WELL VISIT: NEW PATIENT: XAVIER DANIELS (COMPLETE)
REVIEW QUESTIONS AND 100% VERIFIED ANSWERS
(2024/25) GRADED A+ / GUARANTEED PASS!!
Angela's kitchen was damaged when the air fryer that she purchased from a local home
goods store caught fire as she was reheating some food. Angela sued both the local
home goods store and Presto, the manufacturer of the air fryer. Angela soon settled
with the local home goods store for $8,000. The settlement agreement required Angela
to continue to pursue her claim against Presto and that if she recovered more than
$8,000 from her claim against Presto, to refund $4,000 to the local home goods store.
When the owner of the local home goods store (Mack) testified at the products liability
trial against Presto that the air fryer was quite dangerous, since it caught on fire under
conditions of normal use, Presto sought to introduce evidence of the settlement
betweenAngela and the home goods store. Which of the following is correct?
- answers-(A) The settlement agreement is inadmissible under Rule 408.
(B) The settlement agreement is inadmissible under Rule 411.
(C) The settlement agreement is admissible to impeach Mack's testimony.
(D) The settlement agreement is admissible to suggest that Mack is biased.
D
Angelina is on trial for assault with a dangerous weapon. She is accused of hitting her
then-boyfriend with a baseball bat, after learning that he had cheated on her. She
denies actually hitting her ex-boyfriend with the bat, and she wants to present evidence
that she is not the kind of person who would do that sort of thing. Her attorney proposes
to put onAngelina's best friend, Erika, who knows Angelina well and also knows her ex-
boyfriend.
What kind of testimony will Erika be allowed to offer on direct? Pick the best answer
- answers-(A) Erika will be allowed to testify that she knows Angelina well and that
Angelina is "a very calm, peaceful, and non-violent person."
(B) Erika will be allowed to provide the testimony noted in A and also testify
thatAngelina has a reputation for being calm and peaceful, even under pressure.
(C) Erika will be allowed to provide the testimony noted in A and B and also testify
thatErika has never seen Angelina react violently in a conflict situation.
(D) All of this testimony would be excluded because it is prohibited propensity evidence
B
,Angelina was also shot while walking on a neighborhood trail by a white adolescent
male whom she did not know (on the same day that Tara was shot). Angelina was
brought by ambulance to the hospital. While she was in the ambulance, she was asked
if she remembered what happened. Angelina, who was weak and barely conscious,
stated that she remembered being "hit in the back first" and that when she turned
around, she saw "a young, white male in a red jogging suit," who "looked directly at me
and then shot me in the leg."
Angelina died from her wounds 3 days later. If the ambulance medic is on the stand
testifying, which of Angelina's statements will he likely be allowed to testify about?
- answers-(A) Her statements indicating that she was hit first in the back and then in the
leg.
(B) Her statement that the person who shot her was "a young, white male in a red
jogging suit."
(C) Testimony about both statements will be allowed.
(D) Testimony will not be allowed about either statement
A
Annalise is accused of killing her husband and is charged with first-degree murder. The
day after she was arrested, she met with her attorney, Andy. They talked for over two
hours. One week later, Andy, who had also been friends with Annalise's husband, filed
a motion to withdraw as Annalise's counsel, which was granted.
At Annalise's trial, the prosecution calls Andy to the stand as a hostile witness and asks
whether it is true that at their initial meeting, Annalise admitted to Andy that she had
killed her husband and that she said, "I need you to do everything that you possibly can
to get me acquitted. I won't survive in prison." Annalise's attorney strenuously objects,
claiming that both topics that the prosecutor is asking about are protected by the
attorney-client privilege.
What should the trial court do?
- answers-(A) Overrule the objection regarding both topics because Andy is no longer
Annalise's attorney.
(B) Overrule the objection regarding Annalise's statement that she needed Andy to "get
her acquitted" under the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, but
sustain the other objection.
(C) Sustain both objections, unless Andy agrees to provide the testimony being sought.
(D) Sustain both objections under the attorney-client privilege & regardless of whether
Andy wants to testify.
D
At a murder trial, the prosecution offers an expert witness, who testifies that the victim's
wounds suggest that the murder weapon was not an ordinary knife, but instead a rather
, unusual dagger called a "stiletto," which has a long, thin blade and leaves deep but
narrow cuts. The prosecutor shows the expert a stiletto that he brought to the courtroom
and asks if this is the type of weapon that could cause the victim's wounds. The expert
agrees and then, over the objection of defense counsel, the expert shows how the
distinctive blade of the stiletto could have caused the wounds found on the victim's
body.• The prosecution then offers the testimony of an eyewitness, who testifies that the
day before the killing, he saw the defendant brandishing a "wicked-looking knife with a
really long, skinny blade." The prosecutor then showed the witness the stiletto that he
had shown the expert witness and asked if it resembled th
- answers-(A) Sustain the objection, as there is no evidence that the stiletto is the same
stiletto that was used on the night of the killing.
(B) Overrule the objection. If this were the actual stiletto used in the crime, it would be
admissible, and there is no significant difference between the actual stiletto and one
offered into evidence at trial.
(C) Sustain the objection, since the eyewitness testified that the stiletto offered into
evidence looked different from the one used in the killing.
(D) Overrule the objection, since the prosecutor has laid a sufficient foundation tying the
defendant to this type of knife, and the expert has tied this type of knife to the killing.
D
Bill has been involved in a terrible car accident. When emergency personnel come to
the scene, Bill, who is bleeding profusely and clearly very worried about his condition
says: "I have something that I need to get off my chest. Back when I was in high school,
I raped a woman named Eve Bell. A man named Simon Pierce was convicted of the
rape, but he didn't do it. It was me. I should have spoken up before now." Bill lives and
later denies ever making this statement. Can Bill's "confession" be used to prosecute
him for the rape?
- answers-(A) Yes. The statement qualifies as a dying declaration.
(B) No. It doesn't qualify as a dying declaration because Bill didn't actually die.
(C) Maybe. It doesn't qualify as a dying declaration, but it may be admissible under a
different hearsay exception.
C
Cameron has been arrested as a suspect in an armed robbery and taken to the police
station. After he is given his Miranda warning, a detective asks Cameron if he is willing
to talk. Cameron states, "Yeah. I was at that bank on the night you are talking about,
butI wasn't armed and I wasn't involved in the robbery." He then adds, "I want an
attorney."
Cameron and his attorney later met with the district attorney, who asked what Cameron
was willing to admit to. Cameron responded that he was only willing to plead to being an
accessory after the fact to the robbery. The district attorney responded, "That's not
enough" and ended the meeting. Which of the following is admissible at Cameron's
REVIEW QUESTIONS AND 100% VERIFIED ANSWERS
(2024/25) GRADED A+ / GUARANTEED PASS!!
Angela's kitchen was damaged when the air fryer that she purchased from a local home
goods store caught fire as she was reheating some food. Angela sued both the local
home goods store and Presto, the manufacturer of the air fryer. Angela soon settled
with the local home goods store for $8,000. The settlement agreement required Angela
to continue to pursue her claim against Presto and that if she recovered more than
$8,000 from her claim against Presto, to refund $4,000 to the local home goods store.
When the owner of the local home goods store (Mack) testified at the products liability
trial against Presto that the air fryer was quite dangerous, since it caught on fire under
conditions of normal use, Presto sought to introduce evidence of the settlement
betweenAngela and the home goods store. Which of the following is correct?
- answers-(A) The settlement agreement is inadmissible under Rule 408.
(B) The settlement agreement is inadmissible under Rule 411.
(C) The settlement agreement is admissible to impeach Mack's testimony.
(D) The settlement agreement is admissible to suggest that Mack is biased.
D
Angelina is on trial for assault with a dangerous weapon. She is accused of hitting her
then-boyfriend with a baseball bat, after learning that he had cheated on her. She
denies actually hitting her ex-boyfriend with the bat, and she wants to present evidence
that she is not the kind of person who would do that sort of thing. Her attorney proposes
to put onAngelina's best friend, Erika, who knows Angelina well and also knows her ex-
boyfriend.
What kind of testimony will Erika be allowed to offer on direct? Pick the best answer
- answers-(A) Erika will be allowed to testify that she knows Angelina well and that
Angelina is "a very calm, peaceful, and non-violent person."
(B) Erika will be allowed to provide the testimony noted in A and also testify
thatAngelina has a reputation for being calm and peaceful, even under pressure.
(C) Erika will be allowed to provide the testimony noted in A and B and also testify
thatErika has never seen Angelina react violently in a conflict situation.
(D) All of this testimony would be excluded because it is prohibited propensity evidence
B
,Angelina was also shot while walking on a neighborhood trail by a white adolescent
male whom she did not know (on the same day that Tara was shot). Angelina was
brought by ambulance to the hospital. While she was in the ambulance, she was asked
if she remembered what happened. Angelina, who was weak and barely conscious,
stated that she remembered being "hit in the back first" and that when she turned
around, she saw "a young, white male in a red jogging suit," who "looked directly at me
and then shot me in the leg."
Angelina died from her wounds 3 days later. If the ambulance medic is on the stand
testifying, which of Angelina's statements will he likely be allowed to testify about?
- answers-(A) Her statements indicating that she was hit first in the back and then in the
leg.
(B) Her statement that the person who shot her was "a young, white male in a red
jogging suit."
(C) Testimony about both statements will be allowed.
(D) Testimony will not be allowed about either statement
A
Annalise is accused of killing her husband and is charged with first-degree murder. The
day after she was arrested, she met with her attorney, Andy. They talked for over two
hours. One week later, Andy, who had also been friends with Annalise's husband, filed
a motion to withdraw as Annalise's counsel, which was granted.
At Annalise's trial, the prosecution calls Andy to the stand as a hostile witness and asks
whether it is true that at their initial meeting, Annalise admitted to Andy that she had
killed her husband and that she said, "I need you to do everything that you possibly can
to get me acquitted. I won't survive in prison." Annalise's attorney strenuously objects,
claiming that both topics that the prosecutor is asking about are protected by the
attorney-client privilege.
What should the trial court do?
- answers-(A) Overrule the objection regarding both topics because Andy is no longer
Annalise's attorney.
(B) Overrule the objection regarding Annalise's statement that she needed Andy to "get
her acquitted" under the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, but
sustain the other objection.
(C) Sustain both objections, unless Andy agrees to provide the testimony being sought.
(D) Sustain both objections under the attorney-client privilege & regardless of whether
Andy wants to testify.
D
At a murder trial, the prosecution offers an expert witness, who testifies that the victim's
wounds suggest that the murder weapon was not an ordinary knife, but instead a rather
, unusual dagger called a "stiletto," which has a long, thin blade and leaves deep but
narrow cuts. The prosecutor shows the expert a stiletto that he brought to the courtroom
and asks if this is the type of weapon that could cause the victim's wounds. The expert
agrees and then, over the objection of defense counsel, the expert shows how the
distinctive blade of the stiletto could have caused the wounds found on the victim's
body.• The prosecution then offers the testimony of an eyewitness, who testifies that the
day before the killing, he saw the defendant brandishing a "wicked-looking knife with a
really long, skinny blade." The prosecutor then showed the witness the stiletto that he
had shown the expert witness and asked if it resembled th
- answers-(A) Sustain the objection, as there is no evidence that the stiletto is the same
stiletto that was used on the night of the killing.
(B) Overrule the objection. If this were the actual stiletto used in the crime, it would be
admissible, and there is no significant difference between the actual stiletto and one
offered into evidence at trial.
(C) Sustain the objection, since the eyewitness testified that the stiletto offered into
evidence looked different from the one used in the killing.
(D) Overrule the objection, since the prosecutor has laid a sufficient foundation tying the
defendant to this type of knife, and the expert has tied this type of knife to the killing.
D
Bill has been involved in a terrible car accident. When emergency personnel come to
the scene, Bill, who is bleeding profusely and clearly very worried about his condition
says: "I have something that I need to get off my chest. Back when I was in high school,
I raped a woman named Eve Bell. A man named Simon Pierce was convicted of the
rape, but he didn't do it. It was me. I should have spoken up before now." Bill lives and
later denies ever making this statement. Can Bill's "confession" be used to prosecute
him for the rape?
- answers-(A) Yes. The statement qualifies as a dying declaration.
(B) No. It doesn't qualify as a dying declaration because Bill didn't actually die.
(C) Maybe. It doesn't qualify as a dying declaration, but it may be admissible under a
different hearsay exception.
C
Cameron has been arrested as a suspect in an armed robbery and taken to the police
station. After he is given his Miranda warning, a detective asks Cameron if he is willing
to talk. Cameron states, "Yeah. I was at that bank on the night you are talking about,
butI wasn't armed and I wasn't involved in the robbery." He then adds, "I want an
attorney."
Cameron and his attorney later met with the district attorney, who asked what Cameron
was willing to admit to. Cameron responded that he was only willing to plead to being an
accessory after the fact to the robbery. The district attorney responded, "That's not
enough" and ended the meeting. Which of the following is admissible at Cameron's
