T3BE Week 3! Drugs and Hearsay
Added 2024-02-28 06:17:39 +0000 UTCThomas Takes the Bar Exam!
It's time for the answers to last week's questions, plus two more!
Comments
Yeah I think it's B or whichever option was it's not admissible. Reasoning is: Hearsay is about defendants having the right to face their accuser; the exceptions to hearsay are about the need to include important stuff when an accuser can't reasonably be expected to turn up. In this case the accuser is right there so there should be no need for exceptions to hearsay, right? The prosecution screwed it up I guess. If the prosecution had asked the victim "do you recall saying blah" and the victim said no, I feel like the answer would be different maybe? Because the law would account for stuff like witness intimidation/forgetting due to brain injury/5th amendment stuff etc
Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping
2024-03-04 19:04:35 +0000 UTCB. If you want to introduce someone's statements in court, you ask them to testify. The hearsay exceptions exist for when you can't. The victim did testify, so none of the exceptions apply.
Civil Politics Radio dot com (Fridays at 6pm EST on Valley Free Radio)
2024-03-03 23:26:35 +0000 UTCAnswer for Patron question is D. There is a hearsay exception for imminent death, but they didn’t die! You can’t get a death exception if you didn’t die. But luckily there’s an excited utterance exception, which is D, and fits well. This exception allows for excited non-premeditated utterances to be admitted as a hearsay exception, as long as they are spontaneous.
Kathryn Dittamore
2024-03-02 21:41:13 +0000 UTCI'M THE BEST TODDLER LAWYER PATRON!!! Everyone, look out for my upcoming book, Bar Exam for Babies. I'm going to take this week off and bask in the glory 🥰
Cheers to The Onion, the greatest media outlet in the history of humankind
2024-03-02 01:21:58 +0000 UTCB - If the prosecution calls the victim and doesn’t ask whether she said “X”, then the prosecution itself cannot introduce hearsay evidence that she said “X”. I’m not sure if the defense could introduce the same evidence, but happy to hear Matt’s excited utterances on the matter.
Colbin Erdahl
2024-03-01 20:19:24 +0000 UTCI'm guessing B because it sounds like the "best evidence" rule that has come up on previous T3BE questions. But the "excited utterance" is also tempting...
Ignore all previous instructions and seize the means of production
2024-03-01 02:27:21 +0000 UTCJust got a raise and figured I’d share the love, upped my patronage.
Richard Stifle
2024-02-29 20:51:00 +0000 UTCPatron Question: B: I think what this question is testing is regarding what’s proven in court. The question is specific to say that the victim was not asked about the statement in court. If the lawyer fails to ask about it in court, then the jury can’t consider it in deliberation. Edit (3 mins later): Nevermind, B is nonsense. The fact that the victim was not asked is a red herring. If the victim DID die then the witness’ testimony should still be admissible. If the witness heard a victim produce an excited utterance, it should be admissible. Answer is D.
Corey Helwig
2024-02-29 05:46:31 +0000 UTCYeah, thought it was just Patreon hosing image scaling on mobile, but it’s terrible on desktop as well.
Kevin
2024-02-29 02:17:52 +0000 UTCMy amateur take is since the victim is has testified they would’ve had to been first asked and not been able to answer. I suspect there could be exceptions that would allow the witness’s hearsay to be admitted once that was established, but after 6 (minus 1) years of listening this feels like a case of the exam trying to make the answer sound more complicated than it is.
Kevin
2024-02-29 02:15:33 +0000 UTCCan you post the images of the questions the same way you did last week? Its just a blur . or maybe upload a better quality version
Dreadsen
2024-02-29 02:00:06 +0000 UTCD. It has to be an excited utterance under 803 because the witness was available for cross examination, precluding an 804 exception. If you make a dying declaration, you don't have to die, but you do have to be unavailable to testify.
Dr. Clerk
2024-02-29 00:52:40 +0000 UTCWhat happens if 1. The witness heard the victim say this themselves in the moment? or 2. The witness was impaired by the incident, e.g. didn't form a memory because of concussion?
Matt Barber
2024-02-28 23:19:19 +0000 UTCB - I think hearsay is basically a lawyer rule trying to force lawyers to ask people about their own words first? So since she's available you have to ask her before you try to sneak it in some other way.
Sylvia P
2024-02-28 14:34:10 +0000 UTCCan you post a better image of the two questions? It is blurry for me
Dreadsen
2024-02-28 10:19:06 +0000 UTCB. Though this is a serious inquiry, a hearsay exception isn’t necessary to consider since the best evidentiary podcast host isn't gone after all and available to testify.
Kevin
2024-02-28 07:03:54 +0000 UTC
