Evidence keyed to Fisherback
0 of 5 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.
Two soldiers were veterans of an army. They wanted nothing more in life than to see those regimes they believed to be dominated by communists fall. Frustrated at what they perceived as the failure of their government to take concrete action against another country, the soldiers decided to form an army of their own to obliterate this country. The soldiers formed a corporation with the intent of arranging an army. One soldier was named president and the other soldier was named vice president for purchasing. Both soldiers were arrested after a lawful search of the vice president soldier’s apartment yielded 200 M-16 rifles. The prosecution seeks to admit a statement made by the president soldier to an arms merchant, in which the president soldier said, “There ain’t no way I’m gonna need any guns from you; my man is Vice President for Purchasing.” The soldier’s counsel objects to admission of the statement.
The court will sustain the president soldier’s objection if:CorrectIncorrect
An owner owned a small company in the business of building, installing, and maintaining a machine used in the purification of steel. The company did not sell the machine invented and designed by the owner. It would only lease it accompanied with a service contract. On May 15, the owner inspected a machine leased to a steel company, as required by the service contract. Two days later, an explosion on the steel company’s premises caused severe damage and injured a carrier service employee in the process of making a delivery. The owner inspected the premises after the accident and told his friend, “The explosion was caused by my machine. I should have opened it up when I had last inspected it, but I was running late.” The employee asserted an action against the steel company. The owner was not available to testify at the trial because he had subsequently died from injuries he sustained when another one of his boilers exploded.
Should the owner’s friend be allowed to recount the owner’s statements about the cause of the steel company’s accident?CorrectIncorrect
An employee was accused by her employer of embezzlement. The employee had, by her own admission, taken 200 computer software programs home and resold them to a discount retailer. The employee used the proceeds from this sale to refurnish her apartment. The prosecution presented the employee’s employment contract as evidence. The contract contained a standard clause providing, “The employee understands that all supplies and equipment used by employee, including but not limited to, writing instruments, paper, stationery, reference books, computer hardware and software, and duplicating equipment, remains the property of employer, and may not be removed by employee from employer’s premises without express written permission.” On direct examination, the employee testified, “During my contractual negotiations, I complained about the low salary I had been offered. The vice president said, ‘You can make lots of extra money by taking the obsolete software programs we no longer use. They aren’t worth enough for the company to bother with, but you can substantially increase your income.’ ”
A timely objection to the employee’s testimony should be:CorrectIncorrect
Two suspects were arrested and brought to police headquarters. The officer interrogating them said, “I am going to ask you one more time, what do you know about the computer scheme?” the first suspect said, “I admit it. My family needed the money, so I figured out a way to tap into the bank’s code. I needed a connection in the bank, so I approached the second suspect and offered him $10,000.” The second suspect remained silent during the confession.
The fact that the second suspect remained silent while being implicated by the first suspect should be ruled:CorrectIncorrect
The plaintiff called a doctor to testify that the defendant came to his office minutes after an accident. When the doctor saw the bruises and asked, “What happened?” the defendant answered, “l cracked up my car because I was driving on the wrong side of the street.”
The doctor’s testimony should be ruled:CorrectIncorrect