[Revenge] Tamra, a First Year Law Student, Slipped on a Freshly

Multiple Choice

[Revenge] Tamra, a first year law student, slipped on a freshly mopped floor while walking to class. She bumped into Anton, another first year law student, breaking his glasses. He was very angry with Tamra and slashed all of her car tires causing damages of $1,500. Anton also decided to sue Tamra for negligence claiming damages of $300 for his broken glasses. He decided that he already knew all about the law and did not need a lawyer. Anton sued Tamra in state court. Tamra, in the same lawsuit, brought an action against Anton for slashing her tires. At the trial in state court, Tamra told the judge that a friend, Aimee, told Tamra that she saw Anton slash all of Tamra's tires. The judge disallowed Tamra's testimony on that issue. Aimee also came to court and testified about seeing Anton slashing all of Tamra's tires. The state court judge ruled in favor of Tamra awarding her $1,500 in damages. Anton said that he was not giving up and that he would seek double damages on appeal in federal court. Tamra and Anton live in different states when not attending school. After the trial, Tamra reported Anton's action of slashing her tires to the police, who said that they would proceed with a criminal action against Anton. Anton goes to see Alex, a recent graduate who had just passed the bar, and asked Alex to represent him in a federal court appeal.
-Should the judge have disallowed Tamra's testimony about what Aimee told her about the tire?

A) No, the judge was wrong and should have considered that testimony.
B) Yes, the judge was correct to disallow the testimony because it involved a possible criminal action.
C) Yes, the judge was correct to disallow the testimony because it was hearsay.
D) Yes, the judge was correct to disallow the testimony but only because Aimee was in the courtroom and could testify herself; otherwise, it should have been allowed.
E) Yes, the judge was correct to disallow the testimony but only because it purportedly came from an admitted friend of the defendant, not an independent witness; otherwise, it should have been allowed.