Quiz A answers - Law 16 - On Campus Class - Intro to Evidence Quiz

1. The jurors may conduct an independent investigation to supplement the evidence admitted at the court proceeding.
Select one:
TRUE.
FALSE.
The reason this statement is false is as follows:
Alhough many jurors would really like to conduct their own investigation into the facts, the courts cannot allow this since it would creat all kinds of unknown prejudicial and unfair factors and circumstances to enter into the equation. The jurors are to hear the facts of the case, and then deliberate over the truthfullness of the statments and witnesses, but they are not to engage as participants in the ligitation process as litigants do.

2. An effective interviewer will listen carefully to the witness's statements.
Select one:
TRUE.
FALSE.
The reason this statement is true is as follows:
This is self-evident. Good listening skills are essential as a paralegal to ensure that the facts of the case are properly recorded in the file. Failure to listen closely to a client can present all kinds of problems later when developing the legal theories of defense or prosecution in a case.

3. A zealous advocate is entitled to gather and develop evidence.
Select one:
TRUE.
FALSE.
The reason this statement is true is as follows:
The operative words here are gather and develop evidence. You cannot alter, change or modify the evidence to favor your side. However you can be a zealous advocate on how the evidence is to be interpreted.

4. A party may appeal an issue from the trial even if the party did not object at the time the evidence was being admitted.
Select one:
TRUE.
FALSE.
The reason this statement is false is as follows:
A party must object at the time of trial to preserve the right to appeal at a later time. This is an essential element of arguing the rules of evidence against admission of evidence at the time of trial when the objection needs to be first entered on the record so you can then later make an appeal.

5. Motions in limine enable an advocate to secure evidentiary rulings before the trial begins.
Select one:
TRUE.
FALSE.
he reason this statement is true is as follows:
Yes motions in limine will limit the introduction of certain evidence, and the more you limit the introduction of evidence, the better chance you have of getting the case dismissed for lack of evidence at the time of trial.

6. The judge may tell the jurors that certain information is fact.
Select one:
TRUE.
FALSE.
The reason this statement is true is as follows:
This is true because some matters are of a factual nature, and not disputed by the parties, and as such the judge can advise the jurors to accept those matters as information or facts.

7.A zealous advocate is permitted to alter evidence.
Select one:
TRUE.
FALSE.
The reason this statement is false is as follows:
You cannot falsify evidence. That would be unfair and unjust, along with being unethical and violating the canons of ethics which bind both paralegals and attorneys

8. The Federal Rules of Evidence exist to prevent injustice.
Select one:
TRUE.
FALSE.
The reason this statement is true is as follows:
The Rules of Evidence were formulated first under federal codes and then under California Codes to ensure that trials were conducted in a more fair and equitable manner.

9.Direct evidence is allotted greater weight than circumstantial evidence.
Select one:
TRUE.
FALSE.
The reason this statement is false is as follows:
This may suprise you. But circumstantial evidence may have greater weight if the jurors believe it goes further than some direct evidence in proving the essential facts of the case. The jurors will decide how much weight to give to both direct and circumstantial, and sometimes they will give more weight to a particular piece of circumstantial evidence (like motive or opportunity, etc.)

10.Statements made by the attorneys in a court proceeding are to be considered by the jurors as evidence.
Select one:
TRUE.
FALSE.
The reason this statement is false is as follows:
In fact the judge instructs jurors not to take as evidence comments made by the respective attorneys. Instead they are assertions made in an attemt to argue their side of the case and are most favorbly viewed in relationship to their client's positions in the case

11.A zealous advocate should not encourage a witness to lie.
Select one:
TRUE.

FALSE.
The reason this statement is true is as follows:
This is self evident.

12.A case built on circumstantial evidence is rare.
Select one:
TRUE.
FALSE.
The reason this statement is false is as follows:
The current case of Scott Peterson and also Robert Blake are based on substantial amounts of circumstantial evidence of motive and opportunity since the police did not find direct evidence that Peterson or Blake killed their respective wives.

13.The judge may limit the purpose for which the jurors are to consider a piece of evidence.
Select one:
TRUE.
FALSE.
The reason this statement is true is as follows:
This is called conditional or limited evidence. Sometimes a piece of evidence can have two implications, one of which is highly prejudicial without the necessary relevance, and so a judge can limit the scope of use of this evidence to prevent undue prejudice to the defendant.

14. The best interview technique is to ask leading questions.
Select one:
TRUE.
FALSE.
The reason this statement is false is as follows:
Leading questions are questions which kind of "put words" into the witness' mouth. It is a good way to attack or test the credibility of a contrary or opposition witness. It is not a good idea to use it as a paralegal in interviewing your client since you want to find out the truth of the facts of the case. It is best used in cross examination, in fact you cannot use it in direct examination of your own witness.

15.An effective interview technique is to argue with the witness because confrontation better elicits the truth.
Select one:
TRUE.
FALSE.
The reason this statement is false is as follows:
Confrontation of a hostile witness in a trial can test the credibility of a witness but the same does not apply when you interview the witness in the office.

16.The difference between demonstrative evidence and "real" evidence is

(a) Real evidence is truthful, and demonstrative evidence is biased.
(b) Real evidence is in its original form, whereas demonstrative evidence is
"created" to give the jury information which may not be easily delivered or presented in original form.

(c) Demonstrative evidence is stipulated evidence, whereas real evidence is not.
(d) Demonstrative evidence is unlawful, whereas real evidence is not.
The reason b should be checked is as follows:
demonstrative evidence is usually in the forms of charts and graphs, photos, diagrams, etc. which "demonstrate" the evidence in the minds of the jurors.

17.Both sides agree that the plaintiff's store closed early on the date in question, at 2 p.m. This evidence is admissible as

(a) Demonstrative evidence.
(b) Stipulated fact.
(c) Common knowledge, of which the court can take judicial notice.
(d) All of the above.
The reason b should be checked is as follows:
parties will agree to a set of "undisputed" or stipulated facts to save or economize the time of the court and to help prevent needless confusion of the jury.

18.A paralegal should be able to

(a) Insure that only that evidence which is favorable to the client is admitted.
(b) Examine the admissibility and excludability of all evidence.
(c) Instruct witnesses about what they cannot say if they want to win the case
(d) All of the above.
The reason b should be checked is as follows:
all of the other choices are inappropriate or illegal or both.

19.A witness told the investigator that she saw the crime and could identify the perpetrator. This type of evidence is

(a) Unreliable since the witness could be lying
(b) Unimportant because the perpetrator could simply deny the charge.
(c) Evidence in the form of testimony which would be potentially admissible at trial.
(d) Evidence in the form of an exhibit which would be potentially admissible at
trial.
The reason c should be checked is as follows:
independent witnesses can be an excellent form of direct evidence. They see the accident, and if the testify credbily it can have a major affect on the outcome of the trial. The juror if they find the witness credible may end up adopting the statements as evidence of facts of how and when the accident occurred.

20.After being involved in a hit and run accident, Freddie took his car to the car shop, to repair a dent in the fender. The repair mechanic noticed the paint of another car on the fender. This type of information, if admitted at trial, could be used as

(a) Direct evidence that Freddie was involved in the hit and run accident.
(b) Direct evidence that Freddie's car was not involved in the hit and run accident.
(c) Circumstantial evidence that Freddie's car was involved in the hit and run accident.
(d) Circumstantial evidence that Freddie was driving too fast on the date of the
accident.
The reason c should be checked is as follows:
unless the investigation showed some direct evidence of "transfer paint" from the car that Freddie hit, it could be used to raise the inference that the dent was caused when he hit the other vehicle and then ran from the incident.

21.A young attorney, anxiously trying to win his first case, knows that the potential for money damages is much higher if his client testifies that the defendant in the case intentionally assaulted her. The client believes that the plaintiff was negligent but not acting with intent when he caused her injury. The attorney tells the client that she must say she believed the client hurt her purposely, in order to win the case. This is

(a) Zealous representation.
(b) An attempt to help frame the evidence in the most positive light to the client.
(c) An attempt to establish circumstantial evidence.
(d) Unethical and illegal
The reason d should be checked is as follows:
An attorney can be a zealous advocate, but cannot attempt to sway a client into not telling the truth in order to get a better result at the time of trial. Many times facts can be interpreted differently, but this is a case of an outright lie.

22.Freddie told the repair man that he had been in a hit and run accident. This admission is

(a) Direct evidence that Freddie was involved in the hit and run accident.
(b) Direct evidence that Freddie was driving too fast on the date of the accident.
(c) Circumstantial evidence that Freddie's car was involved in the hit and run
accident.
(d) Circumstantial evidence that Freddie was driving too fast on the date of the
accident.
The reason a should be checked is as follows:
direct evidence can take place with physical evidence, and also with testimony of a witness admitting to a set of facts which constitutes "direct evidence" so direct evidence can come in the form of "physical evidence" or "actual testimony of a witness"

23.Which of the following is (are) not evidence?

1. Testimony 2. Exhibits 3. Jury Instructions 4. Stipulated Facts

(a) Only 1 is not evidence
(b) 1 and 2 are not evidence
(c) Only 3 is not evidence
(d) 3 and 4 are not evidence
The reason c should be checked is as follows:
Jury instructions are not evidence. all the rest are evidence and may be admitted or excluded and deliberated by the jury. the