of reliability, however, since Marty was not subjected to cross-examination, his statement to the 911 dispatched are inadmissible.

Question 10

Marty has been shot by Harris. Within minutes, first responders, including 4 police officers and 2 paramedics arrived at the shooting scene. Before Marty lost consciousness, Marty told one of the officers that he was shot by his roommate, Harris, and that Harris sped away from the scene in Harris's red Honda. Shortly after making the statement, Marty died at the scene from the gunshot wound. The prosecution wants to introduce the statement Marty made to the officers identifying Harris as the shooter. The defense attorney objects. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Michigan v. Bryant, how will the judge rule on this issue?

A) Marty's statements to the officer are inadmissible hearsay.
B) Marty's statements to the officer are determined by the judge to have sufficient indicial of reliability and are therefore inadmissible at Harris's trial.
C) Marty's statements were not offered as testimony but were offered to assist law enforcement in an on-going emergency that posed a threat to the public at large and therefore are admissible at Harris's trial.
D) Marty's statement, while offered during an on-going emergency that posed a threat to the public at large were not subjected to cross-examination and are therefore inadmissible at Harris' trial

Question 11

Marty is a scientist at the state crime lab. He conducted the analysis of the fiber found on the victim's body and provided a detailed report that linked the fiber to the carpet in the defendant's car. Marty dies before the trial commences. The prosecution wants to introduce Marty's report and findings at trial as evidence that links the defendant to the victim. Harris's attorney objects. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, how will Harris's trial judge rule?

A) Marty's report was prepared by a state employee in the course of his employment and, as such, has sufficient indicia of reliability and is therefore admissible at Harris' trial.
B) Marty's report is admissible at Harris's trial as long as the report is accompanied by a sworn affidavit that recorded the results of the tests that Marty conducted on the fiber found on the victim.
C) Marty is unavailable to testify at Harris's trial and cannot be subjected to cross-examination and therefore his report is inadmissible at Harris's trial.
D) Marty is unavailable to testify at Harris's trial, but since his report is non-testimonial and prepared solely to assist law enforcement in solving a case it is admissible at Harris's trial.

Question 12

The Federal Rules of Evidence cite hearsay exceptions in ____ rule(s).

A) 0
B) 1
C) 2
D) 3

Question 13

All of the following explain why admissions are an exception to the hearsay rule, except:

A) An admission is typically reliable.
B) The party making the statement can stake the stand and testify.
C) The Federal Rules do not categorize admissions as hearsay.
D) People should not be held responsible for their statements that are not tested for truthfulness.

Question 14

A party's confession may be admitted into evidence as:

A) An admission by a party-opponent
B) An adoptive admission
C) A declaration against interest
D) Non-testimonial evidence

Question 15

Which of the following statements is true about an admission by a party-opponent?

A) A verbal expression may be an admission.
B) A person's conduct may be an admission.
C) A person's silence may be an admission.
D) All of the above are true.
E) Only a and b are true.

Question 16

Pam, in Perry's presence, declares that Perry committed the offense. Which of the following is an example of an adoptive admission by Perry?

A) Perry nods his head in a manner indicative of agreement with Pam.
B) Perry does not voice any objection to Pam's statement.
C) Perry acknowledged that he may have committed the offense.
D) All of the above
E) None of the above

Question 17

Before a Mary's response to Ben's statement alleging Mary's guilt may be admitted as an adoptive admission, the following must be established by the court:

A) That Mary heard the statement
B) That Mary understood the statement
C) That a reasonable person would have objected to the statement
D) All of the above

Question 18

All courts apply the adoptive admission exception when:

A) The declarant and the alleged perpetrator were face to face at the time the statement was made, and the alleged perpetrator said nothing.
B) The declarant e-mailed the statement to the alleged perpetrator, and the alleged perpetrator did not respond.
C) The declarant texted the statement to the alleged perpetrator, and the alleged perpetrator did not respond.
D) None of the above are correct.

Question 19

Chris, CEO of XAM Corporation, denies that there was a corporate cover-up about the dangerous nature of the corporation's product. Chris's statement may be admissible in the trial against XAM for distributing a dangerous product as a(n):

A) Adoptive admission
B) Authorized admission
C) Admission by an agent
D) Chris's statement is hearsay and is not admissible.

Question 20

Carson, an employee truck driver for the CheapCheap store, was arrested by the Highway Patrol following a hit and run accident where he is the alleged driver of the vehicle that fled the scene. At the time of his arrest, Carson admitted to the Highway Patrol officer that he was delivering goods for his employer, and that he was texting his office at the time of the accident. He stated that he heard the thud but did not stop. At trial, where CheapCheap is charged as the responsible party, the prosecutor wants to introduce the statement Carson made to the Highway Patrol officer to establish CheapCheap's responsibility for the accident. Can the statement be introduced during the trial?

A) No, Carson's statement is inadmissible hearsay because Carson had no authority to speak on behalf of his employer.
B) Yes, because Carson was an employee and acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the incident, and his statement may be admissible as an admission by an agent.
C) Yes, because, as an employee, Carson is considered a co-conspirator, and his statement may be admissible as an admission by a co-conspirator.
D) No, because Carson is a low-level employee and has no authority to bind the company to a statement he makes.

Question 21

A statement made by a co-conspirator against other conspirators:

A) Is admissible as an admission if the statement was made during the course of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the purpose of the conspiracy
B) Is inadmissible as a violation of the Fifth Amendment rights of the other conspirators
C) Is admissible as an admission of a party-opponent unless the other conspirators take the witness stand to contradict the statement
D) Is inadmissible hearsay

Question 22

Prior statements by a witness that are not considered hearsay and are admissible as substantive proof include all of the following, except:

A) Prior inconsistent statement
B) Prior consistent statements
C) Prior identifications
D) All of the above are not considered hearsay.

Question 23

Which of the following statements represents the common law approach to prior inconsistent statements?

A) Prior inconsistent statements were hearsay if introduced for the truth of the matter asserted.
B) Prior inconsistent statements were admissible as long as the declarant was available to testify at trial.
C) Prior inconsistent statements were admissible as long as the jury had an opportunity to observe the witness and his or her responses to questioning about the prior inconsistent statements.
D) Prior inconsistent statements were inadmissible if the declarant objected to their admission at trial.

Question 24

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, prior inconsistent statements are admissible:

A) When the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination about the hearing
B) When the statement is inconsistent with the witness's current testimony
C) When the inconsistent statement was given under oath or penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, other proceeding or deposition
D) When the witness is given an opportunity to admit, explain the inconsistency, or deny making the statement.
E) All of the above must occur in order for the inconsistent statement to be admissible.

Question 25

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a prior consistent statement:

A) Is admissible to rehabilitate a witness on redirect examination after the witness has been impeached on cross-examination
B) Is admissible only if the prior consistent statement was made under oath or under penalty of perjury
C) Is considered a waste of the court's time and is therefore inadmissible
D) Is irrelevant and serves to confuse the jury and is therefore inadmissible

Question 26

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a witness' identification is admissible as an exemption to the hearsay rule when:

A) If, and only if, the witness makes an accurate in-court identification of the defendant
B) The identification was made close in time to the crime
C) The witness was subject to cross-examination at the trial
D) Only b and c are correct.
E) All of the above are correct.

Question 27

A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it is called a(n):

A) Admission by an agent
B) Prior consistent statement
C) Present sense impression
D) Identification

Question 28

Which of the following represents a true statement about a present sense impression?

A) The declarant is required to speak from his or her own sensory perceptions of the event.
B) The declarant must be someone who is involved in the event.
C) The declarant must have had time to think and analyze the event before stating his or her impression.
D) The declarant makes the statement within 24 hours of observing the event.

Question 29

Which of the following is true about a statement of the declarant's then-existing mental state?

A) It is a statement of the declarant's perception of an external event.
B) It is a statement of the declarant's internal view of his or her state of mind.
C) It is a statement that is subject to inaccuracy and is unreliable.
D) It is a statement that reflects the opinions and observations of a third party.

Question 30

Which of the following may qualify as admissible information contained in a business record under the business records exception to the Federal Rules of Evidence hearsay rules?

A) An opinion
B) A diagnosis
C) An event.
D) All of the above.

Question 31

Elements of the business records exception to hearsay include:

A) The information needs to be recorded within a reasonable amount of time by someone with knowledge.
B) The record must be made in the customary course of business.
C) The custodian of the records is able to testify about the organization's record-keeping practices.
D) All of the above are correct.

Question 32

Which of the following is not one of the foundation requirements for the admissibility of the absence of a record as an exception to hearsay?

A) The proponent of the evidence must show that records are kept in the regular course of business and that the business regularly kept records.
B) The absence of the records concerns matters that regularly were recorded by the business.
C) The person who would have recorded the missing information is available to testify.
D) The judge must be confident that the absence of a record is a reliable indicator that an event did not occur.

Question 33

The three categories identified under the Federal Rules of Evidence as public records are:

A) Acts of the agency, an agency's required observations and reports, and results of investigations
B) Acts of the agency, the agency's internal operating procedures, and the agency's personnel files
C) An agency's required observations, the agency's internal operating procedures, and the results of investigations
D) Acts of the agency, the agency's personnel files, and the agency's required observations and reports

Question 34

The public records exception to the hearsay rule is based on:

A) The interest in the efficient presentation of information without interfering with the work of all of the government officials involved in compiling the information
B) The recognition that public officials lack a right of privacy when performing the official duties of their jobs
C) The assumption that public officials will accurately and responsibly carry out their responsibilities
D) Only a and c
E) Only a and b

Question 35

All of the following statements support a finding that vital statistic records, such as a birth or death certificates, are suitable records to qualify as exceptions to the hearsay rules, except:

A) Vital statistics are considered reliable because individuals have a duty to report these events.
B) The events are required to be reported immediately following the occurrence of the event.
C) The individuals who record these events are not considered persons who would have a motive to misrepresent the facts.
D) The information is readily available from other sources to corroborate the data contained in the record.

Question 36

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 804, a witness is considered "unavailable" when:

A) The declarant is exempted from testifying based on a privilege.
B) The declarant is dead.
C) The declarant cannot be located after a good faith search.
D) All of the above are correct.
E) Only a and b are correct.

Question 37

Comparing a declaration against interest to an admission by a party-opponent, which of the following statements is true?

A) Both allow the statement to be made by a nonparty.
B) Both allow for admission of the statement when the declarant is unavailable.
C) Both require that the statement must be against interest when the statement is made.
D) Both require that the statement includes an admission of guilt.

Question 38

Federal Rule of Evidence 807 provides for a hearsay exception known as the ____________based on the belief that it would be "presumptuous to assume that all possible desirable exceptions to the hearsay rule have been catalogued."

A) undefined exception
B) residual exception
C) discretionary exception
D) undecided exception

Question 39

Until 1813, hearsay was accepted by courts in the United States.

Question 40

Under the Confrontation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, testimonial statements by an unavailable witness are admissible if the witness's statements had been subjected to cross-examination.

Question 41

A statement offered as a party-opponent admission can be excluded from evidence if its prejudicial impact outweighs its probative value.

Question 42

Statements made to the police prior to the individual being read his Miranda rights may be admissible as an admission.

Question 43

Alice and Tom meet up with Sam, who tells them about a recent bank robbery. Alice responds by stating that Tom committed the bank robbery. Tom says nothing. Tom's silence to Alice's statement may be admissible in court as an adoptive admission.

Question 44

A declarant, as defined by the hearsay rule, is a person who makes an out-of-court statement.

Question 45

Immediately after an accident at the intersection where a pedestrian was injured, the driver of the vehicle stated to a bystander, "I did not see the red light." This statement can be admitted at the driver's trial as a declaration against interest.

Question 46

An excited utterance explains or describes the event that is observed.

Question 47

An adoptive admission occurs when a person through words or actions accepts the statement of another person.

Question 48

Ben, Ken, and Len conspired to rob a bank. When acquiring the gun used in the bank robbery, Ken told Harry that they needed the gun to rob the bank. Harry can testify to this statement at the trial of Ben, Ken, and Len for the bank robbery.

Question 49

Prior consistent statements made by a witness are admissible to rehabilitate the witness at trial.

Question 50

Medical records, although containing entries made by various persons throughout the course of the patient's medical care, are admissible though the testimony of custodian of records.

Question 51

Observations of law enforcement personnel are excluded from the business records exception to the hearsay rule because the officers may not be neutral.

Question 52

The Federal Rules of Evidence contain a residual exception to hearsay which can be used as a "last resort" exception to a judge to admit testimony that does not fall under any of the hearsay exceptions specifically identified in the Rules.

Question 53

What are the four areas opposing counsel might attack on cross-examination to discredit a witness's testimony about his or her observations?

Question 54

Explain the difference between an admission and a statement against interest.

Question 55

How does an excited utterance differ from a present sense impression?

Question 56

Why is there a hearsay exception for public records?

Question 57

Identify the six hearsay exceptions listed in Federal Rule 804 that are only available when a declarant is unavailable.

Question 58

Trace the history of the relationship between the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the hearsay rule from common law to the present position of the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Bryant.

Question 59

Compare how the federal courts deal with admissions in relation to hearsay rules to the approach followed by the California courts, and discuss the rationale behind the approach used by the California courts.

Question 60

What is hearsay evidence, and why would hearsay evidence be excluded from trial?

Question 61

Identify and explain the three types of prior statements that may be admitted at trial and how prior statements are dealt with under hearsay rules.

Question 62

Paul and John witness a murder. As the murderer fled the scene, Paul heard him say, "I didn't mean to kill her, I didn't mean to kill her." How can the prosecutor get Paul's statement admitted at the suspect's trial? What if Paul has since moved out of the country and is unavailable to attend the trial?