Question 1

Prior threats to commit a similar crime are never admissible at trial because they are unduly prejudicial.

Accepted Answer

Prior threats to commit a similar crime may be admissible at trial under certain circumstances, such as to show intent or motive. However, their admissibility depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the case and whether the probative value outweighs the potential for undue prejudice. Therefore, the statement "Prior threats to commit a similar crime are never admissible at trial because they are unduly prejudicial" is not entirely accurate.

Question 2

Possession of stolen property can be charged as a crime but cannot be used to establish the defendant's guilt in a theft case.

Accepted Answer

Possession of stolen property can be used as evidence to establish the defendant's guilt in a theft case.

Question 3

The defendant's character is not admissible in a criminal trial.

Accepted Answer

The defendant's character can be admissible in a criminal trial, but it is generally not allowed to prove conduct on a specific occasion. However, the defendant may introduce evidence of their own good character as a defense strategy, and in response, the prosecution can introduce evidence to rebut this claim.

Question 4

The jury may infer that the defendant is guilty if he/she attempted to flee the scene of the crime.

Accepted Answer

Attempting to flee the scene of the crime can be used as evidence against the defendant and can lead the jury to infer guilt. However, it is ultimately up to the jury to decide whether or not to make this inference based on all the evidence presented.

Question 5

If a person has previously reported a crime to the police and it was determined that the person intentionally lied, it can be inferred that a more recent report the same person made to the police is also false.

Accepted Answer

If a person has previously lied to the police about a crime, it is reasonable to infer that they may be more likely to lie again in the future.

Question 6

Facts are admissible to establish guilt but motive is not.

Accepted Answer

Motive can be relevant in establishing intent or premeditation, which can be important elements in a criminal case. However, proof of motive alone is generally insufficient to establish guilt.

Question 7

Testimony regarding the defendant's efforts to destroy evidence is admissible as circumstantial evidence of guilt.

Accepted Answer

Testimony regarding the defendant's efforts to destroy evidence can be admitted as circumstantial evidence of guilt because it suggests that the defendant had something to hide and was trying to cover up their involvement in the alleged wrongdoing. However, the admissibility of such testimony depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, and the credibility of the witness providing the testimony.

Question 8

If the defense is claiming that the eyewitness incorrectly identified the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime, the prosecution can introduce evidence that the defendant previously committed a similar crime even though he/she was not convicted.

Accepted Answer

If the defense is using misidentification as a defense, the prosecution may introduce evidence of the defendant's prior criminal conduct to show the defendant's modus operandi, which can be relevant to prove identity. However, the evidence must have a probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.

Question 9

The prosecution may introduce evidence regarding special skills the defendant possesses if these skills are relevant to the way the crime was committed.

Accepted Answer

This is because the defendant's special skills may help to establish an element of the crime, such as premeditation, or show that the defendant had the knowledge or ability to commit the crime in a particular way. However, the evidence must still be relevant and its probative value must outweigh any potential prejudice to the defendant.

Question 10

The fact that the defendant failed to testify at trial cannot be used as circumstantial evidence of his/her guilt.

Accepted Answer

This is a fundamental right for the accused under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. The prosecution cannot use the defendant's decision not to testify as evidence of their guilt.

Question 11

The suspect's behavior after the crime can be used to infer that the crime was committed but cannot be used to infer that the defendant is innocent.

Accepted Answer

The suspect's behavior after the crime can be used both to infer guilt or innocence, as it may provide evidence supporting either scenario depending on the context and nature of the behavior.

Question 12

The jurors decide how much weight to give individual pieces of evidence.

Accepted Answer

It is the role of the jury to evaluate the evidence presented in court and decide what weight or significance to assign to each piece of evidence in reaching a verdict.

Question 13

The character traits of the victim are irrelevant in a criminal trial.

Accepted Answer

The character traits of the victim can be relevant in a criminal trial, depending on the circumstances of the case. For example, in cases of self-defense, the victim's aggressive behavior or history of violence might be pertinent to the defendant's state of mind and actions.

Question 14

Attempts to intimidate witness are admissible as evidence of guilt only if the witness filed a police report about the incident.

Accepted Answer

Attempts to intimidate a witness can still be admissible as evidence of guilt even if the witness did not file a police report about the incident. However, the presence or absence of a police report may affect the weight given to such evidence by a judge or jury.

Question 15

The fact that the defendant had the means to commit the crime is admissible as circumstantial evidence of guilt.

Accepted Answer

The fact that the defendant had the means to commit the crime is considered relevant as circumstantial evidence of guilt. Circumstantial evidence refers to all evidence that is not direct but helps prove something else by inference, such as motive, opportunity, or means to commit the crime. Therefore, the means available to the defendant are often relevant and admissible in court.

Question 16

The defendant's modus operandi when committing crimes on prior occasions is admissible only when the prosecutor can convince the judge that the method used was sufficiently unusual to amount to the defendant putting his or her "signature" on it.

Accepted Answer

The statement is true. The modus operandi (method of operation) of a defendant when committing crimes on prior occasions is only admissible in court if the prosecutor can show that the method used was distinctive enough to be considered the defendant's "signature." This is known as the Molineux rule.

Question 17

The victim's habits can be used to show that he or she was not voluntarily involved in criminal conduct.

Accepted Answer

Victims who have habits or lifestyles that do not align with criminal behavior can use this to show that they were not voluntarily involved in criminal activity. For example, a victim who is a devout Christian and has never used drugs or alcohol may use this to argue against being voluntarily involved in drug trafficking.

Question 18

The defendant's offer to plead guilty is not admissible at trial.

Accepted Answer

The defendant's offer to plead guilty is considered a plea negotiation and is generally not admissible at trial under Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and similar state rules. This is to encourage defendants to negotiate without the fear of their words being used against them at trial. However, there may be some exceptions to this rule in certain circumstances.

Question 19

Both direct and circumstantial evidence require the jury to draw an inference in order to establish the fact.

Accepted Answer

Direct evidence provides proof of a fact without requiring the jury to make an inference, whereas circumstantial evidence requires the jury to infer a fact from the evidence presented.

Question 20

The jurors may consider the demeanor of a witness when assessing his/her credibility.

Accepted Answer

The demeanor (behavior, appearance, and mannerisms) of a witness can often give clues as to their truthfulness and reliability, and it is therefore considered by jurors when evaluating their credibility.

Quiz 5: Direct and Circumstantial Evidence