Do You Really Know About Rules Of Evidence? Trivia Quiz
(166).jpg "Do You Really Know About Rules Of Evidence? Trivia Quiz - Quiz")
In law, the rule of evidence encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding – simply put, this rule dictates what evidence can be considered the trier of fact in a decision.
Questions and Answers
- 1.
FRE 402: Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise...
- 2.
FRE 403: The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following list three of the six (or as many as you can)...
- 3.
Judicial notice is one type of evidence. Name three other general types of evidence.
Explanation
The given answer correctly identifies three types of evidence: judicial notice, exhibits, and stipulated facts. Judicial notice refers to the court's recognition of certain facts without requiring formal proof. Exhibits are physical objects or documents presented in court to support a party's case. Stipulated facts are agreed upon by both parties and do not require further proof. These three types of evidence play crucial roles in legal proceedings by providing information, supporting arguments, and facilitating the resolution of disputes.Rate this question:
- 4.
Is the following statement true or false? Direct Evidence is best defined as evidence from which inferences can be drawn to prove a point.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
Direct Evidence is not best defined as evidence from which inferences can be drawn to prove a point. Direct Evidence refers to evidence that directly proves a fact without the need for any additional inference or interpretation. It is concrete and does not require any assumptions or deductions to establish its validity. In contrast, circumstantial evidence may require inferences to establish a connection between the evidence and the point being proven. Therefore, the statement is false.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
Is the following True or False? The term "probative" is appropriately described as assisting in the exploration for truth.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
A. TrueExplanation
The term "probative" refers to evidence or information that helps to establish or prove a fact. It is used to describe evidence that is relevant and useful in the search for truth or in determining the validity of a claim. Therefore, it is accurate to say that the term "probative" is appropriately described as assisting in the exploration for truth.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
Who is the Gatekeeper?
Correct Answer
The judge, judgeExplanation
The term "gatekeeper" refers to someone who controls access or serves as a barrier to entry. In the given question, the answer "The judge" implies that the judge is the person who has the authority to control access to certain information, decisions, or proceedings within a legal context. As a gatekeeper, the judge has the power to allow or deny entry to individuals or evidence in a courtroom setting.Rate this question:
- 7.
Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that although evidence is relevant, it may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more factors. Please name 3 of the 6 factors that are contained within in Rule 403.
- A.
Undue delay
- B.
Waste of time
- C.
Proof of motive
- D.
Misleading the jury
- E.
Intent
Correct Answer(s)
A. Undue delay
B. Waste of time
D. Misleading the juryExplanation
Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows for the exclusion of relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain factors. Three of the factors listed in the rule are undue delay, waste of time, and misleading the jury. Undue delay refers to evidence that may cause unnecessary delays in the proceedings. Waste of time refers to evidence that may consume excessive time without providing significant value. Misleading the jury refers to evidence that may confuse or mislead the jury, potentially leading to an unfair outcome.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
Define the term "hearsay"
Correct Answer(s)
Statements made out of court, offered into evidence to prove the truth of the statementExplanation
Hearsay refers to statements made outside of the courtroom that are presented as evidence to support the truth of the statement. This means that the information being presented is not based on personal knowledge or direct observation, but rather on second-hand information. Hearsay evidence is generally considered less reliable because it can be influenced by biases, misunderstandings, or inaccuracies. Therefore, in legal proceedings, hearsay statements are often subject to certain exceptions and limitations in order to ensure fairness and accuracy in the presentation of evidence.Rate this question:
- 9.
T/F: Only a preliminary showing of authenticity needs to be made to cause the court to allow the evidence to be seen by the jury.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
A. TrueExplanation
The statement is true because in a court of law, only a preliminary showing of authenticity is required to allow evidence to be seen by the jury. This means that the party offering the evidence must present enough evidence or information to establish a reasonable probability that the item is what it is claimed to be. This preliminary showing is not a high burden of proof, as the court does not require absolute certainty at this stage. Once this showing is made, the evidence can be presented to the jury for their consideration.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
Photographs are self-authenticating.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
Photographs are not self-authenticating. While they can provide visual evidence, they do not inherently prove their own authenticity. Additional context, such as the source of the photograph and any accompanying documentation, is necessary to establish its authenticity. Without this supporting information, a photograph cannot be considered self-authenticating.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
Blood was drawn from a suspect to use as a sample for DNA testing. After the blood was drawn, it was misplaced by a lab technician. It showed up three weeks later in a hospital refrigerator, and nobody knew how it got there. The problem with this blood sample is that the prosecutor will not be able to show the:
- A.
Best evidence rule
- B.
Chain of custody
- C.
Blood type
- D.
Documentary evidence
Correct Answer
B. Chain of custodyExplanation
Chain of custody refers to the documentation and tracking of evidence from the time it is collected to its presentation in court. It ensures that the evidence has not been tampered with or altered, maintaining its integrity and reliability. In this case, the blood sample was misplaced and found in a hospital refrigerator three weeks later, raising doubts about its chain of custody. Without a clear and documented chain of custody, the prosecutor cannot demonstrate that the blood sample was handled properly and remained unaltered, potentially weakening its admissibility as evidence.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
Jim and Lisa entered into a contract, which Jim breached. When Lisa looked for the original contract, she could only find the duplicate. The duplicate is...
- A.
Inadmissible as hearsay
- B.
Admissible, unless there are problems with authenticity
- C.
Inadmissible under the best evidence rule
- D.
NONE of the above
Correct Answer
B. Admissible, unless there are problems with authenticityExplanation
The duplicate of the contract is admissible, unless there are problems with authenticity. This means that the duplicate can be used as evidence in court, unless there are doubts about whether it is a true and accurate copy of the original contract. If there are concerns about the duplicate's authenticity, it may not be admissible as evidence.Rate this question:
-
- 13.
ALL statements made before Miranda warnings are given are:
- A.
Inadmissible because they violate the individual's 5th amendment rights
- B.
Inadmissible because not providing Miranda Warnings is a constitutional violations
- C.
Arguably admissible or inadmissible, depending on the cirumstances
- D.
None of the above
Correct Answer
C. Arguably admissible or inadmissible, depending on the cirumstancesExplanation
The correct answer is "Arguably admissible or inadmissible, depending on the circumstances." This is because the admissibility of statements made before Miranda warnings are given can vary depending on the specific circumstances of the case. While the Miranda warnings are intended to protect an individual's 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination, there are exceptions to the Miranda rule. For example, if the statements were made voluntarily without any coercion or intimidation, they may still be admissible in court. Ultimately, it is up to the judge to determine the admissibility of such statements based on the circumstances surrounding their acquisition.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
T/F: Only the attorney can waive the attorney/client privilege.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
False. The attorney/client privilege can be waived by either the attorney or the client. This privilege protects confidential communications between an attorney and their client from being disclosed without the client's consent. However, if either the attorney or the client decides to waive this privilege, they can choose to disclose the previously confidential information.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
All communications b/w an attorney and his/her client are always privileged.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
The statement is false because not all communications between an attorney and their client are privileged. Privilege only applies to confidential communications made for the purpose of seeking legal advice or representation. If the communication is made in the presence of a third party or if the client waives the privilege, it may not be considered privileged. Additionally, communications related to illegal activities or future crimes may not be protected by privilege.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
Mary confessed to her priest that she had a sexual relationship with an elected official. The priest was later called to testify at congressional hearings about what Mary had confessed. the priest refused to testify, and he was threatened with contempt of Congress. The likely result is:
- A.
The priest's communication with Mary is not privileged
- B.
The priests communication with Mary is privileged, buy only Mary can exert the privilege, and so the priest will be held in contempt
- C.
The priest's communication with Mary is privileged, and the priest will not be held in contempt.
- D.
None of the above
Correct Answer
C. The priest's communication with Mary is privileged, and the priest will not be held in contempt.Explanation
The priest's communication with Mary is privileged, meaning that it is protected by confidentiality laws. Therefore, the priest cannot be forced to testify about what Mary had confessed, and he should not be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to do so.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
The 5th amendment protectsthe individual's rights to have a trial by jury in a criminal proceeding.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
The 5th amendment does not specifically guarantee the right to a trial by jury in a criminal proceeding. However, it does protect individuals from being tried for the same crime twice (double jeopardy) and from self-incrimination. The right to a trial by jury is actually guaranteed by the 6th amendment. Therefore, the statement is false.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
Rule 404(b) states that evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. However, Rule 404(b) also identifies 9 purposes for which prior crimes, wrongs, or other acts may be admissible for. Name 4 of the 9 purposes identified in Rule 404(b)(2).
- A.
Proof of Motive
- B.
Knowledge
- C.
Absence of mistake or accident
- D.
Undue dealy
- E.
Emotions
- F.
Opportunity
Correct Answer(s)
A. Proof of Motive
B. Knowledge
C. Absence of mistake or accident
F. OpportunityExplanation
The question asks for four of the nine purposes identified in Rule 404(b)(2) for which prior crimes, wrongs, or other acts may be admissible. The correct answer includes Proof of Motive, Knowledge, Absence of mistake or accident, and Opportunity. These four purposes refer to situations where evidence of prior acts can be used to establish a motive for the current crime, demonstrate the defendant's knowledge or awareness of certain facts, show that the defendant did not make a mistake or act accidentally, and establish that the defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
T/F: In a criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct, evidence offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior is always admissible.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
False. In a criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct, evidence offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior is not always admissible. The admissibility of such evidence depends on various factors, including the relevance, probative value, and potential prejudice it may cause. Courts generally apply a strict standard of scrutiny when considering the admissibility of evidence related to a victim's sexual behavior, as it can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and invade the victim's privacy.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 18, 2024Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Apr 26, 2015Quiz Created by
Hailymajerus
Back to top