Hearsay Bowl

Class # 24
90 minutes to do 10 problems
 Problem 10-41: p. 418-19  Problem 13-A: p. 540

 Problem 10-44: p. 420  Problem 14-A: p. 603

 Problem 11-A: p. 470-71  Problem 14-C: p. 604

 Problem 11-D: p. 472  Problem 15-A: p. 666

 Problem 12-C: p. 507-08  Problem 15-F: p. 668-69

Problem 10-41: p. 418-19

1) Out of court statement

2) This is not a statement
3) This is not a statement
4) Out of court statement
5) Unless termination was for her fraudulent conduct, this is not a statement
6) Out of court statement
7) Out of court statement
8) Out of court statement
9) This is not a statement
10) Out of court statement
Problem 10-44: p. 420

Yes, sustain the objection. This video was a re-enactment of the theft from the
perspective of the security guard. This is a statement because it is a nonverbal
assertion. This was not made by the declarant at trial and is offered for the truth of
the matter.
Problem 11-A: p. 470-71
Under 801(d)(1) prior statements made by the declarant are admissible if the
witness testifies and is subject to cross examination about the prior statement and
the statement is consistent with the testimony and is offered to rebut an express or
implied charge that declarant recently fabricated it. Here the email is the prior
statement made by the declarant. Option 3 states that the declarant will testify. If
this testimony is consistent with his email and the opposing party challenges his
reason for bringing suit this email will not be hearsay and would be admissible.

Option 3 is accurate.
Problem 11-D: p. 472
Option 1 is correct. This statement is not being offered for the truth of the matter
and is therefore not hearsay under 801(c)(2). This statement is being offered to
show a reasonable belief to lead to an arrest not if Miggins actually committed the
offence.
Problem 12-C: p. 507-08
Option 3 is accurate because under 801(d)(1)(A) a declarant’s prior inconsistent
statement is admissible if it was given under the penalty of perjury. Unless the prior
statement is offered under oath (under penalty of perjury) the statement is
inadmissible.
Problem 13-A: p. 540
This statement would be non-admissible hearsay. This statement was made after
any conspiracy was found and therefore not ongoing. This statement was not in
furtherance of any conspiracy. Because of this it does not meet the exception under
802(d)(2)(E) and is therefor inadmissible hearsay.
Problem 14-A: p. 603
Option 1 is accurate because making the record was not a regular practice of the
business and therefore it does not meet the business records exemption under
803(6)
Problem 14-C: p. 604
Option 2 is accurate because the statement was made to a medical professional and
was reasonably pertinent to the medical diagnosis and describes past symptoms
and inception or general cause of symptoms.
Problem 15-A: p. 666

Option 3 is correct. Under 804(a)(3) a declarant is considered unavailable if they

testify to not remembering the subject matter. Under 804(b)(1) former testimony is
not excluded if the declarant is an unavailable witness. This deposition is admissible
because it was given during a lawful deposition and is now offered by a party with
similar motives.
Problem 15-F: p. 668-69
Option 2 is correct under 807(b) because this statement is being offered before a
trial and the proponent has given adequate notice of the intent to offer the
statement. Clark’s testimony will not be admissible until Kobashian testifies because
testimony Rule 608 applies only to witnesses. This testimony will not be admissible
until Kobashian testifies and becomes a witness.