Evidence keyed to Fisherback
0 of 3 questions completed
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to pass the previous Module’s quiz in order to start this quiz:
you have successfully completed the quiz.
During the prosecution’s case in chief, evidence was introduced establishing that a can of turpentine, a highly flammable liquid, was discovered under Cody’s bed when he was arrested for arson. On direct examination by Cody’s own attorney, Cody states that when he was arrested and the can of turpentine was found, he told the officers “I use that to clean my paint brushes after painting a house.”
If the prosecution moves to strike the testimony, how should the Court rule?Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.
Deacon was arrested for speeding while driving a rented moving truck on a rural highway late one Friday afternoon. The arresting officer approached the truck and asked Deacon what he was carrying. Deacon told the officer that it was some used furniture Deacon was moving for his brother and that he needed to deliver it to his brother’s house right away. The officer asked Deacon if he would allow the officer to look inside. Deacon agreed and opened up the back door of the truck. When Deacon opened the back door, the officer saw several transparent bales of marijuana. At his criminal trial, Deacon testified that he had no knowledge that there was any marijuana in the truck and that he believed that he was moving furniture for his brother. Deacon’s attorney then sought to introduce a letter written by Deacon’s brother to Deacon which stated “The truck is all loaded with my furniture, please drive it to my house by Saturday.” The prosecution objected.
Is the letter admissible?Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.
Paul was arrested and charged with involuntary manslaughter. The victim died when Paul’s vehicle struck the victim’s vehicle in a head-on collision. The prosecution claimed that Paul fell asleep while driving and drove into oncoming traffic, killing the victim. At trial, the prosecution called Karen to testify. Karen testified that she was visiting with Paul the morning of the collision when Paul told her he had not gotten any sleep the night before because of a terrible migraine headache. Paul objected to Karen’s testimony.
The court should rule that Karen’s testimony is:Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.