Evid 2 ReviewQ's 2

A skier decided to take to the slopes and go skiing for the first time. During the morning, she took an introductory ski lesson. By the afternoon, she was ready to tackle the intermediate slopes, or so she thought. When she dismounted the ski lift, her skis got caught in the lift, and she fell. She was unable to move out of the way before the next ski lift dropped off the next two skiers. When they disembarked, they collided with her. The chair lift operator thought it was funny to see the pile of skiers, and he took a picutre of the accident scne. Hurt and humiliated, the skier decided to file suit against the ski resort for negligent operation of the ski lift. The case went to trial one year later, but the chair lift operator who took the picture had left the country a month before the trial began. Which of the following is the most likely method of authenticating the photograph at trial?

• Testimony from the skier who disembarked from the ski lift immediately before the P did and who observed the entire incident

• Testimony of the chair lift operator's associate, who will state that he took a photography class to learn how to use the proper equipment to guarantee the accuracy of his pictures and that the photograph appears to be accurate

A man crashed into a woman's car. Shortly after the accident, a police officer arrived at the scene, and the woman told the officer that the man had run the red light and swerved into her car. The police officer wrote her statement in the "Accident Report Form," which he was required to complete after every accident. The woman sued for personal injuries sustained in the accident. On direct examination, her attorney calls her to testify as to her statement to the police officer. The woman's statement is:

• Admissible, b/c the woman is in court and subject to cross-examination about her statement

• Inadmissible, b/c it is hearsay not within any recognized exception

A husband and wife are filing for divorce. At issue is the market value of the home that they own. During the divorce proceeding, the husband's lawyer calls a neighbor to testify that the market value of the home exceeds $100,000. She states that her testimony is based on an estimate contained in an appraisal report that she saw. The appraisal has been prepared at the husband's request by a well-known real estate company in the area. Upon objection by the wife's attorney, the neighbor's testimony will be held:

• Admissible, b/c she had firsthand knowledge of the estimate contained in the appraisal reort

• Inadmissible, b/c the neighbor has not been shown to be an expert on real estate market value

A customer purchased a mattress from a furniture store. The mattress had a defective spring that one of the manufacturer's workers had not properly tied down. When the customer slept on the mattress, she was wounded in the back by the sharp point of the spring. The customer sued the furniture store for negligence and breach of warranty. At trial, the customer testified that the salesman assured her that the furniture store inspected each mattress before delivery. Furthermore, the customer testified that she remembers the salesman telling her: "The furniture sore stands behind all of its mattresses with a lifetime guarantee." She is then asked if the salesman made any other representations about the mattress. The customer stated, "Yes, in fact the day before the mattress was delivered, I received a letter from him thanking me for my patronage at the furniture store. As I recall, he also made some assurances about the manufacturer's mattresses." The customer's atty then asked, "What assurances were made in teh letter?" The customer's answer is:

• Admissible, as an admission

• Inadmissible, under the best evidence rule

A doctr is charged wit the murder of his wife. The prosecution alleges that he murdered his wife by giving her a massive injection of succinylcholine while she was asleep. Succinylcholine is a drug used in small quantities by anesthesiologists as a muscle relaxant. The prosecution claims that the fatal dose given to the wife so totally relaxed her lung muscles tha tshe suffocated. During the trial, a toxicologist, who had no previous knowledge of the case, sat in court and heard all of the evidence about the wife's death and autopsy. As part of the doctor's defense, his atty calls the toxicologist to give his opinion on the cause of the wife's death. May the toxicologist testify to the wife's cause of death?

• Yes, b/c an expert may base his opinion on facts made known to him at trial

• No, b/c he has no personal knowledge of the wife's death

An arson investigator wishes to testify at trial to a statement in his report of the investigation of a suspicious fire at a dry cleaning plant. The report includes a statement by one of the custodians working at the plant that the custodian saw the owner deliver two 50-gallon drums of toxic lighter fluid to the plant on the day before the fire. The arson investigator was certified by the court as an expert W. Based on the custodian's statements and other facts, the expert wants to testify to his opinion that the fire was caused by arson. Can the arson investigator include the custodian's statements in his testimony as the basis for his opinion?

• Yes, b/c an expert can base his opinion on hearsay evidence

• No, unless the court finds that the probative value of the statements in helping the jury evaluate the arson investigator's opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.

In order to establish the unavailability of a W at trial, the proponent must:

• Show that the W is not presently in court

• Show that the W has died

• Show that every reasonable effort has been made to procure the W's attendance

After the death of their mother, a property dispute arose as to the ownership of the family estate. Daughter claims that her mother deeded the family home to her a year before the mother died. The son claims that the property is rightfully his by a previously executed will. The issue in the case is the authenticity and content of the deed. The daughter begins to testify as to the content of the deed, but the son's atty objects. Is the daughter's oral testimony concerning the content of the deed admissible?

• No, b/c only the original deed itself is admissible

• Yes, if the judge is satisfied that the deed could not be found after a reasonable search

Clarence, an informant working for the FBI, arranged to sell a kilo of cocaine to Angelo who agreed to find individuals to distribute the drug. In a tape-recorded telephone conversation with Clarence, Angelo said that he had a "friend" to distribute the cocaine but the "friend" had some questions and wanted to speak to Clarence. In a subsequent telephone call which was also recorded, Clarence spoke to the "friend" about the quality of the cocaine and the price. Clarence and Angelo arranged the details of the purchase which would take place in a designated hotel parking lot. The "friend" would be waiting in the parking lot in his own car. When Clarence arrived at the hotel parking lot, Angelo proceeded to transfer the cocaine from Clarence's vehicle into the friend's car. Angelo received $20,000 in cash from the "friend" and gave it to Clarence. The FBI then moved in and arrested Angelo and the friend who was identified as Tony. At Tony's trial, the Government attempted to introduce Angelo's telephone statements regarding the participation of the friend in the drug transaction. Tony's lawyer objected and the court's ruling should be that the statements are:

own car.

• Admissible non-hearsay

• Inadmissible hearsay

A truck driver was buying gas at a gas station when a car entered the station. The truck driver observed the occupant of the car, who had only one arm, pay a large number of one hundred dollar bills to the attendant and pick up a brief case. When the brief case was open for inspection, the truck driver observed a large number of packets of white powder. The truck driver took the license number of the car and gave it to a police officer, to whom the truck driver also gave a description of the one-armed man as well as a complete account of what he had observed. Shortly thereafter, the officer traced the ownership of the car to a courier, a one-armed man, matching the truck driver's description. When the courier learned that the truck driver had reported the transaction at the gas station to the police, he called the truck driver and told him to leave town during his trial if the truck driver valued his life. The truck driver told the officer of his conversation with the courier and told him that he was not going to be in town during the courier's trial. At trial, the truck driver did not respond to a subpoena. At a voir dire on the admissibility of the truck driver's statements to the officer concerning the transaction at the police station, the officer related his conversation with the truck driver about the courier's threat and the truck driver's intention to leave town during the trial. The prosecution then asked the officer to relate what the truck driver told him about the transaction at the gas station. The judge should rule that testimony:

• Inadmissible b/c the truck driver's voluntary absence dos not constitute unavailability

• Admissible b/c the courier has forfeited his right to object b/c of his wrongdoing