Solve 9z2−18z+8≤0 A. (−∞,23]∪[43,∞) B. (23,43) C. [23,43] D. (−∞,∞)

Solve 9z2−18z+8=0 A. {−23,−43} B. {23,43} C. {−23,43} D. {23,−43}

On the issue of whether anyone had recently crossed a snow-covered bridge, the testimony of a witness that he saw human footprints in the snow on the bridge would be direct evidence.

On the issue of whether anyone had recently crossed a snow-covered bridge, the testimony of a witness that he saw a man crossing would be circumstantial evidence.

Evidence that the defendant drove recklessly on a prior occasion is material because it speaks to the question of his negligence. However, it is not sufficiently probative of the issue of negligence on this particular occasion, and is therefore not relevant.

A court will take judicial notice that the ordinary period of human gestation is 280 days.

The court will accept without proof that June 6, 2016, was a Monday by reference to a calendar.

A plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident when her car was hit by a pickup truck driven by the defendant. At trial of her personal injury action, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant was driving on the wrong side of the road in excess of the posted speed limit. The defendant denies these allegations and denies liability for the accident. The plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant has a reputation in the community for being a daredevil and for being somewhat irresponsible. In fact, the plaintiff’s witness would testify that the defendant is known by all his friends as “the Menace.” Is the proffered testimony admissible?

A woman was struck by a brick with her name scrawled on it that was thrown through her bedroom window. The victim believes that her ex-boyfriend, who is a gang member, threw the brick because she has become active in anti-gang groups, but she did not actually see him throw it. If the ex-boyfriend is arrested and put on trial for battery, which of the following items of the victim’s proposed testimony is LEAST likely to be admitted?

Alex is on trial for burglary. The house he allegedly broke into had been for sale, and the prosecutor’s theory is that a week before the burglary, Alex had shown up at the house as a potential buyer in order to learn the lay of the house and where it was vulnerable to break-ins. The defendant admits he came to look at the house as a potential buyer but claims he was nowhere near the house when it was burgled. Alex has two prior convictions. One is for a felony burglary that occurred six years ago, in which he broke into a house that was for sale after he posed as a buyer and walked through the house three days before the crime. The other conviction is a misdemeanor for filing a false police report two years ago. The prosecutor has certificates of convictions for each of these crimes.   Can she admit these certificates of conviction against Alex?