Quiz #B Relevancy Quiz
1. If there is a legal privilege, relevant evidence may be
answer: relevant evidence may be excluded based on legal privilege, see page 21, 3ed bullet towards bottom of the page
2.The Federal Rules of Evidence differentiate between relevancy
Answer: Materiality and Relevance and the difference is diffucult to define, see page 16 textbook, evidence to be admissible must not just be relevant but also, page 19 textbook middle of the page, 'under the Federal Rules of Evidence, materiality is not an issue. This is because federal rules and most state evidence codes have elminiated the concept of materiality by merging it with the concept of relevancy, see page 19. 3rd paragraph.
3. Evidence is probative if it assists in the exploration for
see page 20 ="the fact to be proved may be ultimate, intermediate, or evidentiary, it matters not, so long as it is of consequence in the determination of the action" 2nd paragraph page 20
4. Evidence which may shed some light on the issue in the trial
is said to be immaterial.
"The Federal Rules of Evidence define Relevancy in FRE 401 as "evidence having ANY tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of CONSEQUENCE to the determination of the action MORE PROBABLE or less probable than it would be without the evidence." see page 19 - 5th paragraph
5. A proponent of evidence seeks to prohibit the use of the
evidence at trial. Select one:
"keep in mind that a majority of the evidence presented in an adversary system is introduced to prejudice the fact finder in favor or the proponet" - see page 16, 2nd paragraph.
6. If evidence is very probative, it may be admissible even
though it is highly prejudicial.
"Even where thre is a possiblity of unfair prejudice, this is NOT sufficient to exclude the evidence if it is extremely important to the proferring party's case" see page 23 2nd paragraph.
7. If evidence is highly prejudicial, it is inadmissible.
"Keeping in mind that in a criminal case, any evidence offered to convict a defendant may well prejudice the jury against the defendant, the operate word to be considered under FRE 403 is "unfair" - see textbook, page 23, 2nd paragraph from the top.
8. An adversary in a court case is the opponent.
question is self-evident.
9.Under the common law, if the parties stipulate facts into
evidence, additional evidence covering the same facts is immaterial.
see page 16 txtbk "frequently the concept of maateriality is reaised after the parties have entered into a stipulation." .." The court did not rule the evidence irrelevant but reasoned that since the defendant had already admitted (i.e. stipulated to the fact) he was responsible for the damages, anything tending to prove liability was immaterial." page 16 3rd paragraph at the bottom.
10. The common law concept of materiality has been merged into
the definition of relevance found in the Federal Rules of Evidence.
"under the Federal Rules of Evidence, materiality is not an issue. This is because federal rules and most state evidence codes have eliminated the concept of materiality by merging it with the concept of relevancy." see page 19, 3rd paragraph.
11. For evidence to be relevant, it must tend to prove the
"ultimate issue" in a case.
see explanation to question on "probative" and "exploration of truth"
12. The predisposition under the Federal Rules of Evidence
is to accept rather than reject relevant evidence.
see page 20, last paragraph " for the most part the Federal Rules of evidence are extremely liberal" (referring to admission of relevant evidence)
13. Probative evidence is never admissible.
never say never. only if it is outweighed by the prejudice. see FRE 403, and page 22 of the texbtook.
14. In a case where the impoverished defendant Monty is accused of defrauding a wealthy woman named Buffy in an investment scam, defense wants to present evidence of Buffy's extravagant lifestyle. The defense claims this is relevant to help prove that Buffy didn't pay attention to poor Monty when he explained the risks of his venture to her, because she was too occupied with her jet-setting life. Plaintiff believes the defense wants to portray Buffy as wealthy so as to shift sympathy from her to the poor defendant. The argument under the Federal Rules of Evidence which could be made to exclude this evidence would most likely be
(a) The evidence is irrelevant.
(b) The evidence is immaterial.
(c) The evidence is highly prejudicial and only mildly probative.
the evidence might be relevant and material to show "prejudice" or "bias" which is always relevant when a witness testifies, however, the use of her status as being rich, might inflame the jury beyond what it actually proves, and therefore under the discretion of the court, under FRE 403, evidence you would, on balance, exclude.
(d) All of the above.
15. Nicole wrote Denise a letter indicating that she was afraid that her boyfriend was going to kill her. Several months later, Nicole was found dead. Prosecution wants to introduce the letter written by Nicole into evidence, for the limited purpose of showing the victim's state of mind prior to her death. This would get the letter past any hearsay or confrontation clause objection. On what basis could this evidence be excluded?
(a) The evidence is highly prejudicial under FRE 403,
relative to the limited probative value of information regarding
Nicole's state of mind several months prior to her death.
self-evident truth. it is relevant to show state of mind, which many times is itself a relevant piece of evidence.
(b) The evidence is not relevant, since Nicole's state of mind does not tend to prove her boyfriend's committed the murder.
(c) The evidence is cumulative, in that it would unduly burden the court to have testimony with regard to the victim's state of mind.
(d) All of the above.
16. In the assault on a federal officer trial, the prosecution intends to call ten witnesses who will testify that they heard the defendant say words indicative of assaultive behavior. On the seventh witness, the defense attorney objects for the reason that the evidence is:
(a) Inadmissible because, although is relevant, probative
and not unfairly prejudicial, the testimony is cumulative.
cumulative evidence is a waste of the court and the jury's time, and unnessarily ties up the court room, adds to the cost of the matter, and in the end, may confuse the jury. thus it is relevant but excluded.
(b) Inadmissible because the evidence is not relevant at all.
(c) Admissible because the judge has no discretion to prevent the prosecution from presenting witnesses.
(d) Admissible because the evidence is relevant.
17. Marie sued Donnie for unpaid royalties, and subpoenaed various documents in Donnie's possession regarding revenues he had received over the previous 3 years for their joint work. Donnie failed to produce the documents which were subpoenaed, but then tried to introduce those documents at trial. These documents are
(a) Inadmissible since they are not probative.
(b) Inadmissible since Donnie failed to produce them when they were requested by Marie.
although the evidence might be quite relevant, the party proponent of the evidence failed to follow the court guidelines and rules, and the court most likely will not allow them to be admitted because it over reaches fairness and the court's desire to "avoid suprise" when the parties are required to produce documents to the other side, and when done so by court order.
(c) Admissible since they are relevant.
(d) Admissible since they were requested by Marie prior to trial, indicating she stipulated to their admissibility.
18. The Federal Officer from question #8 is still testifying, and the prosecution asks what else the defendant said during the attack. The defense attorney objects on the grounds of unfair prejudice, because he knows that the defendant also said something very, very nasty about the officer's mother which had nothing to do with the attack. The judge should rule the evidence:
(a) Inadmissible because the judge has no discretion to make
(b) Inadmissible because the prosecutor really wants the evidence to make the jurors mad at the defendant.
the probative value is less than the inflammatory value, and therefore under FRE 403, is excluded by the court.
(c) Admissible because the words are highly probative of the assault.
(d) Admissible, although prejudicial, the defendant did say the words during the attack.
19. Jim, a witness for the defense, had a fraud conviction 5 years ago. The defense would like to keep evidence of this conviction out of court. This evidence is
(a) Probably admissible, because it is probative of Jim's part
in the crime.
(b) Probably inadmissible, because it is highly prejudicial and not probative of the case.
(c) Probably inadmissible because it is not relevant.
(d) Admissible to impeach Jim's credibility, because it is a prior conviction of a crime involving dishonesty.
the crime of dishonesty would go to the weight of credibility the jury might grant to this witness testimony. Is is relevant and also highly prejudicial.
20. In a case where Richard is accused of assaulting Lear, the prosecution intends to call 5 witnesses to testify that they heard Richard threatening Lear the week before the assault. What is the problem, if any, with the admissibility of the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses?
(a) The testimony is not relevant as to whether Richard actually
(b) The testimony is relevant but highly inflammatory and therefore
(c) The testimony is not probative, but will be admissible for a limited purpose.
(d) The testimony is needlessly cumulative, and excludable under FRE 403 as unduly burdensome on the court.
answer: 5 witnesses is overkill, and takes too much time, and delays the process of "justice" where only one witness is sufficient, if credible. The jury can listen and understand just as well from one witness as 5, if the testimony is "exactly the same on the same point"
21. Winnie, in addition to requesting medical expenses, asked for damages for Puppy's pain and suffering. Rhonda still admits liability. Rhonda's attorney offers the testimony of the eyewitness who saw Rhonda burst into tears and immediately begin mouth to mouth resuscitation immediately following the squashing of Puppy. Winnie's attorney objects. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the trial judge should rule the evidence:
(a) Admissible as probative and therefore relevant of Rhonda's
intent to harm (or lack thereof) poor Puppy.
(b) Admissible because the Federal Rules of Evidence abandoned the concept of materiality.
(c) Inadmissible because Rhonda's subsequent actions are not of consequence to the determination of the action.
liability has been stipulated, so Rhonda's action have no weight or bearing on damages, therefore immaterial and irrelevant.
(d) Inadmissible because Rhonda's subsequent actions show that she did not have any tendency to harm Puppy.
22. The prosecution, in a criminal case, has charged the defendant with assault on a Federal Officer. The officer testifies in the trial. The prosecution asks the officer whether the defendant said anything to the officer during the attack. The defense attorney objects because he knows that his client said very nasty words to the officer about cutting off a significant part of the officer's anatomy. The defense attorney, as a basis for the objection, states that the words the defendant spoke are irrelevant, but if relevant are unfairly prejudicial. The prosecution argues that the words are highly probative of the defendant's intent, i.e. his aggressive violent actions toward the office. The trial court should rule the evidence is:
(a) Inadmissible because the words are so inflammatory, that
the jury would be too upset unable to reach a verdict.
(b) Inadmissible because the defense attorney said the magic words, "unfairly prejudicial." The judge therefore has no choice but to rule the evidence inadmissible.
(c) Admissible because the words have no relevance to the defendant's intent.
(d) Admissible because the words, although nasty and probably prejudicial, are probative of the defendant's intent.
yes could show intent to inflict injury, and that is relevant and material to the case.
23. Rhonda Roller-Blader bungled her blading experience by bumping into Winnie Walker's poodle, Puppy. Puppy, after lingering insufferably, did not survive the ordeal. Winnie sued Rhonda for wrongful death of Puppy. Winnie sought damages for Puppy's medical expenses. Rhonda admitted liability. Thus, the issue at trial is the amount of damages Rhonda must pay. Winnie's lawyer attempts to introduce evidence that Rhonda was ogling another blader. Rhonda's attorney objects. Under the common law rules of relevancy and materiality the evidence is:
(a) Admissible to prove Rhonda's extent of negligence
(b) Admissible to prove the force with which Puppy was flattened.
(c) Inadmissible because Rhonda's ogling is not probative of the flattening force on Puppy.
(d) Inadmissible because Rhonda's ogling is immaterial and inflammatory.
yes, the ogling at another dog, could go to proof of negligence, however, Rhonda admitted liability, so no need to prove the negligence, and thus the evidence is immmaterial and inflammatory.
- End of test. -