The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
MBE evidence mastermen: answer this.
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:41 AM Author: Smoky Multi-colored Party Of The First Part Question #74
The defendant, a young doctor, is charged with falsely claiming deductions on her federal income tax return. At trial, a witness testified for the defendant that she has a reputation in the community for complete honesty. After a sidebar conference at which the prosecutor gave the judge a record showing that the defendant's medical school had disciplined her for altering her transcript, the prosecutor proposes to ask the witness on cross-examination: "Have you ever heard that the defendant falsified her medical school transcript?"
Is the prosecutor's question proper?
(A) No, because it calls for hearsay not within any exception. (B) No, because its minimal relevance on the issue of income tax fraud is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. (C) Yes, because an affirmative answer will be probative of the defendant's bad character for honesty and, therefore, her guilt. (D) Yes, because an affirmative answer will impeach the witness's credibility. |
 |
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:45 AM Author: adventurous domesticated parlour it's C, right?
If D opens the door to relevant character trait (here, honesty since its a claim for false deductions), pros may respond on cross by asking "have u heard" questions about D's specific past bad acts relevant to the trait |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:45 AM Author: Smoky Multi-colored Party Of The First Part negative--I picked C too, but the answer is D. I'm not sure why. That's why i'm asking u bros. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2004184&forum_id=2#21169732) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:47 AM Author: adventurous domesticated parlour ok, i checked my outline. Our understanding of the process is correct but the "have u heard" shit is only usable to impeach the witness, not as substantive evidence. Nitpicky, bullshit answer. bet it's barbri (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2004184&forum_id=2#21169737) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:51 AM Author: Smoky Multi-colored Party Of The First Part I dunno bro. Here's the relevant passage from my Barbri evidence long outline (page 12 of the long evidence outline):
"Under FRE 405(a), cross-examination inquiry is allowable as to whether the opinion witness knows of, as well as whether he has heard of, specific instances of misconduct. The distinction in form between "Have you heard" and "Do you know" is eliminated by the statement in Rule 405(a) . . . ." |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:52 AM Author: adventurous domesticated parlour what's your point? Yes that's allowed - but only as impeachment and not as substantive evidence of the prior bad acts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2004184&forum_id=2#21169752) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:53 AM Author: Smoky Multi-colored Party Of The First Part yeah, but the passage i pasted there is under "How Prosecution Rebuts Defendant's Character Evidence".... fuck my life.
does this mean reputation and opinion come in as substantive evidence once D opens the door, but SIC do not? |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 2:00 AM Author: Cracking Self-centered Rigor they're just used by the trier of fact to determine how much weight to give other evidence. the jury/judge would be free to disregard the testimony if they didn't believe it, and that's why the pros. is impeaching the witness with the "have you heard?" Because if the witness hadn't heard of X and was spouting off testimony about reputation, how credible could they really be? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2004184&forum_id=2#21169772) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 2:25 AM Author: Smoky Multi-colored Party Of The First Part okay, i believe you. so on the cross of a defendant's character witness, the reputation/opinion/specific conduct elicited is all for impeachment purposes?
what about where the Prosecution calls its own character witness to rebut Defendant's character evidence of good character? Is P's evidence substantive, at that point? |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 2:47 AM Author: Cracking Self-centered Rigor no. Calling the rebuttal witness and impeaching on cross-examination are essentially doing the same thing through different methods. Still being done to attack credibility. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2004184&forum_id=2#21170039) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 2:52 AM Author: Smoky Multi-colored Party Of The First Part i see... so the government can never introduce any bad character evidence to prove action in conformity... but it can introduce bad character evidence to attack the credibility of D's own character evidence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2004184&forum_id=2#21170058) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 3:03 AM Author: Cracking Self-centered Rigor right, unless it falls under one of the other areas like sexual assault of a child or whatever ones fall outside the typically "no character evidence" rules. once a pervert, always a pervert, therefore you did it this time too.
oh, and unless it's an element of the crime/claim.
but the general rule is that you cannot introduce character evidence to prove conformity. |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 3:05 AM Author: Smoky Multi-colored Party Of The First Part cool, understood. many thanks, good sir. barbri did not teach this specific part of character evidence, as far as i recall. only that P had a right of rebuttal that could happen in a couple of ways.
tyty. going to sleep now. |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:49 AM Author: jade stage candlestick maker I think it's attacking her credibility in terms of how well she knows the defendant, i.e., credibility re: personal knowledge. w testified that the d had a rep for "complete honesty," so showing the d falsified rebuts that and therefore that the w doesn't know shit.
anyway, that's how i'd argue it. i give myself a 65. |
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:43 AM Author: metal bonkers ladyboy (D) Not hearsay, not being offered for the truth.
Mind you, I'm a transactional attorney that took the bar two years ago, so I don't know dick.
Second edit, might be C, shit I don't know. |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:45 AM Author: Smoky Multi-colored Party Of The First Part correct bro-- but why not C? Defendant opened the door with evidence of his honesty (a pertinent trait relating to the charged crime). So why isn't the government allowed to cross-examine the witness about specific bad conduct of the defendant for falsehood? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2004184&forum_id=2#21169731) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:46 AM Author: metal bonkers ladyboy See second edit. I used to know evidence really well too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2004184&forum_id=2#21169734) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:50 AM Author: Cracking Self-centered Rigor the answer is D. When a witness testifies as to the defendant's reputation in the community, the proper form of impeachment is in the form of the "have you heard X?" question. The question is not meant to be used as evidence against the defendant, but rather the reliability of the witness's testimony about the D's reputation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2004184&forum_id=2#21169743) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:52 AM Author: Smoky Multi-colored Party Of The First Part What you say makes sense, but my Barbri outline says otherwise.... fuck.
copy and pasted from above:
Here's the relevant passage from my Barbri evidence long outline (page 12 of the long evidence outline):
"Under FRE 405(a), cross-examination inquiry is allowable as to whether the opinion witness knows of, as well as whether he has heard of, specific instances of misconduct. The distinction in form between "Have you heard" and "Do you know" is eliminated by the statement in Rule 405(a) . . . ." |