Dana is on trial for child abuse. The prosecution’s theory is that on October 5th, Dana got angry at her six-year-old son for having stained the carpet in her bedroom, and so she struck him multiple times, causing significant bruising to his face and body. Which of the following evidence (if any) should be excluded as IRRELEVANT to the prosecutor’s case?

A police officer pulled over Sam’s car after seeing it swerve numerous times into the oncoming lane of traffic. The officer ordered Sam out of the car and told him to take a Breathalyzer test. Sam refused. Based on the driving the officer observed and Sam’s refusal to take the test, the officer arrested Sam for driving while under the influence of alcohol. A person is guilty of this crime if his ability to drive a car is impaired because of the consumption of alcohol.   At trial, the prosecutor wants the officer to testify that Sam refused to take the Breathalyzer test. Is this evidence relevant?

Granger Machines manufactures farm equipment and vehicles.  John Kerling, a farmer, owned a harvester that had been manufactured by Granger. On January 5th, the harvester malfunctioned while Kerling was using it, and Kerling’s arm was cut off. One week later, on January 12th, Granger sent out a recall letter telling all owners of the harvester to take them into the local Granger dealer, to add on a safety shunt that would prevent such accidents in the future.   Daniel Sampson was another farmer who owned a Granger harvester.  On January 13th, Sampson’s hand was cut off by the harvester.  Although the recall letter had been sent out at that point, Sampson had not yet received it.   On January 15th, Kerling and Sampson each separately sued Granger Machines, alleging that the harvester had a design defect.  In their respective trials, Kerling and Sampson each attempted to admit the recall letter sent out by Granger as evidence that the harvester was defective.  Is the recall letter admissible for this purpose?

Westin Coal owns and operates dozens of coal mines in the state.  One day there was a cave-in on one of their mines, and three miners died.  The miners’ families are now suing Westin, arguing that the mines were negligently maintained.  In their case-in-chief, the plaintiffs called a former Westin employee, who testified that no safety inspection had been conducted on the mine for over two years.   During the defendant’s case-in-chief, Westin called an employee from Prescott Insurance, a large national insurance company.  The Prescott employee will testify that Westin has an insurance policy with Prescott and that as part of that policy, Prescott employees conduct independent safety inspections on all of the Westin mines every three months.  The Prescott employee will then authenticate and admit a business record from Prescott’s files which confirms that Prescott conducted regular safety inspections up until the time of the cave-in. The plaintiffs object to the testimony of the Prescott employee.  This evidence is:

A plaintiff brings a federal civil rights action against several members of a police department for near-fatal injuries incurred as a result of an alleged beating administered by the officers. The plaintiff plans to call as a witness his cellmate, who will testify that the plaintiff was in fact beaten by the defendants. The plaintiff also wants to introduce the bloodstained shirt that he wore on the night of the beating. The defendants plan to call an expert to testify that the injuries suffered by the plaintiff were inconsistent with injuries likely to be inflicted by the alleged police beating, and a second expert to testify similarly. The defendants also will call as a witness a fellow officer, who will testify that the plaintiff was suspected to have hepatitis, and as a result the defendants would not have beaten him for fear of being infected by any open wounds. Which item of relevant evidence is the court LEAST likely to exclude?

An expert witness, who has an advanced degree in engineering, is testifying at a jury trial to the possible causes for the failure of an enclosed pedestrian bridge in a shopping mall. Which of the following data, if relied on by the expert witness in forming his opinion, is admissible on direct examination as substantive evidence?

An automobile driver struck and killed a pedestrian at a street crossing. The pedestrian’s wife witnessed the accident. The wife later brought an action against the driver for the wrongful death of her husband, alleging excessive speed, failure to observe traffic signals, and defective brakes. At trial, the wife was called to testify that her husband was in the middle of the intersection when he was run over by the driver. Is the wife competent as a witness?

While waiting for a flight, a passenger noticed that whenever a man with a large valise passed close to her suitcase, the Geiger counter inside, which she used in her research to detect small amounts of radiation, would tick. The passenger informed the airport police, who quickly accosted the man, a medical technician. His suitcase contained some expensive radioactive isotopes used in treating certain forms of cancer. The police were aware that the same type of isotopes had been reported missing from a hospital a few days earlier. The man was charged under a federal statute making it a crime to transport radioactive materials without a license. At the trial, an expert witness testifies as to how the Geiger counter operates. Next, the prosecutor calls the passenger to testify regarding the reaction of the Geiger counter to the man’s presence. What must the prosecution show in order for the testimony to be allowed?

In a criminal trial, the prosecutor called a witness to the stand to authenticate the voice in a tape recording as the defendant’s. The only other time the witness had heard the defendant’s voice was after his arrest. Assuming a proper foundation has been laid, may the witness properly authenticate the defendant’s voice?

Norris is suing Stanley for breach of contract. Norris claims that Stanley sent him a letter, which Stanley signed, in which Stanley agreed to sell Norris a vintage comic book for $500. Stanley claims he never wrote any such letter and never accepted Norris’ offer. Which of the following is a correct statement regarding the extent to which Norris can testify about the letter?