法律英语证书LEC2018年11月真题试卷一9

81.A defendant is being tried tor the murder of a woman who disappeared 10 years ago and has not been heard from since. Her body has never been found. The prosecutor has presented strong circumstance evidence that she was murdered by the defendant. To help establish the act of her death, the prosecutor has requested that the judge give the following instruction, based on a recognized presumption in the jurisdiction: "A person missing and not heard from in the last seven years shall be presumed to be deceased." Is the instruction proper?（B）

A.No. Because the fact that someone has not been heard from in seven years does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that the person is dead.

B.No because mandatory presumptions are not allowed against a criminal defendant on an element of the charged crime.

C.Yes, because it expresses a rational conclusion that the jury should be required to accept.

D.Yes, because the defendant has a chance to rebut the presumption by offering evidence that the woman is alive or has been head from in the last seven years.

82.Several defendants, senior executives of a corporation, were charged with securities fraud. The government called as a witness another executive of the corporation, who had not been charged and who had been given immunity from prosecution, to authenticate handwritten notes that she had made after meetings of the corporation's management team at which the alleged fraud was discussed. The witness testified that she had prepared the notes on her own initiative to help her remember what had happened at the meetings. After this testimony, the government offered the notes into evidence to establish what had happened at the meetings. Should the witness's notes be admitted?（A）

A.No, because the notes are hearsay not within any exception.

B.No, because the witness's immunity agreement with the government makes her notes untrustworthy and thus substantially more prejudicial than probative.

C.Yes, because they are business records.

D.Yes, because they are past recollections recorded.

83.A plaintiff sued a defendant, alleging that she was seriously injured when the defendant ran a red light and struck her while she was walking in a crosswalk. During the defendant's case, a witness testified that the plaintiff had told him that she was "barely touched" by the defendant's car. On cross-examination, should the court allow the plaintiff to elicit from the witness the fact that he is an adjuster for the defendant's insurance company?（D）

A.No, because testimony about liability insurance is barred by the rules of evidence.

B.No, because the reference to insurance raises a collateral issue.

C.Yes, for both substantive and impeachment purposes.

D.Yes, for impeachment purposes only.

84.A defendant was charged with the crime of defrauding the federal agency where he worked as an accountant. At trial, the court allowed the defendant to call his supervisor at the large corporation where he had previously worked, who testified about the defendant's good reputation in the community for honesty. Over objection, the defendant then sought to elicit testimony from his former supervisor that on several occasions the corporation had, without incident, entrusted him with large sums of money. Should the testimony be admitted?（C）

A.No, because the testimony is extrinsic evidence on a collateral matter.

B.No, because good character cannot be proved by specific instances of conduct unless character is an essential element of the charge or defense.

C.Yes, because it is evidence of a pertinent character trait offered by an accused.

D.Yes, because it is relevant to whether the defendant was likely to have taken money as charged in this case.

85.A plaintiff sued his insurance company for the proceeds of a casualty insurance policy covering his 60-foot yacht, claiming that the yacht was destroyed by an accidental fire. The company denied liability, claiming that the plaintiff hired his friend to set the fire. In the hospital the day after the fire, the friend who had been badly burned in the fire, said to his wife, in the presence of an attending nurse, "I was paid to set the fire." Two weeks later, the friend died of an infection resulting from the burns. At trial, the insurance company called the wife to testify to the friend's statement. Is the wife's testimony admissible over the plaintiffs objection?（C）

A.No, because the marital privilege survives the communicating spouse's death.

B.No, because the statement was made after the conspiracy ended.

C.Yes, because it is a statement against interest.

D.Yes, because it is a statement by a co-conspirator.

86.A defendant was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. On direct examination, the defendant testified that he worked with disadvantaged children as a drug counselor, that he hated drugs, that he would "never possess or distribute drugs," and that he had never used drugs and would not touch them. The government offered as a rebuttal witness a police officer who would testify that, three years earlier; he saw the defendant buy cocaine from a street dealer. The defendant objected. Is the testimony of the police officer about the prior drug transaction admissible to impeach the defendant?（C）

A.No, because the bad act of buying drugs is not sufficiently probative of a witness's character for truthfulness.

B.No, because it is contradiction on a collateral matter.

C.Yes, because it is proper contradiction.

D.Yes, because the bad act shows a disregard for the law and makes it less likely that the defendant would respect the oath of truthfulness.

87.A woman sued her friend for injuries she received as a passenger in the friend's car. On direct examination, the woman testified that the friend had been speeding and ran a red light. On cross-examination, the woman was asked whether she was under the influence of drugs at the time of the accident. The woman invoked the privilege against self-incrimination. How should the court treat the woman's claim of privilege?（C）

A.Deny it, because the woman waived the privilege by voluntarily testifying.

B.Deny it, because evidence of the woman’s drug intoxication is essential to assessing the accuracy of her observations.

C.Uphold it, because the privilege applies in both civil and criminal cases.

D.Uphold it, because the woman's credibility impeached by a crime for which she has convicted cannot be not been convicted.

88.A consumer has sued the manufacturer of a microwave oven for burn injuries allegedly caused by the manufacturer's negligent failure to warn purchasers of the dangers of heating foods in certain types of containers. The consumer has offered into evidence three letters, all received by the manufacturer before the oven was shipped to the consumer, in which customers had complained of serious burns under circumstances similar to those in the consumer's case. The manufacturer has objected to the letters on the grounds of hearsay and, in the alternative, has asked for a limiting instruction directing that the letters be considered not for the truth of the assertions contained in them but only regarding the issue of notice. How should the court respond?（C）

A.The court should sustain the objection and treat the request for a limiting instruction as moot.

B.The court should overrule the objection and deny the request for a limiting instruction.

C.The court should overrule the objection and give the limiting instruction.

D.The court should overrule the objection but allow only that the letters be read to the jury, not received as exhibits.

89.A plaintiff sued for injuries arising from a car accident, claiming a back injury. At trial, she wishes to testify that prior to the accident she had never had any problems with her back. Is the plaintiffs proposed testimony admissible?（C）

A.No, because the plaintiff has not been qualified as an expert.

B.No, because the plaintiffs pain could have been caused by factors arising after the accident, such as an injury at work.

C.Yes, because it is probative evidence of the plaintiffs injury.

D.Yes, because the testimony of parties is not subject to the lay opinion rule.

90.A plaintiff, who had been injured in an automobile collision with the defendant, sued the defendant for damages. The defendant denied negligence and denied that the plaintiffs injuries were severe. At trial, the plaintiff has offered in evidence a color photograph of himself made from a videotape taken by a television news crew at the scene of the collision. The plaintiff has demonstrated that the videotape has since been routinely reused by the television station and that the footage of the plaintiff was erased. The photograph shows the plaintiff moments after- the collision, with his bloodied head protruding at a grotesque angle through the broken windshield of his car. Should the photograph be admitted over the defendant's objection?（C）

A.No, because the plaintiff has failed to establish that a duplicate could not be found.

B.No, because the plaintiff has failed to produce the original videotape or a duplicate.

C.Yes, because it tends to prove a controverted fact.

D.Yes, because