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?

D is charged with receiving stolen property after she bought a stolen purse. The evidence indicated that D purchased a luxury brand name purse from a street vendor at an extraordinarily low price. At trial, D testified that she did not know that the purse was stolen; she thought it was merely an imitation and legal “dupe/knock-off.” In rebuttal, the prosecution offers evidence that D bought identical stolen purses at identical prices from ten other street vendors during the past year. This rebuttal evidence is:

Under the FRE, which of the following is impermissible?  

D’s defense in a homicide case is an alibi. D claims that he was in Cheers, his favorite bar, watching his favorite TV show, at the time of the crime. D calls the Cheers bartender to the stand to testify that D never misses watching Survivor in the bar. This testimony is:

Prosecution of D for murder. The prosecution calls PO, a police officer who collected physical evidence at the crime scene. PO authenticates her report and testifies that she is required to file such a report whenever she investigates. The prosecution offers the report as evidence. D objects. The court should:

In his trial for illegally importing drugs, Uri testifies that he “had no idea that there were drugs in my suitcase,” and that “he simply took a package that his friend Vic gave him, because Vic wanted me to give it to Will when I got home again to the United States.” On cross, the prosecutor proposes to ask Uri, “Isn’t it a fact, sir, that you carried drugs into the country from abroad two years ago, was caught doing so, but never charged?” Uri objects that “the question is beyond the scope of direct and represents another attempt by the prosecutor to inject character into this case.” How should the judge rule?

Two reality television chefs, Ramsey and Huang, were campaigning to win “King of the Foodies” in a well-known contest. Just one week before the vote was to occur, a website published a story implying that Huang’s cooking had been known to cause food poisoning. Huang lost the contest and Ramsey was named King of the Foodies. Huang sued the website for defamation; the website defended on the grounds of truth. At trial, Huang testified that his cooking had never, in all his professional career, ever caused a single instance of food poisoning. The website subsequently called a witness to testify that a seafood soup prepared by Huang seven years ago had given ten people food poisoning. Huang objects to this testimony. Will it be excluded? 

Civil suit involving the vision-assistance products sold by Tyrrell Corp. Ace represents Tyrrell Corp. During direct examination, Ace asked Tyrrell’s president to name and describe the three models of contact lens his company makes. Tyrell’s president could name two but could not recall the third. Ace wants to show Tyrell’s president notes that Ace prepared during an interview with Tyrell’s staff before trial that list the names of the three contact lens models. Is this permissible under the FRE?

Same facts as #31. Except that after the prosecutor has asked Ronna on cross-examination about two prior felony convictions, she calls Stan, who is prepared to testify that he has known Ronna for twenty years and knows her reputation in their neighborhood to be that she is a “truthful person.”  The prosecutor objects.  How should the court rule and why?

Sam crashed his car into Quentin’s antique shop on the way home from a bar. Quentin smelled beer on Sam’s breath and sued Sam for negligence, claiming Sam was driving drunk. Sam denied intoxication. While the lawsuit was pending, Sam’s attorney met with Quentin’s attorney and said: “Listen, I talked to the bartender who was on duty that night. It turns out my client ordered quite a few beers before the accident occurred. Given that, I will offer you $500,000. I do not think a jury will give you more than that.” Quentin said nothing in response and the next day, tracked down the bartender. At trial, Quentin seeks to admit the lawyer’s statements, as well as testimony by the bartender about the beers that Sam consumed. Are these items of evidence admissible under the FRE?