Reference no: EM133812788

Question

Joan accidentally left her purse on the snack bar after purchasing popcorn at the local movie theater. Joan remembers seeing other patrons in the area, but cannot describe any of the people, even in the most general of terms because she was in a hurry to catch the beginning of the feature film. In her purse were four new $50 bills. The purse was recovered after the movie. Al of the money was missing from the purse. Which of the following evidence is relevant in determining who took the money? Explain your answers by describing the inferences you drew from the evidence.

1. Bob, another patron, paid for popcorn right before the movie started with a new $50 bill.

2. Patrons Susan and Jamie left the movie theater halfway through the film

3. Harvey, another patron, was convicted of the possession of marijuana in 1990.

4. The purse was found in the restroom. (Does it matter whether the purse was recovered in the women's room or the men's room? Why? If the purse was recovered in the women's room, what impact, if any, is there on the relevance of the evidence in parts 1, 2, and 3, above?) Eddie from Boston was accused of robbing the First City Bank of Massachusetts. Eddie is alleged to have used a "Saturday Night Special" revolver during the robbery. Which of the following items of evidence would be relevant to the prosecution's case? Explain, using inference chains.

1. Eddie withdrew money at the same bank the day prior to the robbery after having a friendly 10-minute conversation with the teller (no one else was in line).

2. Eddie had an eight-year-old bank robbery conviction in a different state, Maryland.

3. Eddie was fired from his previous job as a clerk in a convenience store as a result of an unproven allegation that he stole money from the cash register.

4. Eddie had participated in two barroom brawls the week before the bank robbery.

5. Eddie was divorced and delinquent in his payments of $400 per month in child support.

6. Eddie was virtually broke. His only asset was a $49 savings account at a dif- ferent bank.

7. Eddie owned a rifle.

8. Eddie has two children, ages two and seven.

9. Eddie has been convicted of marijuana possession on two separate occasions in the past four years.

10. Eddie prefers "rock" to Bach and gin without tonic. Hal was driving in his car when he turned on the radio and heard that his own house had burst into flames. Hal was subsequently charged with burning down the house to obtain the insurance proceeds.

At trial, the prosecutor intended to offer evidence that Hal took out additional fire insurance seven months before the fire. The following exchange occurred at trial:

PROSECUTOR: Wanda, as the insurance agent for the defendant, Hal, could you please describe the insurance that Hal had on the house, especially within the past year of its destruction?

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Objection, your honor. Irrelevant.

JUDGE: Counsel, please approach the bench. How would you argue this objection if you were the prosecutor? How would you argue the objection if you were the defense counsel? What ruling would you make if you were the judge? John and Johanna are being prosecuted for robbing a bank on June 4th at 9:00 a.m. Their defense is mistaken identity. At trial, Tommy, the bank teller who was robbed, testified about the robbery.

PROSECUTOR: Tommy, directing your attention to 8:55 a.m. on June 4th, where were you?

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Objection! Where the teller was at that particular time is irrelevant.

1. Is the question necessarily irrelevant? What answer would make the question relevant?

PROSECUTOR: How did you feel, Tommy, as the robbers handed you the note that read "your money or your life"?

A: I felt - DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Objection. Irrelevant. How the teller felt is irrelevant to whether a robbery occurred.

1. You are the prosecutor; how would you respond?

2. How should the judge rule and why? Mike Espy was indicted for taking gifts while serving as Secretary of Agriculture. Espy, an African-American, claimed that some of the charges were outright lies and that others were misinterpreted. Espy did not deny that he took some of the things that might be described as gifts, but argued that he did not have wrongful intent in doing so. He further stated that some of his failures to comply with the law were mistakes or oversights, given the extreme pressures he faced in his job. Richard Douglas, a deputy agriculture secretary under Espy, was called to testify by the prosecution. On cross-examination by the defense, Douglas admitted that people working there that in their mind cannot fathom the thought of someone who would be Black that could possibly [be] in a decision-making position" and "[the fact] that Espy changed the complexion of the Secretary's office, all the top people, rubbed a lot of people the wrong way." The prosecutor objected to Douglas' testimony. Should the objection be sustained? With wispy white clouds drifting lazily overhead one hot and sunny June day, Gilligan was severely injured while cutting the hedges. He claimed that he was injured when the rotary hedge cutter he was using suddenly exploded. At trial, Gil- ligan offers a piece of steel blade found 10 yards away from the accident site.

1. The defendant objects to this evidence. What is the basis for this objection?

2. How is this evidence conditionally relevant?

3. Does adding visual language to the problem, such as "[with wispy white clouds drifting lazily overhead one hot and sunny June day," affect the way this problem is considered? How would this visual language be received by a jury?

Assume that a painting contractor buys five large drums of white paint from the Power Paint Company. Four months later, the contractor buys five drums of yellow paint from the same company. After buying the yellow paint, the contractor starts using the white paint and realizes that it is defective. The contractor then refuses to pay for the yellow paint, and sends it back unopened. The contractor is sued. The judge rules, "It is irrelevant that the white paint was defective. There's no connection between white paint and yellow paint manufactured four months later." What foundational evidence might you offer to show a connection between the two sets of paint drums?