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?

Betsy is suing her doctor, arguing that the doctor did not exercise the required level of care when he operated on her knee.  Her husband testifies in her case, describing the difficulty that Betsy had moving around in the weeks after the surgery.  At one point during his testimony, he testifies that “two months after the doctor performed the operation, Betsy could still not walk up the stairs of our home.”   The doctor’s attorney cross-examines the husband and asks him whether it is true that two months after the operation, he had dinner with a friend and he said: “Betsy is really recovering well after her surgery.  She can go up and down the stairs at our house with no problem.”   Can the doctor’s attorney ask her this question?

Wilbur is a defense witness in a criminal case. After Wilbur testified, defense rested and the plaintiff called Emma, who works with Wilbur in the same company. Emma testifies that she has known Wilbur for six years and worked with him on numerous projects. Emma testifies as follows: Plaintiff’s Attorney: What is your opinion of Wilbur’s honesty?Emma: I would never trust Wilbur. I think he lies whenever he sees a benefit to it. He is certainly the type of person who would lie on the stand if he saw something in it for him.Plaintiff’s Attorney: Can you tell me why you have this opinion?Emma: Sure. Well, there are a lot of reasons. The first time we worked together on a project, his part of the project was late, and so the entire project missed its deadline by a week. I learned a few months later that Wilbur had gone to our boss afterward and told him that the delay was my fault, even though my part of the project was on time. I was furious. Is Emma’s testimony admissible?

At a victory party after a hard-fought election, the campaign director consumed several drinks. A campaign worker who had also been drinking took the director to her hotel room for a nightcap. They later had intercourse. The worker filed a complaint with the police, claiming that the director had intercourse with her against her will, and the director was charged with rape. Which of the following is most likely to be admitted in the director’s defense?

Stuart is charged with stabbing a person in an alleyway outside a bar. He is pleading self-defense. During his defense case, his attorney has four character witnesses he wants to call. Which of them is most likely to be allowed to testify?

A plaintiff sued his neighbor over a 10-foot-high stockade fence that the neighbor was building adjacent to the plaintiff’s backyard. The local zoning ordinance permitted a fence of this height unless it was a “spite fence,” defined as a fence erected solely for the purpose of interfering with neighboring landowners’ use and enjoyment of their property. The plaintiff alleged that the neighbor was building the fence to block sunlight to the garden that the plaintiff had planted. The neighbor denied that she was building the fence for that purpose. The plaintiff wishes to introduce evidence that the neighbor had sprayed herbicide towards the garden previously. Should the judge permit the plaintiff’s testimony?

Frank is being prosecuted for armed robbery after allegedly holding up Debra in the street at gunpoint and stealing from her.  The prosecutor calls Debra to the stand and asks her to tell the jury what was stolen from her during the incident.  Debra says: “The guy took my watch and my wallet.”   The defense attorney has a copy of the police report, filled out by Officer Gendry, the officer who responded to the scene.  On the report, Officer Gendry wrote: “I spoke to Debra, the victim, while I was on the scene, and Debra told me that the perpetrator stole her wallet.  I asked if the perpetrator took anything else, and Debra said no.” On cross-examination, can the defense attorney ask Debra about the statement she made to the police officer in which she allegedly said that only her wallet and nothing else was taken?  The defense attorney is offering this evidence to impeach Debra, not for the truth of the matter asserted.

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: