MBE Question Set 24| Questions with Correct Answers 100% Verified|
Guaranteed Success
The question by the plaintiff's attorney should be allowed because he was acting in good faith.
A witness may be impeached by means of being interrogated upon cross-examination, in the
discretion of the court, with respect to any act of misconduct that is probative of truthfulness
(i.e., an act of deceit or lying). The cross-examiner must act in good faith with some reasonable
basis for believing that the witness may have committed the bad act inquired about, but it is
not required that the witness have been convicted of a crime. Here, the plaintiff's attorney is
attempting to cast an adverse reflection on the truthfulness of the neighbor. The commission of
the crime of false pretenses involves the making of a false representation and is therefore an
act of misconduct that is probative of the actor's truthfulness. Thus, because the plaintiff's
attorney inquired as to this matter in good faith, his question is a permissible method of
impeachment, and the objection of the defendant's attorney should be overruled.
(A) is incorrect because it implies that the objection could be sustained if the neighbor was not
convicted of the crime. As noted above, such an inquiry can be conducted regardless of
whether the witness was convicted. Therefore, the objection to the plaintiff's attorney's good
faith inquiry would be overruled even if the neighbor was not convicted of false pretenses.
(C) is incorrect. Although impeaching witnesses who testify to a witness's reputation for truth
and veracity are often impeached by asking the "Have you heard" and "Do you know"
questions, that is not the only method of impeachment available. Any witness who takes the
stand puts her character for honesty and veracity in issue and may be impeached by evidence
that might s
A state set up an intrastate message routing system to carry messages to and from the various
state agency offices located throughout the state. This proved to be cheaper and more efficient
than the United States Postal Service. The message service worked so well that the state
offered the messenger service to its employees as a fringe benefit. Moreover, it expanded
delivery options beyond state offices to any address in the state and permitted the employees
to use the service for personal correspondence as well as for official business.
, Are the state's actions constitutional?
A Yes, because the messenger service operates entirely within the state borders.
B Yes, because the Commerce Clause does not prohibit states from acting as a market
participant.
C No, because the Equal Protection Clause prohibits this singling out of state employees for
special benefits.
D No, because it violates the federal postal monopol D No, because it violates the federal
postal monopoly.
The legislation is unconstitutional because it violates the federal postal monopoly. Article I,
Section 8, Clause 7 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to establish post offices and
post roads. This power grants Congress a monopoly over the delivery of mail. No other system
for delivering mail—public or private—can be established absent Congress's consent. Congress
has delegated to the Postal Service the power to decide whether others may compete with it,
and the Postal Service has carved out an exception to its monopoly for extremely urgent letters.
However, this exception would not apply to the state messenger service here since the state
service extends to every letter or package of an employee deliverable within the state.
(A) is irrelevant because the postal monopoly applies even to wholly intrastate competing
systems. The rationale is that the Postal Service must be protected from companies that would
deliver only on profitable routes at a low cost, leaving the Postal Service only expensive,
money-losing routes.
(B) also is irrelevant. While it is true that there is a market participant exception to the
Commerce Clause, the Commerce Clause is not the controlling law here; the controlling law is
the federal postal power.
Guaranteed Success
The question by the plaintiff's attorney should be allowed because he was acting in good faith.
A witness may be impeached by means of being interrogated upon cross-examination, in the
discretion of the court, with respect to any act of misconduct that is probative of truthfulness
(i.e., an act of deceit or lying). The cross-examiner must act in good faith with some reasonable
basis for believing that the witness may have committed the bad act inquired about, but it is
not required that the witness have been convicted of a crime. Here, the plaintiff's attorney is
attempting to cast an adverse reflection on the truthfulness of the neighbor. The commission of
the crime of false pretenses involves the making of a false representation and is therefore an
act of misconduct that is probative of the actor's truthfulness. Thus, because the plaintiff's
attorney inquired as to this matter in good faith, his question is a permissible method of
impeachment, and the objection of the defendant's attorney should be overruled.
(A) is incorrect because it implies that the objection could be sustained if the neighbor was not
convicted of the crime. As noted above, such an inquiry can be conducted regardless of
whether the witness was convicted. Therefore, the objection to the plaintiff's attorney's good
faith inquiry would be overruled even if the neighbor was not convicted of false pretenses.
(C) is incorrect. Although impeaching witnesses who testify to a witness's reputation for truth
and veracity are often impeached by asking the "Have you heard" and "Do you know"
questions, that is not the only method of impeachment available. Any witness who takes the
stand puts her character for honesty and veracity in issue and may be impeached by evidence
that might s
A state set up an intrastate message routing system to carry messages to and from the various
state agency offices located throughout the state. This proved to be cheaper and more efficient
than the United States Postal Service. The message service worked so well that the state
offered the messenger service to its employees as a fringe benefit. Moreover, it expanded
delivery options beyond state offices to any address in the state and permitted the employees
to use the service for personal correspondence as well as for official business.
, Are the state's actions constitutional?
A Yes, because the messenger service operates entirely within the state borders.
B Yes, because the Commerce Clause does not prohibit states from acting as a market
participant.
C No, because the Equal Protection Clause prohibits this singling out of state employees for
special benefits.
D No, because it violates the federal postal monopol D No, because it violates the federal
postal monopoly.
The legislation is unconstitutional because it violates the federal postal monopoly. Article I,
Section 8, Clause 7 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to establish post offices and
post roads. This power grants Congress a monopoly over the delivery of mail. No other system
for delivering mail—public or private—can be established absent Congress's consent. Congress
has delegated to the Postal Service the power to decide whether others may compete with it,
and the Postal Service has carved out an exception to its monopoly for extremely urgent letters.
However, this exception would not apply to the state messenger service here since the state
service extends to every letter or package of an employee deliverable within the state.
(A) is irrelevant because the postal monopoly applies even to wholly intrastate competing
systems. The rationale is that the Postal Service must be protected from companies that would
deliver only on profitable routes at a low cost, leaving the Postal Service only expensive,
money-losing routes.
(B) also is irrelevant. While it is true that there is a market participant exception to the
Commerce Clause, the Commerce Clause is not the controlling law here; the controlling law is
the federal postal power.
