Witness Credibility Exam Questions with Verified Answers 2024 Update Guaranteed Success

Witness Credibility Exam Questions with Verified Answers 2024 Update Guaranteed Success Prosecution for bank robbery. At trial, Defendant takes the stand and denies any involvement in the robbery. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks Defendant to admit that she owed thousands of dollars in gambling debts at the time of the robbery. Defendant objects on the ground that the question goes beyond the scope of the direct examination. How should the court rule? Objection overruled. Evidence that Defendant had gambling debts tends to show a motive to commit bank robbery, which undercuts Defendant's claim that she was not involved. Plaintiff sues Defendant for negligence after the two skateboarders collided on a sidewalk. Plaintiff claims she was skating along when Defendant struck her head-on. Defendant denies this and claims Plaintiff lost control of her skateboard and ran into Defendant. At trial, Plaintiff testifies that she was skating carefully and that Defendant skated into her path. On crossexamination, Defendant asks Plaintiff to admit that this was the first time she had gone skateboarding. Plaintiff objects on the ground the question goes beyond the scope of the direct examination. How should the court rule? Objection overruled. Even though Plaintiff said nothing about her experience as a skateboarder, her testimony that she was skating "carefully" leaves the impression that she knew how to skate. Evidence that she was skateboarding for the first time puts Plaintiff's story in context and undercuts this implication. Plaintiff sues Defendant for negligence after the two skateboarders collided on a sidewalk. Plaintiff claims she was skating along when Defendant struck her head-on. Defendant denies this and claims Plaintiff lost control of her skateboard and ran into Defendant. At trial, Plaintiff testifies that she was skating carefully and that Defendant skated into her path. On crossexamination, Defendant asks Plaintiff to admit that this was the first time she had gone skateboarding. Plaintiff objects on the ground the question goes beyond the scope of the direct examination. How should the court rule?