Chapter3Students-Supp

Chapter3Students-Supp - Chapter 3 QUESTION FOR CLASSROOM...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Chapter 3 Q UESTION FOR C LASSROOM D ISCUSSION S UPPLEMENT PAGE 56 Assume you are a federal district court judge and are asked to rule on the admissibility of hearsay evidence that you believe is highly reliable but does not fit within the scope of any specific hearsay exception within the Federal Rules of Evidence. Does Rule 802 require you to exclude the evidence? If you are a superior court judge in California and no specific hearsay exception within the Evidence Code applies, does C.E.C. § 1200 require you to exclude hearsay that you think should be admitted? Q UESTIONS FOR C LASSROOM D ISCUSSION S UPPLEMENT PAGES 59-60 1. Action for breach of contract brought in federal court. Plaintiff offers the out of court statement of defendant “I breached the contract.” Defendant objects on the ground of hearsay. Should the court admit the evidence on the ground it is not hearsay or on the ground it is hearsay but within an exception to the hearsay rule? If the evidence is offered in California Superior Court, is the answer different? 2. Same case. After defendant’s statement is admitted, defendant offers evidence that, immediately after defendant said, “I breached the contract,” he added, “but not before plaintiff refused to perform as promised.” Is the rest of defendant’s statement admissible under the Federal Rules over a hearsay objection? If the evidence is offered in California Superior Court, is the answer different? 3. Prosecution for bank robbery and conspiracy. The prosecution offers into evidence the out-of-court statement of one of the alleged members of the gang made to another member of the gang while planning the robbery, “You don’t need to worry about the cops. Joe [defendant’s name] is our getaway driver and he is the best in the business.” Defendant objects on the ground of hearsay. The prosecution argues that the statement is an admission of a co-conspirator. For purposes of admitting this evidence under the Federal Rules, what is the prosecution’s burden of proof for showing the existence of a conspiracy? May the court consider the statement itself in determining whether a conspiracy existed for purposes of deciding whether the statement is a co-conspirator admission? What are the answers to these questions under the CEC?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
4. Negligence action for personal injuries arising out of a collision with Truck Co.’s delivery truck. Plaintiff testifies truck crashed through her bedroom window and driver said, “I fell asleep while driving.” Hearsay under the Federal Rules? Hearsay under California law? What result in California if the driver acted properly, the accident was caused by faulty brakes, and driver’s out of court statement was, “The company mechanic sometimes forgets to check the brakes.”? Q
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 7

Chapter3Students-Supp - Chapter 3 QUESTION FOR CLASSROOM...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online