This text is replaced by the Flash movie.
| Evidence Past Final Exams |
|
|
|
| Sunday, 03 December 2006 | |
|
UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC McGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW EVIDENCE - PROFESSOR F. GALVES SPRING SEMESTER 2000 FRIDAY, MAY 5, 2000 FINAL EXAMINATION ROOM C - 6:00 - 9:30 P.M. SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS In addition to the preceding standard McGeorge Exam Instructions, please read the additional special exam instructions below carefully. This is a 3-1/2 hour exam, the exam will begin at 6:00 p.m., and end at 9:30 p.m. 1. There are two (2) parts to the exam. Part I consists of three (3) ONE-HOUR essay questions. Part II consists of a one-half hour (30 minutes), 15-short answer question section. 2. The exam schedule (approximate) will be as follows: 5:50 - 6:00p.m. In your seats ready to take the exam. 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. Take Part I of the exam (the three essay questions). You will have 2 blank pages for taking notes as you read), please DO NOT BEGIN WRITING UNTIL YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO DO SO. 9:00 - 9:30 p.m. (Continue exam) Take Part II of the exam (short answer portion, 15 short answer questions, average of 2 minutes per question). 9:30 p.m. Quit writing; end of Part II; END OF EXAM, turn in Bluebooks. 3. This is a limited open book examination. You may bring into the exam the following materials only: The Federal Rules of Evidence Handout distributed in class the last few weeks Your own HANDWRITTEN NOTES in your FRE Handout ARE PERMITTED. However, no additional sheets of paper ("pasties") are permitted to be inserted into your Handout (with the exception of tabs and page markers FOR LOCATION PURPOSES ONLY). SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR PART I · Part I of the exam consists of three (3) essay questions. Each question has various short sub parts -- most of these numbered sub part questions contain some of their own additional factual assumptions. Answer each sub question SEPARATELY according to the general facts and specific assumptions made in each subpart. · If you use case names or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, explain how they are relevant and why they might be controlling. · Cover all reasonable possibilities and state your reasoning as fully as possible within the time limit given and to the degree your legal judgment dictates. Note that implausible arguments will not receive credit. GENERAL EXAM ADVICE: · Be sure to make necessary interrelationships between the rules, law, and facts -- you get points only for ANALYSIS (application of pertinent law, rules and case holdings to the facts of the hypothetical questions) · Do not try to make your essay answer fit into your pre-written outline regardless of the hypothetical questions -- instead, these hypothetical questions should control the outlines and parameters of your responses. · You do not get points for mere unsupported conclusions or general memorized statements of law not specifically or persuasively applicable to the hypothetical. · Make sure to use all plausible counter arguments of all parties and then be sure to EVALUATE the relative strengths and weaknesses of those arguments and counter arguments. · No points are given for merely spotting NON-ISSUES, or for making up your own facts, or for going outside the given hypothetical -- accordingly, you must answer only these exam questions. Be sure to remain cognizant of the TIME and to budget your time (e.g., proctors will NOT tell you to move from Essay One, to Essay Two, to Essay Three, etc. in Part I). THERE ARE THREE (3) ESSAY QUESTIONS EACH WITH A VARIOUS NUMBER OF SUBPART QUESTIONS. PAY ATTENTION TO THE SPECIFIC CALL OF THE QUESTION FOR EACH SUBPART UNDER EACH ESSAY QUESTION. AGAIN, IT IS CRITICAL TO BUDGET YOUR TIME AND MAKE SURE YOU ANSWER EACH SEPARATE SUBPART QUESTION. EACH SUBPART QUESTION CONTAINS ITS OWN SET OF ASSUMPTIONS, SO EACH SUBPART MUST BE ADDRESSED INDIVIDUALLY. EXAM NO. _________ UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC McGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW EVIDENCE PROFESSOR F. GALVES SPRING SEMESTER 2000 FRIDAY, MAY 5, 2000 FINAL EXAMINATION ROOM C -- 6:00 - 9:30 P.M. PART TWO OF TWO PARTS (9:00 P.M. - 9:30 P.M.) SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR PART II SHORT ANSWER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS (9:00 P.M. - 9:30 P.M.) 1. You have one half hour (30 MINUTES) to complete this final section of Part II of the exam. 2. At the completion of the exam period, YOU MUST RETURN (in the boxes provided by proctors) EVERY PIECE OF PAPER HANDED OUT TO YOU FOR THIS PART II OF THE EXAM. 3. There are 15 short answer questions to be answered in 30 minutes. Check NOW to be sure that you have all 15 questions. 4. Each of the questions states the type of case and gives you a small portion of a trial transcript (Q.'s & A.'s) and then you are to give the correct objection(s), plausible response and likely ruling. 5. These are short and designed to elicit not more than a few sentences of analysis -- you either know the answer or you do not. 6. If a question seems too difficult, go on to the next one and come back to the skipped questions later. 7. Unless otherwise indicated, you are to assume that the issues arise in a federal court and that federal legal principles control. 8. STOP WRITING AS SOON AS THE PROCTOR CALLS TIME. PART ONE OF TWO PARTS (600 P.M. - 9:00 P.M.) ESSAY QUESTION ONE Pam, a patron of Davis Theater, after watching "Star Wars", started to descend a carpeted stairway leading to the restroom. Pam fell halfway down the stairs and broke her ankle. Two months later, she sued Davis for her injuries, alleging (1) that her foot caught in a tear in the carpet which she could not see in the dim light and (2) that Davis had negligently permitted the carpet to remain in its dangerous condition. Davis denied there was ever any defect or dangerous condition and alleged that Pam fell solely because she was intoxicated. The following evidence was admitted at trial: (1) Pam introduced the testimony of Wally where Wally said he was at the bottom of the stairway playing a video game when Pam fell and that an unknown person rushed down the stairway to Pam and said "I saw you trip on that tear in the carpet, are you O.K? It is so dark in here! They should really fix this." (2) Pam introduced testimony of Carter that a week after the accident, Carter was called to lay a new, non-tear carpet, and that the old carpet was removed, but that the old carpet did not have a tear in it. (3) Davis introduced testimony of Adams, Pam's ex-boyfriend, who said he sat behind Pam as they watched the movie, "Heat," and he followed her to the concession stand and on the way back up the stairs he saw her fall and that in his opinion she was drunk and contributorily negligent. (4) Davis presented a videotape of Pam's fall recorded by a theater video surveillance camera and the testimony of a janitor to say that the recording was a fair and accurate representation of the stairway at the theater. (5) Davis introduced a hospital report written by a nurse which states that Pam's ankle did not seem to hurt so bad, but this was probably because Pam stated she had a few drinks and some alcohol was still in her system. Assume that in each instance all appropriate objections were made, discuss whether the trial court erred in admitting items of evidence 1 through 5 above? ESSAY QUESTION TWO In 1989, Dale confessed to car theft, but the confession was inadmissible in a prosecution for that theft because of a Miranda warning violation. Dale was acquitted of that charge. In 1998, Dale was brought to trial on a charge of grand larceny. The indictment charged that dale wrongfully obtained possession of a 1995 Buick Skylark, the lawful property of Acme, a corporation engaged in the auto rental business , and converted it to its own use. The car was discovered wrecked and abandoned. At the jury trial, the following occurred: (1) The prosecution's first witness was Mang, who testified that he is a supervisory employee of Acme and is thoroughly familiar with the computerized system by which the company keeps track of the status and location of cars owned by the company. Mang further testified that whenever a car is leased or returned, the details of the transaction are entered into the Acme computer by the employee handling the transaction, and that the corporation relies on the computer records exclusively for information on its cars. Finally Mang testified that he has by proper means consulted the company's data bank and that the car that dale is charged with stealing is shown by the computer as within the company possession and not out on rental. (2) The prosecution then called Gum, the officer who discovered the car, who testified that at the time of the recovery the car contained several shirts bearing the laundry mark DAL. (3) The After dale testified inn his on behalf on direct examination that "I have never stolen a car in my life," the prosecution introduced evidence of dale's 1979 confession. (4) Dale introduced testimony of his mother that just before his brother died in her arms after being shot, his brother, Chip, said, "Oh mother, I'm a goner, that officer Gum shot me because he hates our family." Assume that in each instance all appropriate objections were made, discuss whether the trial court erred in admitting items of evidence 1 through 4 above? ESSAY QUESTION THREE While Pat was crossing the street toward her husband, Will, she was struck by a pizza delivery truck driven by Chuck, an employee of Dan's Pizza Parlor (Danny's). Pat sues Danny's, alleging the negligence of its driver, Carl, the negligent hiring of Carl, and seeking damages for his serious personal injuries. Dan's answer admitted that Carl was its employee but denied he was negligent, and stated that if he was negligent, then he was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident because he is not employed to negligently run over people, if that is what he did. Despite a diligent search by Pat, Chuck cannot be located. At trial, the following occurred; (1) Pam called Erma, who saw the accident. Erma testified that Carl come out of the truck screaming, in a loud raspy voice, saying, "You idiot, couldn't you see I was speeding and you should have gotten out of the way?" (2) Pam called her husband Will to testify that, "Four days after the accident, a guy with a loud raspy voice called me at home and said he was sorry for hitting my wife with his truck. I didn't recognize his voice but he said his name was Carl." (3) Pam introduced evidence of a driving instructor to state that in his experience truck driver's for Pizza Parlors tend to speed, he wrote an article on the subject of a scientific study he did noting that Pizza Parlor truck drivers speed 2-3 times more often than other truck drivers. (4) Danny's introduced a witness who said Carl won a award certificate for being the "Most Careful Truck Driver in the City," but when asked where the certificate itself was, the witness did not know and could not produce it. Assume that in each instance all appropriate objections were made, discuss whether the trial court erred in admitting items of evidence 1 through 4 above? PART ONE OF TWO PARTS (9:00 P.M. - 9:30 P.M.) SHORT ANSWER "OBJECTION" SECTION *************************************************************************************** For each of the following, state: (1) The correct objection(s), (2) The best plausible response to that/those objection(s), and (3) The likely, correct legal ruling *************************************************************************************** 1. Rape Prosecution. D questioned by his counsel. Q. Did you rape the victim? A. No, she consented, she used to be my girlfriend Q. How many times had you had intercourse with her before she accused you of rape? 2. Drug Prosecution. Officer questioned by prosecution. Q. So after you arrested D, what did you do? A. I took the cocaine he was holding in his hand, put it in a bag and marked it. Q. How long ago was that? A. Three years ago. Q. HI direct your attention to this bag marked for identification, do you recognize it? A. Yes, it's the bag, I can tell by the mark I put on it three years ago. Q. I offer the bag in evidence. 3. Murder Prosecution. Prosecution Witness cross-examined by defense counsel. Q. You say you saw defendant kill the victim, are you sure about that, are you really sure, this is very important? A. Yes, I know, and I'm sure, an innocent victim being slaughtered by an animal like your client is very serious indeed. Q. May I remind you that you are under oath, do you realize the prison term for perjury will put you away for years A. I didn't need to be reminded of that or that your client killed the victim, the visions of the blood and screaming is etched forever in my mind. Q. Your honor!! A. Yes, it's the bag, I can tell by the mark I put on it three years ago. Q. I offer the bag in evidence. 4. Same Murder Prosecution. Same Prosecution Witness cross-examined by defense counsel. Q. So you say you saw the victim murder the victim. A. Yes, for the fifth time, yes. Q. But didn't you tell investigators last year that it was defendant's evil cousin, not defendant, who actually had killed the victim? A. No, in fact I wrote out an affidavit two years ago saying it was defendant and NOT his cousin, look, I have it right here, where I say . . . . 5. Trespass Suit. Plaintiff Owner of property questioned by her counsel. Q. Did you ever give defendant the right to walk on your land? A. No, hell no! Q. Relax, I know your are angry because defendant trespassed, that's why we're here. Now , let's go through it slowly, although we don't have the deed here today, do you own the property in question here, that defendant walked on without your permission? |
|
| Last Updated ( Monday, 04 December 2006 ) |
| < Prev |
|---|