Question 1

This theory entitles the defendant to be present and cross-examine witnesses who testify but does not stop the prosecutor from offering testimonial accounts of what other said or from freely using prior statements by those who do testify.

Accepted Answer

The minimalist theory allows for the defendant to be present and cross-examine witnesses but does not restrict the prosecutor from using testimonial accounts or prior statements, focusing on minimal procedural rights rather than expansive protections.

Question 2

This theory holds that the confrontation clause requires the prosecutor to produce the "speaker" at trial whenever possible.

Accepted Answer

The production theory emphasizes the necessity for the prosecution to present the actual speaker in court to satisfy the confrontation clause.

Question 3

This theory holds that hearsay is permissible as long as it is reliable.

Accepted Answer

The reliability theory suggests that hearsay can be admissible in court if it is deemed reliable, focusing on the trustworthiness of the evidence rather than strictly adhering to the hearsay rule.

Question 4

This theory states that hearsay should be permissible insofar as it corroborates or serves as circumstantial proof of guilt, but not as direct and critical evidence.

Accepted Answer

Centrality theory posits that hearsay can be admissible if it serves to corroborate evidence or acts as circumstantial proof, rather than being the central or critical piece of evidence directly proving guilt.

Question 5

This theory holds that the state should gather and present as much live testimony as possible.

Accepted Answer

The answer of This theory holds that the state should...

Question 6

Which one of the following is not a safeguard to ensure that only competent evidence is presented in court?

Accepted Answer

Applying stress to a witness is not considered a legitimate or ethical safeguard to ensure the presentation of competent evidence in court. Safeguards like oaths, cross-examination, and observation of demeanor are designed to promote truthfulness and reliability without resorting to stress or coercion.

Question 7

In the case of Mueller and Kirkpatrick (1999), there were several reasons why courts typically frown on hearsay evidence. Which one of the following is not a reason?

Accepted Answer

Courts typically frown on hearsay evidence due to its unreliability stemming from factors like misperception, misunderstanding, and faulty memory, which all contribute to the risk of uncertainty. Narrative clarity, however, is not a reason for the disfavor; in fact, clear narrative might be seen as beneficial in court but is not related to the concerns over hearsay evidence.

Question 8

Two questions must be answered when determining whether a statement is offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. These questions should focus on the content of the statement and the ______of the statement.

Accepted Answer

The correct answer is B) purpose. In determining whether a statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, the purpose of the statement is crucial. This involves understanding why the statement is being presented in evidence - whether it is to prove the content of the statement itself or for some other reason, such as to show the state of mind of the speaker or the listener. Tone, history, and perception are less relevant to this determination.

Question 9

This out-of-court statement is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted when the (substantive) law makes uttering the statement a consequential fact.

Accepted Answer

Legally operative conduct refers to statements that have independent legal significance beyond their truthfulness, such as creating, altering, or terminating a legal relationship. When the law gives importance to the mere fact that a statement was made, rather than whether the statement is true, it is considered legally operative conduct.

Question 10

This out-of-court statement is not for the truth of the matter asserted (and therefore not hearsay) when it is offered to prove that it had an effect on the person who heard it.

Accepted Answer

An out-of-court statement offered to show its effect on the hearer is not considered hearsay because it is not used to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement, but rather to show that hearing the statement had an impact on the listener's thoughts, feelings, or actions.

Question 11

This evidence is seen when an in-court witness made an out-of-court statement not consistent with his or her in-court testimony.

Accepted Answer

This scenario describes a situation where a witness's prior statement (made out of court) contradicts their in-court testimony. This is an example of using prior statements to challenge the credibility of the witness.

Question 12

Saying, "Nice move!" to a person who trips is known as an

Accepted Answer

This is an example of an intentional, non-literal statement because the speaker is deliberately saying something that is understood not to be taken at face value, often for the purpose of irony or sarcasm.

Question 13

Saying, "It's freezing in here!" when the heat is cut off in a home-a statement that is wholly subjective-is known as a(n)

Accepted Answer

An implicit assertion is a statement that suggests something without saying it directly. Saying "It's freezing in here!" when the heat is cut off implies discomfort due to the cold without directly stating "I am cold because there is no heat."

Question 14

In this court case, an eviction notice was sent to "Carolos Almaden" and concluded that this was not hearsay when it offered to prove that Almaden lived at the residence. This case clarifies what is considered hearsay and non-hearsay.

Accepted Answer

The case cited in the question is United States v. Singer, which clarifies what is considered hearsay and non-hearsay.

Question 15

If a witness makes an out-of-court statement that contradicts his or her in-court testimony, the out-of-court statement is not considered hearsay. This is known as a

Accepted Answer

A prior inconsistent statement is when a witness says something out of court that contradicts what they say in court. This is not considered hearsay if it's offered to challenge the witness's credibility.

Question 16

These are out-of-court statements that are made identifying a person after the declarant has seen the person.

Accepted Answer

Prior statements of identification are statements made out of court that identify a person after the declarant has perceived them. These are often used in legal settings to corroborate in-court identifications.

Question 17

Which one of the following is not an admission by party opponents that is exempt from the hearsay rule?

Accepted Answer

Admissions by a person not authorized by a party to speak are not considered admissions by party opponents and are not exempt from the hearsay rule. The other options (A, B, and D) are considered admissions by party opponents and are exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Question 18

Assume that Shady is on trial for narcotics offenses. Officer Vigilant testifies that Shady fled from her when she attempted to effect an arrest. This is an example of an

Accepted Answer

Officer Vigilant's testimony that Shady fled from her when she attempted to arrest him is an example of an admission by conduct. This is because Shady's action of fleeing can be interpreted as an acknowledgment of guilt or consciousness of wrongdoing, which is a form of nonverbal conduct that implies an admission.

Question 19

This is a type of hearsay exemption where silence, not conduct, serves as an admission of guilt.

Accepted Answer

Adoptive admission is a hearsay exemption where a party's silence or failure to respond to a statement, when it would have been natural to deny the statement if it were untrue, can be taken as an admission of the truth of the statement.

Question 20

One significant exemption concerns Miranda. If police officers advise a suspect of her Miranda right to remain silent and she __________, then this cannot be admitted into evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

Accepted Answer

If a suspect is mute after being advised of her Miranda rights, it cannot be used as an implied admission of guilt because remaining silent is a right protected under Miranda.

Quiz 11: The Hearsay Rule