QuickHelper

(10)

$20/per page/

About QuickHelper

Levels Tought:
Elementary,High School,College,University,PHD

Expertise:
Accounting,Applied Sciences See all
Accounting,Applied Sciences,Business & Finance,Chemistry,Engineering,Health & Medical Hide all
Teaching Since: May 2017
Last Sign in: 352 Weeks Ago, 5 Days Ago
Questions Answered: 20103
Tutorials Posted: 20155

Education

  • MBA, PHD
    Phoniex
    Jul-2007 - Jun-2012

Experience

  • Corportae Manager
    ChevronTexaco Corporation
    Feb-2009 - Nov-2016

Category > Law Posted 21 Sep 2017 My Price 8.00

804 1.Negligence action by Plaintiff against

Fed.R.Evid.804

1.Negligence action by Plaintiff against Defendant arising from an automobile collision.
Witness observed the collision, and Plaintiff plans to call Witness to testify at trial.
Prior to trial, Defendant pays Witness to “disappear” for a while, making Witness
unavailable to testify at the trial. Plaintiff wishes to offer into evidence Witness’s
statement to a police officer the day after the accident, in which Witness said that
Defendant ran a red light and struck Plaintiff. Defendant objects on hearsay grounds.
How should the court rule?
2. Prosecution of Defendant for the murder of Victim. The prosecution alleges that
Defendant killed Victim to prevent her from testifying at Defendant’s racketeering
trial. Defendant denies having anything to do with Victim’s death. Before she was
killed, Victim accused Defendant of being a “big time mobster who is involved in all
kinds of illegal activities.” The prosecution wishes to offer Victim’s statement into
evidence at the murder trial. Defendant objects. How should the court rule?

4.Prosecution of Defendant for bank robbery. A few days before the trial was to begin,
Zed, one of Defendant’s co-defendants, killed Witness, a bank customer who was
present during the robbery. Zed did this to prevent Witness from testifying against
the defendants. Defendant knew nothing of Zed’s plan to kill Witness before Zed
carried it out, though Defendant did not inform the police of Zed’s act after
Defendant learned of what Zed had done. The prosecution wishes to offer in
evidence Witness’s statement to the police in which she gave a description of the
robbers. Defendant objects on hearsay grounds. How should the court rule?


5.Same case. Suppose that Defendant knew of Zed’s intention before Zed acted, and that
Defendant attempted without success to talk Zed out of killing Witness. When it was
clear that Zed would not change his mind, Defendant told him, “Do what you want. I
can’t stop you.” Defendant objects on hearsay grounds to admission of Witness’s
statement to the police. How should the court rule?

Answers

QuickHelper
(10)
Status NEW Posted 21 Sep 2017 10:09 AM My Price 8.00

Hel-----------lo -----------Sir-----------/Ma-----------dam----------- T-----------han-----------k Y-----------ou -----------for----------- us-----------ing----------- ou-----------r w-----------ebs-----------ite----------- an-----------d a-----------cqu-----------isi-----------tio-----------n o-----------f m-----------y p-----------ost-----------ed -----------sol-----------uti-----------on.----------- Pl-----------eas-----------e p-----------ing----------- me----------- on----------- ch-----------at -----------I a-----------m o-----------nli-----------ne -----------or -----------inb-----------ox -----------me -----------a m-----------ess-----------age----------- I -----------wil-----------l

Not Rated(0)