Evidence (Exam-level) Question Pack - Questions

1. A defendant is on trial in federal court for armed robbery of a convenience store. The prosecution’s case includes surveillance footage from the store showing the robbery in progress, but the face of the masked assailant is not visible. The store clerk, who witnessed the robbery, testifies that he recognized the defendant by voice during the incident, having spoken with him many times as a regular customer.

To corroborate identification, the prosecution calls a police officer who interviewed the defendant after arrest. During the interview, the officer asked, “Did you go to that store last Friday?” and the defendant replied, “Man, I didn’t mean to scare anyone—it was supposed to be quick.” The officer seeks to testify to the defendant’s statement. Defense counsel objects, arguing that the statement is inadmissible hearsay and that the officer’s presence in the courtroom makes him an improper conduit for testimonial evidence.

How should the court rule on the officer’s testimony about the defendant’s statement?

The statement is admissible as a present sense impression describing recent events.
The statement is inadmissible hearsay because it was not recorded under oath.
The statement is admissible as a party-opponent’s statement under Rule 801(d)(2).
The statement is inadmissible because it is testimonial and violates the Confrontation Clause.

2. In a federal civil trial for employment discrimination, the plaintiff claims she was fired because of her age. At trial, she testifies that one week before her termination, a coworker told her that the human resources manager had said, “She’s too old to keep pace with the younger team — I’m planning to let her go.” The plaintiff offers this testimony to show the manager’s intent and motive for her firing. Defense counsel objects, arguing that the statement is hearsay, and that the plaintiff cannot testify about something told to her by another employee.

The plaintiff argues that the manager’s statement is a party admission, and that the coworker's role as messenger does not bar admissibility. The court must determine whether this double-level hearsay can be admitted.

Is the plaintiff’s testimony about the manager’s statement admissible?

No, because it includes multiple levels of hearsay not subject to exception.
No, because it fails the requirement for personal knowledge under Rule 602.
Yes, because the manager’s statement is a party-opponent’s statement and the coworker’s report is a present sense impression.
Yes, if both the coworker’s and manager’s statements fall within recognized exclusions or exceptions to the hearsay rule.

3. A plaintiff sued a construction company in federal court after falling from a staircase at a renovation site. She claims the staircase lacked proper railings, violating industry standards and causing her injury. To support her claim, the plaintiff offers testimony from a building inspector who had visited the site one week before the accident. The inspector states that the railings were missing, and adds, “This was clearly below code and unsafe for any worker or visitor.”

The defense objects, arguing that the inspector’s testimony is inadmissible opinion evidence and that his comments about code violations invade the role of the court or jury in determining negligence. The plaintiff counters that the inspector’s testimony qualifies as a lay opinion based on firsthand observation.

How should the court rule on the admissibility of the inspector’s statement?

Exclude the statement because it is a legal conclusion not permitted under Rule 701.
Admit the statement because it is based on specialized knowledge under Rule 702.
Exclude the statement unless the inspector is formally qualified as an expert witness.
Admit the statement because it is a lay opinion based on perception and helpful to the jury.

4. In a criminal trial for tax evasion, the government introduces documents obtained from the defendant’s accountant. These include spreadsheets and notes summarizing financial transfers over several years. The defendant argues that the documents are protected by the attorney–client privilege because the accountant worked under direction of the defendant’s lawyer. The government responds that the communications were ordinary business records and that the accountant was not acting as an agent to facilitate legal advice.

At the evidentiary hearing, the defendant introduces an engagement letter stating that the accountant was retained to “assist legal counsel in preparing a defense.” The government notes that the accountant was also separately hired to prepare amended returns before indictment.

Should the documents be excluded under the attorney–client privilege?

No, because the documents are business records prepared for routine accounting purposes.
No, unless the defendant can show the accountant was directly supervised by counsel.
Yes, because communications related to potential litigation are always privileged.
Yes, if the accountant was retained by legal counsel to assist in providing legal advice.

5. A defendant is on trial for felony possession of stolen goods. A prosecution witness testifies that the defendant once said, “I’ve fenced stuff like this before — it always goes quick if it’s jewelry.” The defense objects, asserting that this statement reflects prior criminal behavior and is inadmissible character evidence. The government argues that the statement demonstrates knowledge and intent relevant to the current charges, especially given the nature of the goods recovered.

The judge considers whether the statement was offered solely to show predisposition, or whether it helps establish the defendant's mental state during the offense. The prosecution clarifies that the statement was made during the arrest, upon viewing the recovered jewelry.

Should the court admit the defendant’s statement?

No, because it constitutes inadmissible character evidence under Rule 404(a).
No, unless it falls within the exception for prior convictions under Rule 609.
Yes, as a prior bad act showing knowledge and intent under Rule 404(b).
Yes, as an excited utterance made during arrest under Rule 803(2).

6. A defendant is on trial in federal court for conspiracy to commit insurance fraud. During the prosecution’s case, an investigator testifies that he interviewed the defendant’s assistant two days before trial. The assistant, who is not present in court, allegedly told the investigator, “He’s been fixing numbers all year. I warned him this would catch up with us.”

The prosecution offers this statement to show the defendant’s intent and knowledge, but defense counsel objects on hearsay grounds. The government argues that it falls under the hearsay exclusion for co-conspirator statements made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The judge notes that the assistant was formerly employed by the defendant and had no formal role in the alleged fraud.

The court must determine whether the assistant’s statement is admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Is the assistant’s statement admissible?

No, because it does not qualify as a co-conspirator statement under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).
No, because out-of-court statements about another’s conduct are always hearsay.
Yes, because it falls under Rule 804(b)(3) as a statement against interest.
Yes, because it constitutes a party-opponent admission attributable to the defendant.

7. A plaintiff sued a medical clinic in federal court for failing to diagnose a severe illness. The clinic offers testimony from a medical expert who reviewed the clinic’s procedures and concluded that its staff acted within professional standards. On cross-examination, the plaintiff seeks to ask the expert about a prior disciplinary action brought against him by a state licensing board for unrelated issues.

The plaintiff argues that the prior disciplinary record bears on the expert’s credibility, especially his claimed familiarity with medical standards. The defense objects, asserting that such impeachment would be unfairly prejudicial and beyond the scope permitted under Rule 608(b).

Should the plaintiff be allowed to cross-examine the expert about the prior disciplinary action?

Yes, because the prior incident affects the expert’s character for truthfulness.
Yes, because any prior misconduct is relevant to the weight of the expert’s opinion.
No, because specific instances of conduct may not be used to impeach unless probative of truthfulness.
No, because expert witnesses cannot be impeached on cross-examination.

8. A defendant is charged with obstruction of justice. During the prosecution’s case-in-chief, they offer testimony from a court clerk who claims to have overheard the defendant in the hallway saying, “The DA’s not going to get those files — I made sure they disappeared.” The conversation occurred within earshot of several people and was not part of any confidential meeting.

Defense counsel objects, arguing that the statement was hearsay and was made in a casual, off-the-record context. The prosecution responds that it is a party-opponent statement under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) and directly relevant to the charge.

Is the clerk’s testimony about the defendant’s statement admissible?

No, because the statement lacks proper foundation and was not recorded.
No, because off-the-record remarks are inherently unreliable hearsay.
Yes, because it is admissible as a party-opponent’s statement offered against the defendant.
Yes, because it qualifies as a spontaneous admission under Rule 803(1).

9. A defendant is on trial in federal court for mail theft. During trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce a scanned copy of a delivery receipt containing the defendant’s signature. The government argues that the scan was made in the ordinary course of business, and that the original paper copy was discarded under the company’s retention policy.

Defense counsel objects under the best evidence rule, claiming that only the original document can be used to prove its contents. The prosecutor presents testimony from a company administrator confirming that electronic scans are considered official records under company practice.

Is the scanned copy admissible?

No, because the original must be produced unless lost or destroyed.
No, because electronic reproductions are secondary evidence.
Yes, because a properly authenticated duplicate is admissible under Rule 1003.
Yes, because the signature is not a material part of the document.

10. A plaintiff sues a corporate defendant for breach of a confidentiality agreement. During discovery, the plaintiff obtains an internal email written by the defendant’s executive, stating: “Let’s ignore the NDA — no one enforces those anyway.” At trial, the plaintiff offers this email to show intent to disregard the agreement.

The defense objects, claiming that the email contains opinion and sarcasm, not concrete evidence of contractual breach. They also argue that the statement was internal and not communicated to the plaintiff.

Should the email be admitted?

No, because it reflects personal opinion rather than operative conduct.
No, because internal communications are not relevant unless shared externally.
Yes, because it is a statement by a party-opponent and relevant to intent.
Yes, because the email falls under the business records exception to hearsay.

11. A defendant was charged in federal court with conspiracy to commit securities fraud. During trial, the prosecution offered a spreadsheet created by the defendant’s assistant summarizing email correspondence about misleading projections sent to investors. The spreadsheet was prepared shortly before the indictment and included notations like “Present this version in Q4 call — original numbers too aggressive.” The assistant is unavailable to testify due to relocation overseas.

Defense counsel objected, arguing that the spreadsheet was hearsay and inadmissible because it was prepared in anticipation of litigation and not in the ordinary course of business. The prosecution countered that it was maintained on company servers and compiled from records routinely used in investor communications.

Should the spreadsheet be admitted into evidence?

No, because it was created in anticipation of litigation and lacks the reliability of a business record.
No, because the assistant is unavailable and cannot be cross-examined.
Yes, because records maintained on company servers are automatically admissible.
Yes, because the spreadsheet qualifies as a business record under Rule 803(6).

Correct answer: A

Explanation: Business records under Rule 803(6) must be made in the regular course of business, not in preparation for litigation. If the spreadsheet was compiled close to the time of indictment and contains strategic notations, courts will likely view it as litigation-oriented rather than routine documentation, undermining its admissibility as a business record.

Why the other options are incorrect:
B Cross-examination of the record creator is not required if proper foundation is laid — but this record lacks reliability.
C Company storage does not alone make a document admissible — the circumstances and purpose of creation matter.
D Rule 803(6) is inapplicable if the document was created specifically to influence litigation outcomes.

12. A plaintiff sued a hotel in federal court, alleging that its negligent handling of a fire alarm caused her to suffer injuries during a chaotic evacuation. At trial, she called a witness who had attended a staff meeting the morning after the incident. The witness testified that a supervisor said, “We knew the system had glitches — they’ve triggered false alarms before.”

The defense objected to the witness’s testimony on hearsay grounds, noting that the supervisor made the statement during a meeting that was not part of any formal investigation or recorded proceedings. The plaintiff responded that the supervisor was employed by the hotel and made the statement in the scope of his job duties, thereby qualifying the statement as non-hearsay.

Should the witness’s testimony about the supervisor’s statement be admitted?

No, because the statement was made after the incident and outside any official company communication.
No, because out-of-court statements about prior knowledge are inherently unreliable.
Yes, because the statement was made by an employee about a matter within the scope of employment.
Yes, because statements made in group meetings are automatically admissible.

13. A defendant charged with criminal impersonation testified that he had no intent to mislead anyone and had used the alias purely for artistic purposes. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked whether the defendant had used the same alias in prior housing applications and job interviews. The defendant denied doing so. The prosecutor then sought to introduce a rental application from three years ago in which the alias was used.

Defense counsel objected, arguing that the prior application constituted improper character evidence and was inadmissible under Rule 404. The prosecution responded that the document was offered to rebut the defendant’s claim of innocent intent and show a pattern of deceptive use.

Should the prior rental application be admitted?

No, because it is inadmissible propensity evidence under Rule 404(a).
No, because only criminal convictions may be used to rebut character claims.
Yes, because it is admissible to show motive, intent, or absence of mistake.
Yes, because all prior acts relevant to truthfulness are admissible under Rule 608(b).

14. A plaintiff filed a federal employment discrimination claim, alleging that she was terminated because of her age. To support her claim, she offered testimony from a coworker who stated that, several months before the termination, her supervisor said during a meeting, “We need to bring in younger energy — some of these old timers just don’t adapt.”

The defense objected, arguing that the statement was inadmissible hearsay and that the coworker lacked personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s specific termination. The plaintiff responded that the statement was made by a management-level employee about workplace staffing and therefore qualifies under Rule 801(d)(2)(D).

Should the coworker’s testimony about the supervisor’s statement be admitted?

No, because the coworker lacks knowledge about the plaintiff’s firing.
No, because the statement is hearsay and not directly about the plaintiff.
Yes, because the statement was made by a party-agent about employment decisions.
Yes, because all statements by supervisors are admissible as non-hearsay.

15. A defendant was charged with possession of stolen goods. During trial, the prosecution introduced an email exchange between the defendant and a third party titled “Order breakdown — jewelry shipment.” The email included a message from the defendant stating, “Usual route, no receipts, keep it quiet.” The defense objected, arguing that the email was unauthenticated and that its informal nature rendered it unreliable.

The prosecution called a forensic IT analyst who testified that the email came from the defendant’s account and matched metadata found on his personal device. The analyst explained how the digital records were retrieved and verified using standard forensic protocols.

Should the email be admitted into evidence?

No, because informal messages are not admissible in criminal trials.
No, because email metadata cannot be used to authenticate electronic communications.
Yes, because the email is a party-opponent’s statement properly authenticated.
Yes, because all business-related communications are admissible as party admissions.

16. A defendant is on trial in federal court for bank fraud. The government alleges that the defendant forged a series of loan documents and submitted them using a business name that had been inactive for over five years. As part of its case, the prosecution introduces testimony from a bank manager who says she received a phone call from someone claiming to be the defendant’s associate, stating, “We’re just using the old shell to secure funding faster.”

The defense objects to the manager’s testimony about the caller’s statement, arguing that it is hearsay, contains an unverifiable identity, and cannot be attributed to the defendant. The prosecution responds that the statement was made by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy, and is therefore admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). The court considers whether the conspiracy had been sufficiently established, whether the caller's identity is credible, and whether the statement advanced the fraud.

Should the manager’s testimony about the associate’s statement be admitted?

No, because the statement's origin is unverifiable and not clearly attributable to a co-conspirator.
No, because statements made to bank employees about business practices are not admissible.
Yes, because it was made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy involving the defendant.
Yes, because statements made over the phone are presumed reliable when financial matters are discussed.

17. A plaintiff in a federal negligence action sues a hotel chain after slipping on a wet tile in the lobby. She claims that no signage was used to warn guests, despite staff knowledge that the floor was often slick following deliveries. During trial, the plaintiff seeks to introduce an internal incident log created by the hotel’s shift supervisor the morning of the fall, which includes the entry: “Wet tiles again by service entrance. No cones available.”

The defense objects, arguing that the log is hearsay and that no staff member involved in its preparation will testify. The plaintiff responds that the log was prepared in the regular course of business, near the time of the event, and kept as part of the hotel’s daily safety documentation.

Should the incident log be admitted?

No, because it is hearsay and the supervisor is not testifying.
No, because safety logs are inherently unreliable unless submitted under oath.
Yes, because it qualifies as a business record under Rule 803(6).
Yes, because all safety-related documents are admissible in negligence cases.

18. A defendant in a federal trial for wire fraud testifies that he did not intend to deceive anyone and that discrepancies in his communications were simply oversights. On cross-examination, the prosecutor introduces an email the defendant sent to a client weeks before the alleged fraud began, stating, “Let’s keep this quiet — too many questions lead to delays.”

Defense counsel objects, claiming that the email is inadmissible character evidence and that it predates the alleged misconduct. The prosecution argues that the email demonstrates intent and is admissible under Rule 404(b)(2) to show absence of mistake.

Should the email be admitted?

No, because it is character evidence used to suggest a dishonest nature.
No, because the communication predates the charged conduct and lacks relevance.
Yes, because it reflects intent and rebuts the defense of oversight.
Yes, because all emails between a defendant and client are admissible.

19. A plaintiff sues a tech manufacturer after suffering a serious burn allegedly caused by a defective charging cable. During trial, the manufacturer presents expert testimony from an engineer with 12 years of experience in consumer electronics design. The expert states the cable met all standard specifications and that the likely cause of the fire was user modification. On voir dire, the plaintiff challenges the expert’s qualifications, noting he lacks formal engineering certification and has not published on electrical safety.

The manufacturer counters that the expert has designed more than 100 commercial products and regularly consults for regulatory bodies. The court must decide whether the expert may testify.

No, because he lacks certification and published credentials required under Daubert.
No, because only licensed engineers may testify about electrical product safety.
Yes, because his experience provides sufficient expertise under Rule 702.
Yes, because any manufacturer representative may testify about their own products.

20. A defendant is charged with falsifying public documents. In support of his claim that the alterations were clerical errors, he calls a secretary from his office to testify that he routinely left forms unsigned and that other staff often completed missing fields. On cross-examination, the prosecution asks whether the secretary had previously told investigators the defendant “filled in missing sections himself whenever he was rushed.”

The secretary denies making that statement. The prosecution then offers a signed affidavit given during a preliminary hearing six months earlier, in which the secretary wrote, “He always finishes reports, even if it means changing dates.”

Defense counsel objects, claiming that the affidavit is hearsay and that the prosecution cannot use it to impeach a witness who doesn’t recall making it. The court must decide whether the affidavit may be admitted.

No, because prior written statements are inadmissible unless made under oath at trial.
No, because the witness denied the statement and cannot be impeached with her own affidavit.
Yes, because it is a prior inconsistent statement given under oath in a proceeding.
Yes, because affidavits are automatically admissible as substantive impeachment evidence.

21. A plaintiff sued a national fitness center chain in federal court after slipping on a puddle near the entrance. The accident occurred in early winter following heavy snowfall. The plaintiff alleged that staff failed to place adequate signage and had been warned about potential water hazards from melted snow brought in by members. As part of her case, the plaintiff seeks to introduce a voicemail left by an employee for the store manager, stating, “We’ve had complaints about icy water near the entrance every morning — we need mats ASAP.”

The defense objects, arguing that the employee no longer works for the company and the voicemail is hearsay not subject to any exception. The plaintiff responds that the message was created during the employment relationship and concerned a safety issue well within the scope of the job. The court must determine whether the voicemail can be admitted to show notice and failure to act.

Should the voicemail be admitted?

No, because it was a personal message sent outside formal reporting channels.
No, because the declarant is unavailable and the statement is not subject to cross-examination.
Yes, because it was made by an employee concerning a matter within the scope of employment.
Yes, because voicemails about safety are automatically admissible in negligence claims.

22. A defendant charged with forgery called a witness to testify that the defendant had a habit of delegating signature-related tasks to clerical staff. The witness said, “He always told us, ‘If I’m out and something needs signing, just take care of it.’” On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked the witness whether she remembered telling investigators two months earlier that the defendant was “very hands-on with legal documents.” The witness said she didn’t recall making that statement.

The prosecution then offered a signed statement from the witness given during a police interview before trial. The statement read, “He’s careful with documents — always signs them himself.” The defense objects, arguing that the prior statement is inadmissible hearsay and not subject to any exception.

Should the signed statement be admitted?

No, because it was not made under oath during a prior proceeding.
No, because the witness denies recalling the statement.
Yes, because it is a prior inconsistent statement used for impeachment.
Yes, because signed police statements are always admissible as prior testimony.

23. In a federal trial for trafficking counterfeit electronics, the government introduces testimony from a warehouse security guard. He states that two nights before the defendant's arrest, he heard the defendant say to a coworker, “Keep the decoys mixed — if Customs asks, they’re promotional samples.” The guard had worked in the facility for over a year and regularly oversaw overnight shifts.

Defense counsel objects to the statement as hearsay, arguing that it was an offhand remark and not intended as evidence of conspiracy. The prosecution responds that it was made by the defendant and offered against him, qualifying as a party-opponent admission. The court must decide whether this statement is admissible.

Should the guard’s testimony about the defendant’s remark be admitted?

No, because offhand comments about products are not sufficiently reliable.
No, because warehouse employees cannot testify about verbal intent.
Yes, because it is a party-opponent admission under Rule 801(d)(2)(A).
Yes, because all statements about customs enforcement are admissible in trafficking cases.

24. A plaintiff sues a publishing company for breach of contract, alleging that her book manuscript was rejected based on personal bias rather than editorial standards. The defendant calls its managing editor to testify that the decision was based solely on content issues and genre mismatch. On cross-examination, the plaintiff offers internal emails the editor sent to colleagues stating, “She’s just another self-styled activist with an inflated ego. We need authors who understand subtlety.”

The defense objects, claiming the emails are irrelevant and prejudicial under Rule 403. The plaintiff argues that they show bias and may undermine the editor’s credibility as a neutral witness.

Should the emails be admitted?

No, because they are prejudicial and do not relate to the contract’s performance.
No, because internal correspondence is protected by editorial privilege.
Yes, because they are relevant to bias and impeachment.
Yes, because all internal company emails are admissible in civil litigation.

25. In a federal drug prosecution, the government offers evidence that the defendant's fingerprints were found on a bag containing controlled substances. A forensic analyst testifies to the chain of custody and analysis protocols. During cross-examination, defense counsel asks whether the analyst was ever reprimanded for mishandling evidence in unrelated cases. The analyst denies any prior disciplinary action.

The defense then attempts to introduce a local newspaper article reporting that the analyst was sanctioned two years ago for procedural lapses in another laboratory. The prosecution objects, arguing that the article is hearsay and lacks official verification. The defense responds that the article impeaches the expert’s credibility and is critical to the jury’s evaluation.

Should the article be admitted?

No, because extrinsic evidence of specific acts is inadmissible to attack truthfulness.
No, because newspaper reports are unreliable and cannot be authenticated.
Yes, because impeachment evidence is not subject to hearsay limitations.
Yes, because any evidence that challenges expert credibility must be considered.

26. A defendant was charged in federal court with felony tax evasion. As part of its case, the government introduced a signed memo from the defendant’s accountant stating, “All asset transfers have been reclassified to avoid triggering IRS review.” The accountant had submitted the memo to the defendant three months before the audit that led to the indictment. The government argued that the memo indicated intent to conceal financial activity.

The defense objected, arguing that the memo was hearsay and that it was authored solely by the accountant, who was neither testifying nor available for cross-examination. The prosecution responded that the document was admissible as a statement made by a party agent concerning a matter within the scope of employment under Rule 801(d)(2)(D). The court considered whether the accountant’s relationship and role supported that designation.

Should the memo be admitted?

No, because the author is unavailable and the statement cannot be attributed to the defendant.
No, because business memos are hearsay unless offered under the business records exception.
Yes, because it was made by the defendant’s agent during the employment relationship.
Yes, because all pre-audit communications are relevant and admissible.

27. A plaintiff brought a federal tort claim against a theme park operator after suffering a concussion on a roller coaster. In discovery, the plaintiff obtained a maintenance log recorded by park employees five days before the incident. The log noted, “Ride jolts left before stabilizing — may cause head whipping.” The plaintiff sought to admit the log to show prior notice of risk.

The defense objected on hearsay grounds and argued that the log’s language was speculative and not written by engineering staff. The plaintiff responded that the log was part of the park’s routine safety documentation and created by someone with firsthand operational experience.

Should the maintenance log be admitted?

No, because entries with speculative language cannot satisfy reliability requirements.
No, because only engineering reports qualify as admissible technical records.
Yes, because it meets the business records exception under Rule 803(6).
Yes, because maintenance logs always fall outside the scope of the hearsay rule.

28. A defendant in a federal obstruction trial took the stand and denied instructing anyone to delete surveillance footage. On rebuttal, the prosecution called a security contractor who testified that the defendant told him, “Don’t worry about that timestamp — we’ll handle it.” The contractor said the conversation occurred shortly after the footage was requested by investigators.

The defense objected, arguing that the witness had a grudge and the statement was ambiguous. The prosecution argued that the remark was admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) as a party-opponent statement and showed consciousness of guilt.

Is the contractor’s testimony about the defendant’s statement admissible?

No, because the witness’s motive undermines credibility and trustworthiness.
No, because vague comments are not admissible to prove intent.
Yes, because it is a statement made by the defendant and offered against him.
Yes, because all rebuttal statements are admissible in federal trials.

29. A plaintiff sues an airline for breach of contract after being denied boarding due to an overbooking error. At trial, the airline calls a customer service supervisor to testify that the plaintiff arrived after boarding closed. On cross-examination, the plaintiff’s counsel presents a training manual stating, “If passengers arrive within 5 minutes of cutoff, staff must reassign seating where possible.” The manual was issued six months before the flight.

The airline objects to the manual’s use, arguing that the excerpt is hearsay and represents an aspirational guideline, not binding policy. The plaintiff counters that the manual was created and maintained by the airline and governs employee conduct, making it relevant and admissible.

Should the manual be admitted?

No, because internal guidelines are not enforceable and may mislead the jury.
No, because written policies are hearsay unless adopted in specific contracts.
Yes, because it qualifies as a party-opponent statement establishing operational standards.
Yes, because all internal documents affecting passenger rights are admissible.

30. A defendant is charged with mail fraud related to a sweepstakes scam. During cross-examination, a prosecution witness admits he received cash payments from the defendant but insists they were reimbursement for shared advertising expenses. Defense counsel asks whether the witness told investigators two years earlier, “We both knew we were sending junk mail.”

The witness denies the prior statement. Defense counsel then moves to introduce an audio recording of the earlier interview conducted by postal agents. The prosecution objects, arguing that the recording is hearsay and lacks a proper foundation.

Should the audio recording be admitted?

No, because impeachment must rely on live testimony and not extrinsic evidence.
No, because the statement is hearsay and Rule 613 does not allow audio evidence.
Yes, because it is admissible for impeachment as a prior inconsistent statement.
Yes, because law enforcement recordings are automatically admissible.

31. A defendant is on trial for conspiracy to manufacture and sell counterfeit pharmaceuticals. During trial, the prosecution offers a recorded phone conversation between the defendant and an unknown caller in which the defendant says, “Don’t worry — the labels are identical to the real ones, no one will tell the difference.” The conversation took place two weeks before a shipment was intercepted by federal agents.

Defense counsel objects on hearsay grounds, arguing that the identity of the other party is unknown and that the statement was made informally outside any business setting. The prosecution responds that the statement is being offered against the defendant and qualifies as a party-opponent admission under Rule 801(d)(2)(A), regardless of the recipient's identity.

Should the defendant’s statement from the recording be admitted?

No, because the absence of the other party’s identity prevents authentication.
No, because informal remarks about product labeling are unreliable.
Yes, because it is the defendant’s own statement offered against him.
Yes, because any recorded business conversation is admissible in a fraud trial.

32. A plaintiff sues a landscaping company for personal injuries caused by a tripping hazard on a newly installed path. She claims that loose stones were left on the walkway and that the company failed to secure the surface. During trial, the plaintiff offers an internal safety checklist filled out by a crew foreman two days before the accident, which includes the line: “Loose gravel remains on west side — skipped cleanup due to time.”

The defense objects to the checklist as hearsay, arguing that it was not made for reporting purposes and was not communicated to management. The plaintiff responds that the form was completed in the course of business and kept as part of standard site documentation.

Should the checklist be admitted?

No, because it was never sent to management and lacks probative value.
No, because it is hearsay and not prepared for legal compliance purposes.
Yes, because it qualifies as a business record created in the ordinary course.
Yes, because the checklist constitutes a party-opponent admission under Rule 801(d)(2)(D).

33. A defendant is charged with criminal possession of stolen electronics. He claims he purchased the items from a local vendor unaware of their origin. To support his defense, he calls a witness who testifies, “He told me right after buying them, ‘This stuff looks legit — hope I’m not getting scammed.’” The statement was made two days before police recovered the items in the defendant’s garage.

The prosecution objects, arguing the statement is self-serving hearsay and lacks corroboration. The defense responds that the statement reflects the defendant’s then-existing state of mind and is admissible under Rule 803(3) to show lack of criminal intent.

Should the witness’s testimony about the defendant’s statement be admitted?

No, because self-serving statements are hearsay and inadmissible.
No, because the defendant’s belief does not relate to his physical or emotional condition.
Yes, because it expresses then-existing mental state relevant to intent.
Yes, because statements made before arrest are automatically admissible.

34. A plaintiff sues a software company for breach of contract after alleging that the delivered product failed to meet security specifications. During trial, the defense presents testimony from a quality assurance manager who says, “We met every benchmark listed in the contract.” The plaintiff then seeks to introduce an email that the manager sent two weeks before the delivery, stating, “We’re behind on encryption — skipping multi-layer testing unless legal says otherwise.”

The defense objects, arguing that the email is hearsay and reflects informal speculation rather than an official business position. The plaintiff argues the email was sent during employment, by a manager discussing work within the scope of his role, and should be admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D).

Should the email be admitted?

No, because informal communications without executive approval are not admissible.
No, because the manager lacked final authority on contract compliance.
Yes, because the statement was made by a party’s employee about a matter within the scope of employment.
Yes, because all internal emails are exempt from the hearsay rule in contract cases.

35. A defendant in a federal mail fraud case is accused of targeting elderly victims with fake sweepstakes notices. A government expert testifies about linguistic features that appear in scam communications and compares them to letters recovered from the defendant’s home. On cross-examination, defense counsel asks whether the expert has ever been formally trained in forensic sociolinguistics. The expert admits they have not but says they've studied relevant texts and worked on “at least 30 cases.”

The defense moves to exclude the testimony, arguing that without specialized certification or published research, the expert lacks qualifications under Rule 702 and Daubert. The prosecution argues that experience in related cases and practical exposure meet the necessary standard.

Should the expert’s testimony be excluded?

No, because experience-based qualifications are sufficient under Rule 702.
No, because formal academic training is not required for expert admissibility.
Yes, because Daubert requires certification or peer-reviewed publications.
Yes, because the expert lacks specialized training in the precise subfield used for comparison.

36. A defendant is charged with criminal copyright infringement after allegedly distributing pirated software through a private online forum. To prove intent, the prosecution offers testimony from a former forum moderator who claims that three weeks before the takedown, the defendant posted, “No license, no problem — crack it and share it before they update the firewall.”

The defense objects, arguing that the statement is hearsay and the identity of the account holder was not conclusively verified through IP tracing. The prosecution responds that forum moderators used verification badges and personal messaging protocols, and that other posts tied the account to the defendant’s known aliases.

After reviewing authentication procedures and the testimony about account control, how should the court rule on the admissibility of the online post?

No, because the post’s authorship is uncertain and cannot be definitively attributed to the defendant.
No, because online speech related to piracy is inherently prejudicial and inadmissible.
Yes, because the statement is offered against the defendant and authentication is sufficiently established.
Yes, because all forum posts related to software sharing are admissible in infringement cases.

37. A plaintiff sues a regional grocery chain for negligence after being injured by a toppling promotional display. During discovery, the plaintiff obtains a shift manager’s internal note written two days before the incident that says, “Stack is off-balance — missing a base panel. Warned staff not to touch it until repairs.”

At trial, the plaintiff offers the note to show prior notice and foreseeability. The defense objects under hearsay rules, arguing that the note was created casually and never reviewed by corporate safety personnel. The plaintiff responds that the note was made by a supervisory employee during the scope of her duties and relates directly to workplace safety.

Taking into account the note’s origin, timing, and relationship to the incident, should the court admit it?

No, because casual handwritten notes that are never reported up the chain are not admissible.
Yes, because it was made by a party’s agent about a matter within the scope of employment.
No, because the supervisor’s note lacks sufficient indicia of reliability under the business records exception.
Yes, because all internal safety notes are per se admissible in negligence actions.

38. A defendant in a federal extortion case calls a character witness who testifies that the defendant “is known in the community as someone who always plays by the rules.” On cross-examination, the prosecution asks whether the witness knew that the defendant had been fired from a job five years ago for threatening a coworker during a pay dispute. The witness says, “I didn’t know anything about that.”

The prosecution moves to introduce the defendant’s termination letter detailing the incident. Defense counsel objects under Rule 608(b), claiming that extrinsic evidence of specific conduct is inadmissible to impeach character witnesses.

Considering the nature of the impeachment and the manner in which it is raised, how should the court rule on the prosecution’s request?

No, because prior acts used for impeachment cannot be proved by extrinsic evidence.
No, because termination letters are hearsay unless authenticated as business records.
Yes, because prior conduct may be introduced to contradict character testimony.
Yes, because threats made in the workplace are always relevant in extortion trials.

39. A plaintiff in a federal breach of contract case calls an expert in procurement and government compliance to testify about standard bidding practices. The expert has spent 15 years consulting on public contracts, training purchasing managers, and helping organizations navigate federal bid procedures. She has no formal certifications and has not published peer-reviewed research, but has testified in eight prior cases and completed government contracting coursework.

During voir dire, defense counsel points out that she’s never worked for a federal agency and questions whether her experience applies to the specific procurement framework used in this case. The plaintiff argues that Rule 702 does not require agency affiliation and that her consulting background makes her qualified to assist the jury.

Given the expert’s credentials and the nature of her proposed testimony, should the court permit her to testify?

No, because certifications or agency employment are required to qualify as a procurement expert.
Yes, because her practical experience in public contract procedures satisfies Rule 702.
No, because the absence of peer-reviewed publication fails Daubert’s reliability standard.
Yes, because consultants are automatically qualified to testify about procurement practices.

40. A defendant is charged with theft of mail following a series of unauthorized deliveries found discarded near his residence. During trial, a neighbor testifies that she overheard the defendant say, “They only care about packages, so letters are easy to pocket if you’re quick.” She said this occurred three days before the arrest, while the defendant was talking to someone outside his apartment.

Defense counsel objects, claiming that the statement is vague and was not clearly about the stolen items in question. The prosecution argues that it is admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) because it was made by the defendant and shows knowledge and intent.

Considering the nature of the statement and its timing, should the court admit the neighbor’s testimony?

No, because the comment is ambiguous and not directly linked to the theft at issue.
Yes, because it is a party-opponent admission offered to show intent and knowledge.
No, because statements about general practices are inadmissible without supporting conduct.
Yes, because all remarks made near the time of arrest are automatically admissible.

41. A defendant is charged in federal court with obstruction of justice following an investigation into fraudulent invoices. During trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce a handwritten note found in the defendant’s desk drawer. The note reads, “Destroy audit drafts before Monday — keep originals hidden.” The government argues that the note reflects intent to conceal relevant records before a scheduled compliance review.

The defense objects, arguing that the note is hearsay, lacks authentication, and may have been written by someone else. The prosecution presents handwriting samples from the defendant and calls a forensic document analyst who compares the note’s script to known exemplars and finds strong consistency.

Assuming the handwriting is properly authenticated, should the court admit the note?

Yes, because it is a party-opponent statement offered against the defendant.
Yes, because all handwritten materials found on a defendant’s property are admissible.
No, because without a timestamp, the statement lacks sufficient indicia of relevance.
No, because written statements by parties are inadmissible unless signed.

42. A plaintiff sues a manufacturing company after suffering injuries from a defective water pump. To show corporate awareness of design flaws, the plaintiff seeks to introduce a customer service report written by an employee two months before the accident. The report reads, “Pump model 3000 is subject to cracking under heat strain — received four complaints last week.” The company argues that the report was not shared with engineering and was created during litigation anticipation.

The plaintiff counters that the report was logged in the company’s CRM system using standard forms and timestamps, and compiled in the routine course of customer support operations. The employee is no longer with the company, but the database manager authenticates the entry.

Should the report be admitted under the business records exception?

No, because its content involves opinion and was generated outside engineering channels.
Yes, because the report was made in the regular course of business and properly authenticated.
No, because it was created too close to the incident and may reflect litigation bias.
Yes, because all internal service reports are admissible in product liability actions.

43. A defendant charged with embezzlement calls a forensic accounting expert to testify that the withdrawals identified by the government fit within standard reimbursement practices. The expert has reviewed the financial records and has experience auditing nonprofits, including five similar organizations. However, she has never examined the defendant’s company before and does not hold a CPA license.

On voir dire, the prosecution challenges the expert’s qualifications, arguing that her lack of certification and firsthand knowledge of the defendant’s internal policies undermine her credibility. The defense responds that Rule 702 allows experts based on experience and that her methodology aligns with forensic accounting norms.

Should the expert be permitted to testify?

No, because she lacks specific familiarity with the defendant’s organization.
No, because Daubert requires certification or published reliability studies.
Yes, because her experience in the field satisfies Rule 702’s qualification standard.
Yes, because financial experts are categorically admissible in white collar crime cases.

44. A plaintiff sues an airline for breach of duty after being denied boarding during a layover due to overbooking. At trial, the airline calls a gate supervisor who testifies that the plaintiff was not present when boarding was announced. On cross-examination, the plaintiff asks whether the supervisor had previously told investigators, “She was there — I remember her asking about zone numbers.” The supervisor denies making that statement.

The plaintiff seeks to admit the transcript of a prior recorded interview conducted by federal transport agents. The transcript includes the supervisor affirming the plaintiff’s presence and expressing uncertainty about how she was overlooked.

Should the transcript be admitted to impeach the supervisor?

No, because extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements is barred under Rule 608(b).
Yes, because Rule 613 allows impeachment using prior inconsistent statements.
No, because government transcripts are hearsay unless certified.
Yes, because all prior statements made under investigation are admissible for impeachment.

45. A defendant is charged with illegally disclosing protected medical information. During trial, the prosecution offers an email sent by the defendant to a colleague stating, “Let’s send the patient list to marketing — those are high-value prospects.” The defendant argues that the list was anonymized and disputes that any health data was misused.

Defense counsel objects to admission of the email, asserting that its language is vague and more prejudicial than probative, and that it would mislead the jury about what “prospects” implies. The prosecution counters that the email reflects intent and is highly relevant to the element of knowing disclosure.

Should the court admit the email under Rule 403?

No, because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value.
Yes, because intent statements are never excluded under Rule 403.
No, because business emails must be accompanied by supporting testimony to be probative.
Yes, because all communications between defendants and co-workers are admissible.

46. A defendant is charged with criminal misappropriation of public funds. During the investigation, prosecutors obtained a voicemail recording in which the defendant told a junior accountant, “Just switch the labels on those grants—make it look like outreach. No one checks that budget line anyway.” The voicemail was retrieved from the accountant’s phone under a warrant, but the accountant did not testify at trial due to relocation abroad.

Defense counsel objected, claiming that the recording is hearsay, and argued that the lack of direct testimony from the recipient makes it unreliable. The prosecution responded that the statement was made by the defendant and offered against him, and thus constitutes a party-opponent admission under Rule 801(d)(2)(A). The judge considered whether the absence of the recipient affected the statement’s admissibility.

Should the court admit the voicemail into evidence?

Yes, because it is the defendant’s own statement offered against him.
Yes, because the recording was lawfully obtained and is relevant to intent.
No, because the accountant is unavailable and cannot verify the context.
No, because voicemail recordings are inadmissible unless both parties are present to testify.

47. A plaintiff brings a federal tort suit against a trucking company after a crash on an icy highway. During trial, she seeks to introduce internal dispatch logs recorded by the company’s route manager the morning of the accident. One entry reads, “Unit 47 flagged for tire concerns — scheduled inspection delayed due to high priority loads.” The manager no longer works for the company, but the log was maintained in the company’s routing database and authenticated by a current employee.

Defense counsel objects under Rule 803(6), claiming the entry is hearsay and not part of routine documentation. The plaintiff responds that the log was created near the time of the event, kept in the ordinary course of business, and the entry relates directly to the vehicle involved.

Should the dispatch log entry be admitted under the business records exception?

No, because the manager no longer works for the company and cannot testify.
Yes, because the log was created during a regular business process and properly authenticated.
No, because tire issues are speculative and not based on conclusive inspection data.
Yes, because internal safety reports are categorically admissible in vehicle-related claims.

48. A defendant is on trial for conspiracy to distribute counterfeit pharmaceuticals. To establish that the pills lacked approved active ingredients, the prosecution offers testimony from a chemical engineer who performed lab analysis. On voir dire, defense counsel highlights that the expert holds a master's degree in materials science, not pharmacology, and has never published peer-reviewed drug efficacy research. However, the expert has led product testing in commercial labs for 15 years and regularly consults with medical manufacturers.

Defense counsel moves to exclude the expert under Rule 702 and Daubert, arguing lack of pharmacological expertise and absence of peer validation. The prosecution counters that the expert is experienced in ingredient testing and used accepted lab methods.

Should the expert be permitted to testify about the composition of the pills?

No, because only pharmacologists can testify about drug effectiveness in criminal trials.
No, because Daubert requires specialized credentials and peer-reviewed publications.
Yes, because the expert’s experience and reliable methodology satisfy Rule 702.
Yes, because chemical engineers are automatically qualified to testify in drug-related cases.

49. A plaintiff sued a stadium venue after suffering injuries during a post-concert crowd surge. Her witness testified at trial that just before the incident, she heard the lead security officer tell staff, “Hold off on closing gates — let people flow toward the center so we keep energy high.” She claimed this directive led to confusion and mounting pressure in the aisles.

On cross-examination, defense counsel asked whether she previously told paramedics, “I don’t remember anything unusual before it happened.” The witness denied making that statement and said she was too shaken to speak clearly. Defense counsel then sought to admit a certified EMT report written contemporaneously with treatment. The report included a statement attributed to the witness: “Everything felt normal — I didn’t notice anything off before the crowd moved.”

Plaintiff’s counsel objected, arguing that the report was hearsay and contained the paramedic’s words, not the witness’s. Defense counsel maintained that it documented a prior inconsistent statement usable for impeachment. The judge must determine whether to allow the EMT report.

No, because prior statements made during medical care are too unreliable for impeachment.
No, because statements recorded by others cannot be introduced unless the speaker testifies.
Yes, because first-responder documentation is presumptively admissible under the business records exception.
Yes, because Rule 613 permits impeachment with prior inconsistent statements even if the witness denies remembering them.

50. A defendant was charged with submitting fraudulent inspection logs to a federal agency overseeing bridge maintenance. During a forensic review of the defendant’s personal laptop, agents discovered a draft email dated two days before the final report was submitted. The draft read: “Skip Segment 5 — too many loose bolts to justify clearance. Just duplicate last year’s entry. No time for damage control now.” Metadata confirmed the draft was written by the defendant, though it was never sent.

At trial, the prosecution offered the draft to show premeditation and awareness of falsification. Defense counsel objected under Rule 403, arguing that the unsent nature made the email speculative and unfairly prejudicial. Counsel emphasized that the final report contained no mention of Segment 5 and the draft could confuse the jury into conflating early drafts with official submissions.

The prosecution responded that the draft reflected intent and was authored by the defendant, making it admissible as a party-opponent statement. The judge considered whether the probative value outweighed any prejudicial impact.

No, because unsent drafts are inherently speculative and confuse issues of intent.
No, because Rule 403 bars statements that were never acted upon.
Yes, because all personal documents recovered under warrant are admissible.
Yes, because the statement qualifies under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by prejudice.

Item added to your cart

Evidence (Exam-level) Question Pack - Questions

Country/region