Quoting:
I would say that the judge would allow it because I think the day of the week would be common knowledge-anyone can look on a calender and see what day of the week it was.



Cat
End Quote

And the first point of the game goes to... Catwoman!!!

Tally:
Catwoman- 1
World- 0

Here's the card's answer:
Although advance notice is normally required, the judge could allow the argument here to continue, since the fact that March 15 was a Wednesday is easily verifiable through a calendar.  If the fact were not easily verifiable in an indisputably accurate souce, the court could forbid the argument.

Here's the next one:
#2
Popeye sues Bluto for battery.  Bluto calls Dr. Seahag as a witness.  The defense asks Seahag about comments made to her by Olive Oyl, concerning Olive Oyl's obtaining treatment from Dr. Seahag.  Can Popeye's attorney object on the grounds of doctor/client privilege?

Quoting:
Judges?  
Question 10
Grumpy the Dwarf is kidnapped.  The kidnapper phones Snow White, demanding a ransom of $1,000 per inch of Grumpy, or $32,000 all together.  The police suspect that Evil Stepmother is the culprit.  They tap her phone (under a valid warrant).  At her trial on kidnapping and extortion charges, the tape is offered into evidence by the prosecution.  It consists of this comment: "This is Evil Stepmother.  I'm giving you one more chance-- pay or you'll never see your little friend alive again."  Under what circumstances, if any, is the tape admissible? List at least two reasons.
End Quote

Let's see...so if we use common sense, and say what Cat said which was that the feds got the warrant and had probable cause...but would they have to prove that the speaker WAS Evil Stepmother?  I can't think of a second reason.

Quoting:
Question 11
The police come across Ichabod Crane lying dead on the roadside.  The Headless Horseman is standing over him.  The Headless Horseman is standing over him.  An officer asks Headless: "What's going on here?"  Headless responds: "I guess I lost my head.  I just wanted to give that creep what he deserved."  Can Headless' statement be offered against him at the subsequent murder trial?

End Quote

I believe yes.  He said it before the cop read him his Miranda rights, but he still said it and it can be used against him in the court.

Quoting:
Question 12
A typewritten letter purportedly written by Michelangelo to Leonardo da Vinci is offered into evidence.  The letter includes the sentence, "By the way, in answer to the question in your February 25 letter, I don't think La Giaconda would look good with a mustache.  The myserious smile is plenty.  Can't wait to see the finished product."  Leonardo was working on the painting in secret, and Michelangelo was one of the few to know about it.  Could a jury determine the authenticity of the letter -- i.e., that it was written by Michelangelo -- on this statement alone? Why?
End Quote

The letter is typewritten.  There's no way, unless you can check the consistency of the ink, to determine its authenticity.  

Quoting:
Uh...they can't authenticate the statement because it's A) typewritten and B) the statement is not unique?
End Quote

Quoting:
I think... yes, he would need to produce a receipt or other proof of payment (i.e. cancelled check, etc).  He may simply testify to it, but if FSR is denying the payment, he may need to prove it.
End Quote

I agree with this.  

Quoting:


I agree with this.  
End Quote

Me, too.



Cat

Quoting:
And your final answer, Earl?  I don't know what to chose from ^  
End Quote

I think it is improper because the question is irrelevant.

I still have one last lyric in the TMBG quiz if you wanna finish it off ;)

Quoting:
Let me look at it a different way.  If this is a procedure that can cause infection, the dentist is supposed to have some record of the operation and warn the person of the risks, right?  So if he can't prove that he didn't warn the patient of the risks, and the patient gets the infection, then the dentist, with lack of proof, will be at fault, hands down.  So the patient can successfully knock down the dentist's testimony.

Or so I think.
End Quote

Although I am not 100% sure, I have to agree with you here, since I deal with health and dental provider offices day in and out, I can tell you that most offices make a patient sign the don't sue me papers before they perform a procedure...and part of that paperwork is instructions on aftercare. This dentist would be a fool to not have the patient sign some kind of disclaimer..but I guess that is a possibility.

Quoting:


Although I am not 100% sure, I have to agree with you here, since I deal with health and dental provider offices day in and out, I can tell you that most offices make a patient sign the don't sue me papers before they perform a procedure...and part of that paperwork is instructions on aftercare. This dentist would be a fool to not have the patient sign some kind of disclaimer..but I guess that is a possibility.
End Quote

You know what, though?  I have had 3 root canals, all by different dentists and have never been asked to sign anything except a release for my insurance info and the papers that say I'm ultimately responsible for all charges.  I have also never gotten anything on aftercare, except when I had my wisdom teeth pulled.  I don't think they really worry about it unless the procedure is a surgical one, which a root canal isn't (per the ADA coding guidelines.)  I agree, though.  The dentist SHOULD have had some type of disclaimer.

Quoting:


Question 21
Smiley Coyote catches Rodeo Runner and eats him for dinner.  When he is tried for Runner's murder, Coyote pleads insanity.  The prosecutor seeks to enter evidence of Coyote's running after other runners with a knife and fork as weapons, hiding his exploits from authorities, setting elaborate traps for road runners, and his general reputation for sinister ruthlessness.  Coyote objects to admission of this character evidence.  How do you rule, under the FRE (Federal Rules of Evidence)?  Sustain or overrule Coyote's objection?  Why?



End Quote

What's the FRE?  Explain this.

My primary answer is that his objection should be overruled.  An insanity plea involves a defense on his character and all this evidence, although biased towards the electric chair, is testimony to his character.

Quoting:


What's the FRE?  Explain this.

End Quote

Here's a definition from the Cornell University law site.
These rules govern the introduction of evidence in proceedings, both civil and criminal, in Federal courts. While they do not apply to suits in state courts, the rules of many states have been closely modeled on these provisions.

Quoting:
I would have to say it would be sustained.  Prior acts are not admissible as evidence.
End Quote

Oh snap, that is right...good call!

Quoting:
No.  If she has never met him, how can she testify as to his character?  Everything she knows of him is heresay
End Quote

Darn, you jumped the gun on me :P

Quoting:
For the next question, we need this definition of the "present state of mind" hearsay exception:  Where a person explicitly describes his or her present state of mind (emotion, intent, motive, plan), the person's statement to that effect is admissible where the state of mind is relevant.

End Quote

I'll go out on a limb and say yes.  If he is "insane" at the time he said it, then under that rule you posted, it is admissible as testimony.  

Quoting:

Question 25
Butthead is arrested and kept in custody on armed robbery charges.  While in custody he gives a confession implicating both himself and his friend Beavis.  Now, Beavis and Butthead are both defendants in a joint trial on the armed robbery charges.  Butthead declines to take the stand.  The prosecution offers Butthead's confession, and agrees that the judge should issue a limiting instruction to the jury that the confession is admissible only against Butthead, not against Beavis.  Should the judge admit the confession on this basis?  Why?
End Quote

Beavis didn't sign the confession.  So the confession is only applicable to Butthead.  Beavis should get his own trial to clear his name.

Quoting:
Question 30
Patrolman Pete testifies he stopped defendant, Shernott Home, and found a package of white powder on his person.  He testifies that he turned the package over to the police lab.  The prosecutor then seeks to introduce a package of cocaine into evidence, saying it's the package that was found on Home's person.  The defense objects on the grounds that the package hasn't been authenticated.  How should the judge rule?  Defense objection sustained or overruled?  Why?
End Quote

Hmmm...objection sustained.  Remember organic chemistry?  Everything (EVERYTHING) you purified or synthesized is a white powder.  Not to mention the various brands of ziplock and sandwich bags.  They need to introduce more evidence before this "cocaine" can be admitted as evidence.

Quoting:

Question 35
Rosebud Rosenbluhm suffers smoke inhalation when she is watching a play at the Iroquois Theatre and the theatre catches fire.  Firefighters carry Rosebud outside, where she sees Iva Match, who set the fire.  With her last ounce of energy, Rosebud points at Iva, and screams, "That's her!  I saw her pour gasoline on the curtain and set it afire!  She killed me!"  Rosebud then wilts and dies.  The prosecutor charges Iva with arson, but not with the homicide of Rosebud.  Under the FRE, can Rosebud's statement be used as a "dying declaration" against Iva at trial, over Iva's hearsay objection?  Why?
End Quote

Hmmm...

I think that statement can be used as a dying declaration that Iva did start the fire, but not that Iva killed Rosebud.  Because Rosebud was the witness to who started the fire, that part of the statement is valid.  But going back to all those other FRE rules, I think there's one in there that says that she was not dead when she uttered "she killed me" but died after...or something like that.  I dunno, semantics :P

Quoting:
Question 38
Archie Enemie is teminally ill.  With his dying breath, he whispers, "I killed Jimmy Hoffa when my brother Bitter and I were trying to kidnap him."  The prosecutor now tries to use this statement in a prosecution of Bitter Enemie for the Hoffa murder, to prove that Bitter killed Hoffa.  Does the statement qualify under the dying declaration exception?

End Quote

"With his dying breath..." makes me think that yes, it would qualify under the dying declaration.  However, it would only apply to Archie, since Bitter, although implicated, isn't there to defend himself.  This is sorta like the Beavis and Butthead question, but now you don't have Archie to be cross-examined because he's dead, so you can't use the statement to charge Bitter.  Have to gather more evidence for Bitter before he can take the stand.