This text is replaced by the Flash movie.
| Evidence Fall 2000 Mid-Term Exam |
|
|
|
| Sunday, 03 December 2006 | |
|
UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC McGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW EVIDENCE - PROFESSOR F. GALVES FALL SEMESTER 2000 DECEMBER 9, 2000 MID-TERM EXAMINATION 1:00 P.M. - 3:30 P.M. SPECIAL EXAM INSTRUCTIONS In addition to the preceding standard McGeorge exam instructions, please READ THE SPECIAL EXAM INSTRUCTIONS BELOW CAREFULLY! 1. Write your student exam number: (1) in the upper right hand corner of this page, and (2) on the covers of your Blue Books when you receive them at 1:30 p.m. 2. Answer according to the applicable Federal Rules of Evidence and/or applicable case law. 3. You must return the WHOLE exam with your Blue Books, or YOUR EXAM WILL NOT BE GRADED. 4. There are two (2) one-hour essay questions: Q1-1:30-2:30; Q2-2:30-3:30. 5. 1:00-1:30 P.M. -- Extra ½ hour at the beginning of the exam, to read the exam and organize/outline your answer/analysis. 6. You will not be given blue books until one-half-hour has passed (starting at 1:30)-- during the reading period (1:00-1:30) you will be provided with the exam and two pieces of scratch paper on which you may write. 7. Remember, it is a closed-book, closed-note exam, you will be able to use your casebooks and Supps. on the final exam only -- This mid-term is worth 30% of your final grade. EXAM NO. UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC McGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW EVIDENCE PROFESSOR GALVES FALL SEMESTER, 2000 DECEMBER 9, 2000 MID-TERM EXAMINATION 1:00 P.M. - 3:30 P.M. ONE-PART EXAMINATION (1:00 P.M. - 3:30 P.M.) QUESTION I: (60 MINUTES, 1:30 - 2:30) Paul, a law professor, ("P") filed a lawsuit alleging an intentional tort against Dan, a deliveryman ("D"), requesting damages for injuries suffered from stab wounds when Dan was on campus making a delivery. Paul also has brought a negligent supervision claim against Dan's employer, Direct Deliveries ("DD"), for failing to supervise Dan. At trial, Paul is called as the first witness and the following questions and answers are given. At each of the numbered 15 indicated points in the left margin -- "[1]" - "[15]" -- state what proper, plausible objection(s), or motion(s) to strike, if any, could have been made, and explain how and why the trial court should rule on each such objection/motion. If there is no proper, plausible objection/motion that could be made, just indicate, "N/A," then state very briefly why the question or answer given was proper/non-objectionable and move on to the next numbered point. Do not include any objections/motions that could be made to any questions or answers that are not numbered. [Direct examination of Paul] 17. What is your name? 1. Paul Martinez. 17. Where do you live? 1. 135 Montgomery Way, here in town. [1] Q. And you have lived here there for eight years, right? 1. That's right. 17. What do you do for a living? 1. I am a law professor. 17. On January 11, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., where were you? 1. I was standing in the Student Center, buying some over-priced food. 17. What happened when you were there? 1. Well, a student, Wilma Waddington, said to me, "Hey Professor Martinez, here comes that crazy, freaked out delivery guy, Dan, and he's yelling at you and he seems very upset!" Q. What happened then? 1. I noticed that Dan was rushing toward me, screaming, and waving his arms. 17. O.K., what happened after he rushed at you screaming and waving a knife? 1. I just ran out of there past the Dean's Office toward the Lecture Hall. [5] Q. I see, so you didn't do anything to him and you did not provoke him in anyway? 1. Yes, that's right. [Paul testifies about the chase, the attack and its aftermath, and is now being questioned on the issue of damages] 17. How much were your medical expenses? 1. I have no idea, I have never been told that, I would assume a lot though. 17. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you your total bill for $27,000? 1. I guess so. 17. All right then, (showing him the bill) do you now remember how much? 1. Well, let's see, it says right here . . . . $27,234.33. [Paul is then cross-examined by Dan's attorney] [10] Q. Isn't it true that your medical bills have already been paid and you owe nothing right now? 1. Well, initially, those bills, they had my name on them .. . to me . . . 17. But your insurance company is the one who paid them, not you, right? 1. But I was responsible for them at first. 17. But you got reimbursed didn't you? And now you want to get double recovery, O.K., I see your little scheme now. [Later in defendant's cross-examination of plaintiff] [13] Q. Do you realize that Dan has never been in a fight in his entire life, did you know that? [14] A. No, but I know he is a wild man and he was completely out of control whenever he came on campus to make deliveries. [Later, Paul is questioned on re-direct] [15] Q. Isn't it true that when Dan visited you in the hospital, he offered to pay your medical expenses, said he was sorry, and asked you to forgive him? 1. Yes, that's true. QUESTION II: (60 MINUTES, 2:30 - 3:30) Dexter has been charged with murder. The prosecution claims that Dexter started a fist fight in a boardinghouse where he and the victim, Vic, were staying and that when Vic began to get the better of Dexter in the brawl, Dexter pulled out a switchblade and stabbed Vic to death. Dexter testified in his own defense. He claims that Vic started the fight and that he (Dexter) drew the switchblade only when Dexter became afraid that Vic was going to "beat [his] brains out." Should each of the following items offered by defendant Dexter be admitted or excluded in evidence? Why or why not? Discuss. 1. Dexter's testimony that several other residents of the boardinghouse told him that Vic was "out to get him." 2. Testimony of Fred, a fellow resident, that he (Fred) has seen Vic start many fights at the boarding house. 3. Testimony of Kelly, the manager of the boardinghouse, that in her opinion, Dexter is a non-violent person and that she remembers that on several occasions anytime anyone ever tried to start a fight with Dexter, Dexter "would always just put his hands over his ears and simply walk away." 4. Testimony of a Cheech, a drug-using junkie, schizophrenic mental patient, who claims that Vic is "the devil" and that he (Vic) is the one who "actually killed President Kennedy." Should each of the following items offered by the prosecution on rebuttal be admitted or excluded in evidence? Why or why not? Discuss. 5. Evidence in the form of a certified judgment that Dexter was convicted 15 years ago with assault with a deadly weapon (a switchblade attack). 6. Evidence that Dexter has a bad reputation for being a "law-breaking thief." 7. Actual recordings of the 911 tape of Vic, right after Vic had been stabbed revealing Vic crying for help and begging God for his life as he realized he was bleeding to death. |
|
| Last Updated ( Monday, 04 December 2006 ) |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|