A plaintiff sued a defendant as a result of an automobile accident. After the plaintiff testified, the defendant called the plaintiff’s neighbor to the stand. The neighbor testified that he has lived next to the plaintiff for the past five years and knows of the plaintiff’s poor reputation for truth and veracity. On cross-examination, the plaintiff’s attorney wants to ask the neighbor if he is the chief claims officer for an insurance company that insures the defendant.How should the trial judge rule on the question?

Hydra Energy signed a contract with Daystar Natural Gas, by which Daystar agreed to provide Hydra with 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year in exchange for a specified payment.  After the first year, Hydra claimed that Daystar had only provided it with 9 billion cubic feet of natural gas.  Daystar claimed that it had provided the required 10 billion cubic feet and that Hydra’s storage facilities were so poor that it lost 10% of the gas that is stored. In its case in chief, Hydra seeks to admit two court judgments against Daystar—one from two years ago and one from five years ago.  In each case, a jury found that Daystar had failed to deliver the agreed upon amount of natural gas to an energy company with which it had signed a contract.  Daystar objects to this evidence.   The evidence is:

Tracy is suing Windham Ladder Co., claiming that their ladder was manufactured with a design defect. She testifies on direct that the first time she used the ladder, it collapsed and she fell to the ground, breaking her ankle.   Which question would most likely be permitted during cross-examination?  (Assume that the opposing party has a good faith basis for believing that all of the facts being asked about are true).

The owner of a small business was injured in a traffic accident. A month after the accident, the owner asked an employee to take a photograph of the intersection where the accident occurred. The employee took the photograph and gave it to the owner, who in turn gave it to his lawyer. The lawyer wishes to introduce the photograph into evidence at trial of the owner’s lawsuit against the defendant. The lawyer plans to have the employee testify that he took the photograph. The lawyer also plans to call a witness who lives in the neighborhood of the accident scene and arrived at the intersection shortly after the accident occurred. The witness is willing to testify that the scene in the photograph is in fact the intersection where the accident happened. Whose testimony is necessary to introduce the photograph into evidence?

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?