MBE – evidence Exam Questions with Correct Answers 100% Verified|
Guaranteed Success
The driver of an automobile was tried and convicted of manslaughter in the death of a cyclist.
Subsequently, family members of the cyclist initiated a wrongful death action against the
driver. In this civil action, the plaintiffs seek to introduce testimony given by a witness at the
criminal trial that the witness had observed the driver's reckless speeding less than a minute
before the accident with the cyclist. The witness died of natural causes before the wrongful
death action began. The driver objected, noting that, although the witness was cross-examined
at the criminal trial, the driver's attorney had not, for tactical reasons, made a serious effort to
undermine the witness's credibility despite the availability of substantial impeachment
information.
Should the witness's testimony from the manslaughter case be admitted?
(A) No, because of the driver's rights under the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause.
( (D) Yes, under the hearsay exception for former testimony.
A husband is on trial in a federal court for various charges related to organized crime. The
federal prosecutor has arranged for the husband's wife to testify against him in exchange for
leniency in an unrelated case against the wife. At trial, the prosecutor calls the wife to testify
that she heard her husband discussing a planned drug deal on the phone a week before he was
arrested.
Which of the following statements is correct regarding the wife's testimony against her
husband?
(A) Although the wife can be called as a witness, she cannot testify against the husband over his
objection.
(B) The wife can be required to be a witness and to testify against her husband.
,(C) The wife cannot be called as a witness against her husband.
(D) While the prosecutor can call the wife as a witness, the wife can refuse to testify against her
husband. (D) While the prosecutor can call the wife as a witness, the wife can refuse to
testify against her husband.
A son and a daughter are opposing parties in federal court. At trial, the daughter presented
evidence that her father has been missing for 10 years and that no one has heard from him in
that time. The son testified that he received a phone call three years ago from a person whom
he believes was his father.
In the jurisdiction, a rebuttable presumption that a person is dead arises when a party
establishes that the person has been missing and not heard from for more than seven years.
Which of the following is correct?
(A) The burden has shifted to the son to persuade the jury that the father is alive.
(B) The judge must instruct the jury to conclude that the father is dead.
(C) The jury may find that the father is dead.
(D) The jury must find that the father is dead. (C) The jury may find that the father is dead.
*Note:* burden of production shifts, NOT burden of persuasion
A defendant is on trial for armed robbery and felony murder. The prosecution seeks to admit
testimony by the first witness to arrive at the scene of the crime. The witness discovered the
victim just before he died of a gunshot wound, and the victim identified the defendant as his
assailant only moments before he died. The defense asserts that the victim was too delirious
from blood loss to know that he was dying and hopes to present a statement from the victim's
widow to support this assertion. However, both parties agree that the widow's statement is
privileged under federal law.
, In what manner should the court determine whether the victim's statement is a dying
declaration?
(A) Allow the prosecution to admit the testimony only if the judge determines that the witness
is credible.
(B) Allow only the unprivileged evidence from both sides at the jury trial so the jury may decide
whether the victim believed he was dy (D) Consider only the unprivileged evidence from
both sides outside the presence of the jury.
A man was prosecuted for the false imprisonment of a woman after he allegedly pretended to
have a broken arm, asked the woman to help him carry a box into the back of his van, and then
pushed her into the van and locked it. At trial, the prosecution attempted to introduce evidence
during a female witness's direct examination that five years ago, the man had impersonated a
policeman, entered the witness's home, and made serious threats of harm if the witness did
not stay in the home and answer his questions.
Is this evidence admissible?
(A) No, because it can only be introduced during cross-examination.
(B) No, because it is improper character evidence.
(C) Yes, because it is relevant evidence that shows the man's preparation and planning.
(D) Yes, because it shows that the man has the propensity to falsely imprison women. (B)
No, because it is improper character evidence.
A girlfriend testified on behalf of her boyfriend when he was prosecuted for first-degree
murder of his ex-wife. When questioned by the defense, the girlfriend testified that the ex-wife
had provoked her boyfriend by telling him she had cheated on him throughout their marriage.
In a momentary heat of passion, the boyfriend strangled the ex-wife. On cross-examination, the
prosecution asked if the girlfriend had ever underreported her annual income on her tax forms.
When the girlfriend denied doing so, the prosecution sought to introduce evidence of the
Guaranteed Success
The driver of an automobile was tried and convicted of manslaughter in the death of a cyclist.
Subsequently, family members of the cyclist initiated a wrongful death action against the
driver. In this civil action, the plaintiffs seek to introduce testimony given by a witness at the
criminal trial that the witness had observed the driver's reckless speeding less than a minute
before the accident with the cyclist. The witness died of natural causes before the wrongful
death action began. The driver objected, noting that, although the witness was cross-examined
at the criminal trial, the driver's attorney had not, for tactical reasons, made a serious effort to
undermine the witness's credibility despite the availability of substantial impeachment
information.
Should the witness's testimony from the manslaughter case be admitted?
(A) No, because of the driver's rights under the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause.
( (D) Yes, under the hearsay exception for former testimony.
A husband is on trial in a federal court for various charges related to organized crime. The
federal prosecutor has arranged for the husband's wife to testify against him in exchange for
leniency in an unrelated case against the wife. At trial, the prosecutor calls the wife to testify
that she heard her husband discussing a planned drug deal on the phone a week before he was
arrested.
Which of the following statements is correct regarding the wife's testimony against her
husband?
(A) Although the wife can be called as a witness, she cannot testify against the husband over his
objection.
(B) The wife can be required to be a witness and to testify against her husband.
,(C) The wife cannot be called as a witness against her husband.
(D) While the prosecutor can call the wife as a witness, the wife can refuse to testify against her
husband. (D) While the prosecutor can call the wife as a witness, the wife can refuse to
testify against her husband.
A son and a daughter are opposing parties in federal court. At trial, the daughter presented
evidence that her father has been missing for 10 years and that no one has heard from him in
that time. The son testified that he received a phone call three years ago from a person whom
he believes was his father.
In the jurisdiction, a rebuttable presumption that a person is dead arises when a party
establishes that the person has been missing and not heard from for more than seven years.
Which of the following is correct?
(A) The burden has shifted to the son to persuade the jury that the father is alive.
(B) The judge must instruct the jury to conclude that the father is dead.
(C) The jury may find that the father is dead.
(D) The jury must find that the father is dead. (C) The jury may find that the father is dead.
*Note:* burden of production shifts, NOT burden of persuasion
A defendant is on trial for armed robbery and felony murder. The prosecution seeks to admit
testimony by the first witness to arrive at the scene of the crime. The witness discovered the
victim just before he died of a gunshot wound, and the victim identified the defendant as his
assailant only moments before he died. The defense asserts that the victim was too delirious
from blood loss to know that he was dying and hopes to present a statement from the victim's
widow to support this assertion. However, both parties agree that the widow's statement is
privileged under federal law.
, In what manner should the court determine whether the victim's statement is a dying
declaration?
(A) Allow the prosecution to admit the testimony only if the judge determines that the witness
is credible.
(B) Allow only the unprivileged evidence from both sides at the jury trial so the jury may decide
whether the victim believed he was dy (D) Consider only the unprivileged evidence from
both sides outside the presence of the jury.
A man was prosecuted for the false imprisonment of a woman after he allegedly pretended to
have a broken arm, asked the woman to help him carry a box into the back of his van, and then
pushed her into the van and locked it. At trial, the prosecution attempted to introduce evidence
during a female witness's direct examination that five years ago, the man had impersonated a
policeman, entered the witness's home, and made serious threats of harm if the witness did
not stay in the home and answer his questions.
Is this evidence admissible?
(A) No, because it can only be introduced during cross-examination.
(B) No, because it is improper character evidence.
(C) Yes, because it is relevant evidence that shows the man's preparation and planning.
(D) Yes, because it shows that the man has the propensity to falsely imprison women. (B)
No, because it is improper character evidence.
A girlfriend testified on behalf of her boyfriend when he was prosecuted for first-degree
murder of his ex-wife. When questioned by the defense, the girlfriend testified that the ex-wife
had provoked her boyfriend by telling him she had cheated on him throughout their marriage.
In a momentary heat of passion, the boyfriend strangled the ex-wife. On cross-examination, the
prosecution asked if the girlfriend had ever underreported her annual income on her tax forms.
When the girlfriend denied doing so, the prosecution sought to introduce evidence of the
