Question 1

The plaintiff is&#8230;..&#10;A) the person charged with the crime&#10;B) the attorney who is defending his/her client&#10;C) the attorney who has the burden of proof&#10;D) the judge who presides over the case&#10;E) the person who brings the suit to seek a remedy

Accepted Answer

The plaintiff is the person who brings a suit to seek a remedy. They are the party who files a complaint against the defendant and seeks legal action to resolve a dispute or seek justice. The plaintiff is not the person charged with the crime (that would be the defendant), the attorney defending the client (that would be the defense attorney), the attorney who has the burden of proof (that would be either the prosecutor or the plaintiff's attorney), or the judge presiding over the case.

Question 2

Who represents the 'trier of fact'?&#10;A) Defendant&#10;B) Attorneys&#10;C) Judge and bailiff&#10;D) Judge and jury&#10;E) All of the above

Accepted Answer

The "trier of fact" refers to the group responsible for determining the facts of a case, usually in a criminal trial. This typically involves listening to evidence presented by the attorneys for both the defendant and the prosecution. The trier of fact is made up of the judge and the jury, with the judge overseeing the proceedings and the jury making the final determination of guilt or innocence. The defendant and attorneys have the opportunity to present evidence and argue their case to the trier of fact, but they do not represent the trier of fact themselves. Therefore, the correct answer is D) Judge and jury.

Question 3

The United States system of justice is said to be adversarial because it involves&#8230;&#10;A) Two attorneys at opposite ends of the spectrum&#10;B) A prosecuting and defense attorney&#10;C) Convincing the judge and jury that attorneys respective theories of who committed the crime is the closest to the truth&#10;D) All of the above&#10;E) Choice 'a' and 'b' are correct

Accepted Answer

The United States system of justice is adversarial because it involves two attorneys (choice A) at opposite ends of the spectrum (choice A), a prosecuting and defense attorney (choice B), and convincing the judge and jury that attorneys respective theories of who committed the crime is the closest to the truth (choice C). Therefore, choice D, "All of the above," is the best answer.

Question 4

Which person(s) has the burden of proof?&#10;A) Defense attorneys&#10;B) Judge&#10;C) Jury&#10;D) Prosecuting attorney(s)&#10;E) All of the above

Accepted Answer

The burden of proof is on the prosecuting attorney(s), who must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime charged. Defense attorneys do not have to prove anything; their job is to cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The judge's role is to rule on legal matters and ensure a fair trial, but they do not have a burden of proof. The jury's role is to determine whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof and decide the defendant's guilt or innocence, but they do not bear the burden of proof themselves. Therefore, the only correct answer is D.

Question 5

What qualifies one as an &#34;expert witness&#34;?&#10;A) A person who has a Nobel Prize in the subject.&#10;B) A person who possesses some unique skill, experience, knowledge beyond that held by average person in a particular field&#10;C) A person who witnessed the crime being committed&#10;D) A person who knows the person who committed the crime&#10;E) All of the above

Accepted Answer

An expert witness is someone who possesses some unique skill, experience, or knowledge beyond that held by the average person in a particular field. They are called upon to provide their specialized expertise to aid in the judicial process. While having a Nobel Prize in the subject may enhance one's credibility, it is not a requirement to be an expert witness. Witnessing the crime or knowing the perpetrator does not necessarily make one an expert in the relevant field.

Question 6

When an evidence item is not allowed to be presented to the jury this is called&#8230;..&#10;A) illegal&#10;B) tainted&#10;C) prejudicial&#10;D) inadmissible&#10;E) All of the above

Accepted Answer

Inadmissible evidence refers to any type of evidence that a judge has deemed to be improper and therefore cannot be presented to the jury during a trial. This decision may be made due to a variety of reasons, including lack of relevance, violation of the rules of evidence, or risk of unfairly prejudicing the jury. "Illegal," "tainted," and "prejudicial" may also be accurate descriptions of inadmissible evidence, but "inadmissible" is the most concise and precise term to use in this context.

Question 7

At the beginning of the trial the defendant is presumed to be&#8230;.&#10;A) Guilty&#10;B) Innocent&#10;C) Neither guilty or innocent&#10;D) Choice 'a' and 'b' are correct&#10;E) Choice ''b and 'c' are correct

Accepted Answer

The defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a basic principle of criminal law in many countries.

Question 8

The phrase &#34;beyond a reasonable doubt&#34; is&#8230;.&#10;A) a standard of proof in a criminal trial&#10;B) what the prosecution bears during a criminal trial&#10;C) what the jury must consider when deliberating&#10;D) the highest standard of proof used in court&#10;E) all of the above

Accepted Answer

All of the options listed in the question are true statements about the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is a standard of proof in a criminal trial, which the prosecution must meet in order to secure a conviction. The jury must consider this standard when deliberating on the verdict. It is widely regarded as the highest standard of proof used in court. Therefore, E is the correct answer.

Question 9

Which of the following examples would be circumstantial evidence?&#10;A) An eye witness sees a pedestrian get hit by a car in a crosswalk&#10;B) A person witnesses a plane catch fire on takeoff&#10;C) A person hears a firearm go off in the neighbor's backyard&#10;D) Choice 'a' and 'b' are correct&#10;E) Choice 'a' and 'c' are correct

Accepted Answer

Circumstantial evidence refers to evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Hearing a firearm go off is indirect evidence that something happened, but it requires inference to determine what exactly occurred.

Question 10

The elements of a direct examination should include which of the following?&#10;A) Explanation for the meaning of each piece of evidence.&#10;B) Reveal facts that are favorable to your position.&#10;C) Make witness seem believable.&#10;D) All of the above&#10;E) Only choice 'a' & 'c' are correct

Accepted Answer

All of the above elements are important in a direct examination. The attorney should explain the meaning of each piece of evidence, reveal facts that are favorable to their position, and make the witness seem believable in order to present a strong case to the judge or jury.

Question 11

As a juror, if two witnesses or experts present two different accounts to explain the same event or evidence, how will you resolve this in your mind?

Accepted Answer

The answer of As a juror, if two witnesses or...

Question 12

Under what circumstances might a jury return a verdict of &#34;not guilty,&#34; even though the defendant probably committed the crime?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Under what circumstances might a jury return...

Deck 15: In the Courtroom