WidgetCo has a patent on a valuable piece of machinery. Widget sued CopyCo for patent infringement. WidgetCo’s Vice President gave a deposition under oath, related to the company’s patent validity. One year later, WidgetCo and CopyCo settled their dispute. One month after that, WidgetCo’s Vice President dies. WidgetCo then sued KnockOff, a different company, for copyright infringement. In this second trial, WidgetCo wants to use their Vice President’s deposition testimony. KnockOff wants to object to its use and admission. What is KnockOff’s best argument?

Rick was convicted of unlawful possession of narcotics at a trial in which he did not testify in his own defense. A week after trial, the judge receives a letter from a juror expressing concern that the jury violated the judge’s instructions because it considered Rick’s refusal to take the stand as an admission of guilt. The judge informs both the prosecutor and defense counsel of the letter; defense counsel files a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. May the juror be called by the trial judge to testify on the matter in the letter? 

Same facts as #72.  On behalf of the Caste Iron Grill (defendant), the hospital intake specialist would testify that Greg brought Dorit to the hospital and told the intake specialist that he saw her trip on the sidewalk, in the park, near the plaza, east of the Caste Iron Grill.”  Counsel makes the proper objection.  Should the judge overrule or sustain the objection regarding the intake specialist’s testimony? 

Wendy, a cashier at The Coffee House in Pearlridge, was robbed at gunpoint by a man who demanded that she give him all the money she had in her cash register. Wendy complied and the robber fled with approximately $300.00 in cash.  About an hour after the robbery, Wendy gave a description of the robber to the police. Two hours after the robbery, Wendy met with an artist for the Honolulu Police Department, who drew a composite sketch of the robbery suspect based on Wendy’s description. A week later, Wendy picked appellant’s photograph from a photographic array of about twenty-five to thirty pictures. At trial, Wendy confirmed her prior identifications and pointed out the appellant as the person who robbed her.  Appellant presented an alibi defense through witnesses who testified that he was with them on the day in question. The jury found the appellant guilty. Appellant appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting the police sketch artist’s composite sketch. What is the strongest basis for appellant’s argument?

Charles Murphy died from an overdose of sleeping pills.  The insurance company claimed that Charles committed suicide and refused to make payment on his life insurance policy.  Charles’s wife argued that the overdose was accidental and sued the insurance company for non-payment. At trial, the insurance company called Dr. Mears, a clinical psychiatrist who was a close friend of Charles.  Dr. Mears never examined Charles as a patient, but she did have lunch with Charles two days before he died.  The insurance company did not attempt to qualify Dr. Mears as an expert.  Mears testified that on the day she saw Charles, “he seemed very depressed; in fact, it appeared to me that he displayed all the symptoms of bipolar affective disorder.”  Charles’s wife objects to this testimony.  How should the court rule?

Darryl’s dog bit Kyle in the leg. Kyle sued Darryl, seeking monetary damages. Under the applicable law, every dog owner is strictly liable for any injuries caused by his dog. At trial, Kyle offers evidence that Darryl’s dog bit three other people in the year before biting Kyle. In his defense, Darryl offers evidence that Kyle kicked the dog just before the dog bit Kyle. Is either item of evidence admissible?

Product liability action by P against D, the manufacturer of an elliptical exercise machine that collapsed while P was using it. P claims the elliptical’s assembly was defectively designed. D calls W, D’s chief designer, who testifies that the elliptical’s design “used the very best technology; there was no better design possible.”  On cross-examination, P asks, “After this accident, you redesigned this model, didn’t you?”  D objects. The court should:

Bo is on trial for shooting and killing Francis as part of a contract killing.  The killing occurred onboard a private yacht off the coast of Florida.  Bo’s primary defense is that he did not kill Francis until the yacht had reached international waters, making the killing ineligible as a federal criminal offense in the United States.  In his defense, Bo called Roderick, who testifies that he was on board the yacht on the night of the killing.  Roderick testified that he was a regular passenger on board the yacht and he knows that when the ship reaches international waters, the pilot of the ship blows the horn three times.   Roderick will further testify that on the night in question, he heard a horn blow three times, and a moment later, Roderick heard a gunshot. The prosecution objects, “HEARSAY!” How should the judge rule?

Kazue sues Gina for breach of contract after Gina did not deliver plans for a house that Kazue had commissioned Gina to prepare. Kazue takes the stand during her case-in-chief. Gina’s lawyer proposes to ask Kazue on cross-examination, “Weren’t you were convicted three years ago on a misdemeanor charge of malicious mischief, when you complained to police that your neighbor hosted loud parties, but in fact he did not?” Kazue objects that the question is improper. How should the judge rule?

On direct examination in his trial for grand larceny, arising out of the alleged theft of an automobile, Tom testified: “I am a man married to my wife of twenty years; we live in the suburbs where my wife and I both work, and our kids attend public school.” On cross-examination, the prosecutor proposes to ask Tom: “Isn’t it true that you and your wife are in the process of a divorce and custody battle involving your children?” Tom’s counsel objects, arguing that the prosecutor “is just trying to tell the jury that Tom is a bad person, which violates the rule against character evidence.” How should the court rule and why?