A defendant was charged with murdering his boss. After obtaining a valid search warrant and executing a valid search of the defendant’s office, an officer found a love letter from the defendant’s wife to his boss describing their sexual relations. The letter stated, “I can no longer hide my love for you from my husband. I intend to tell him about us and leave him for you.” At trial, the officer seeks to testify about the contents of the letter as proof of the defendant’s motive for killing his boss.

The defense counsel should object on which of the following grounds?

One morning, a farmer looked out his window and to his horror saw that the white picket fence surrounding his house had been overturned. The yard was covered with unusual tire tracks. The farmer decided that the tracks could only have been made by a neighbor’s truck. The neighbor was an alcoholic, and the farmer assumed that the neighbor had driven onto his lawn, destroying the fence in the process. The farmer brought suit against the neighbor.

The farmer testified that a man had called him. The man never identified himself, but the farmer and the neighbor knew each other well and the farmer was sure that the man who called him was the neighbor. The farmer said that the neighbor told him, “I’m sorry about the fence; send me a bill and I’ll take care of it.”

This testimony should be ruled:

The police set up an undercover “sting” operation in which they posed as fences of stolen property and bought and sold such property to anyone who came into their warehouse. A defendant is being prosecuted for receiving stolen property in connection with his arrest by the undercover police officers, and the prosecution attempts to introduce a videotape showing the defendant offering to sell a television set to one of the undercover police officers.

If this evidence is held to be inadmissible, the most likely reason is that:

Six residents of a state brought suit against the state to rescind a new regulation permitting the operation of tandem trucks on the state’s freeway system. The plain­tiffs are a group of farmers with land adjacent to the freeway, and they allege that their crops were damaged by increased vibrations, noise, and exhaust from the passing tandems. The plaintiffs’ counsel called as a witness a state highway engineer who had supervised a report concerning the vehicular traffic on the disputed highway. The plaintiffs’ counsel asked the witness, “Could you please tell us, according to the report you supervised, what percentage of the state’s freeway traffic the tandems represent?” The state objected to the question despite their admission that the witness was a bonafide expert. The plaintiffs’ counsel then called another witness, who was one of the plaintiffs, to the stand. While being questioned, the plaintiff witness coughed in a seemingly uncontrollable manner and said, “I am sorry. Ever since the tandems have been allowed to pass, I can hardly breathe.” On cross-exam­ination,the plaintiff witness was asked,”Is it not true that you told your neighbor that you did not even notice a difference in your breathing when the law changed?” The plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the question.

The trial judge should rule the plaintiffs’ counsel question of the engineer: