- Is the evidence of the defendant's prior convictions likely to be admitted? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because the prior convictions are relevant to prove the defendant's intent to distribute the heroin found in his apartment.
The correct answer is A. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove a person's character to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. However, it may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving intent. Here, the defendant has made his intent a central issue by claiming the drugs were for personal use. The prior convictions for selling the same drug are highly probative of his intent to distribute this time. Choice B is incorrect because it states the prohibited propensity purpose. Choice C is incorrect because it confuses FRE 404(b) with FRE 609, which governs impeachment by prior conviction. Choice D is incorrect because while a FRE 403 analysis is required, the evidence is highly probative on the key disputed issue of intent, so a court is likely to find that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- Is the evidence of the man's former profession admissible? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because it is relevant to prove he had the specialized knowledge to recognize that the stamps were likely stolen.
The correct answer is A. The defendant has put his knowledge at issue by claiming he did not know the stamps were stolen. Evidence of his past profession as an expert in identifying stolen collectibles is admissible under FRE 404(b) for the non-propensity purpose of proving he possessed the requisite knowledge to know the goods were stolen, thereby rebutting his defense. Choice B is incorrect because it describes an impermissible propensity inference. Choice C is incorrect because FRE 404(b) applies to any 'other act,' not just crimes or wrongs; his prior professional work is an 'act' that is relevant to his knowledge. Choice D sets too high a standard; the evidence is relevant to his general knowledge and expertise, which bears on his state of mind in the current transaction.
- Is the prior conviction for shoplifting likely to be admitted? Select one.
Answer: No, because the prior conviction is for a dissimilar crime and is too remote in time to be relevant for any non-propensity purpose.
The correct answer is C. The prior conviction for shoplifting is inadmissible. First, it is being offered for no discernible purpose under FRE 404(b) other than to show propensity. It does not relate to identity, plan, motive, etc. Second, the crime of minor shoplifting is so dissimilar to armed bank robbery that it has virtually no probative value. Third, its remoteness in time (15 years) further diminishes any potential probative value. Its admission would be highly prejudicial and serve only the forbidden purpose of suggesting the defendant is a 'bad person.' Choice A states the forbidden propensity purpose. Choice B is incorrect because the defendant's defense is alibi, not lack of intent, and shoplifting a candy bar has no logical bearing on intent in a bank robbery. Choice D incorrectly states the law; the 10-year rule in FRE 609 applies to impeachment, not substantively-offered evidence under FRE 404(b), which is subject to a more general FRE 403 balancing test.
- Is the evidence of the defendant's internet browsing history admissible? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because by raising an entrapment defense, the defendant puts his predisposition at issue, and this evidence is relevant to rebut his claim.
When you encounter evidence questions involving character evidence and criminal defenses, focus on how the defendant's choice of defense strategy affects what evidence becomes admissible.
The key principle here is that by asserting an entrapment defense, the defendant fundamentally changes what's relevant in the case. Entrapment has two essential elements: government inducement and lack of predisposition to commit the crime. When a defendant claims he wasn't predisposed to commit the offense, he directly puts his mental state and inclinations at issue. This opens the door for the prosecution to introduce evidence that would normally be prohibited under character evidence rules.
The browsing history is relevant and admissible because it directly rebuts the defendant's claim of lack of predisposition. Courts consistently hold that evidence of similar interests or prior conduct becomes admissible when a defendant's predisposition is contested in an entrapment defense.
Choice A is wrong because the evidence has clear probative value regarding predisposition, which is central to the entrapment defense. Choice B incorrectly characterizes this as general character evidence to show criminal propensity - that would indeed be prohibited. Choice C misunderstands the application of FRE 404(b); while browsing itself may be passive, it demonstrates intent and predisposition, making it relevant to the defense raised. The "acts" requirement doesn't bar this evidence when predisposition is at issue.
Remember this pattern: defendants who raise certain defenses (like entrapment or self-defense) "open the door" to evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible. The defense strategy determines the scope of admissible rebuttal evidence.
- On what basis would this evidence most likely be admitted? Select one.
Answer: To demonstrate absence of mistake or accident under the doctrine of chances.
The correct answer is C. The defendant has specifically claimed the fire was an accident. The evidence of prior, similar fires under similar financial circumstances is admissible under FRE 404(b) to show that the current fire was not an accident or mistake. The 'doctrine of chances' posits that it is highly improbable for a person to be the innocent victim of the same rare, accidental event multiple times. Choice A is incorrect as it states the forbidden propensity purpose. Choice B is incorrect because this is not the primary purpose; the evidence is offered as substantive proof, not just for impeachment. Choice D is incorrect because three instances over ten years is unlikely to meet the high threshold for 'habit' evidence under FRE 406, which requires a more specific and routine practice.
- What is the plaintiff's strongest argument for admitting the evidence of the prior disciplinary action? Select one.
Answer: The evidence is admissible to show the officer had knowledge of the proper protocols and intentionally disregarded them, proving his intent.
When you encounter evidence questions in § 1983 excessive force cases, focus on the specific purpose for which the evidence is being offered and whether it fits within recognized exceptions to the general prohibition on character evidence.
The correct answer is D because the evidence serves to prove the officer's knowledge and intent rather than general character. Since the officer claims his force was reasonable in response to a perceived threat, the plaintiff can counter by showing the officer knew proper de-escalation protocols but chose not to follow them. The prior disciplinary action for failing to follow these same protocols demonstrates the officer was aware of the correct procedures, making his current actions appear deliberate rather than mistaken. This goes directly to the officer's state of mind and intent, which are key elements in excessive force claims.
Answer A is wrong because this would be impermissible character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). You cannot introduce prior bad acts simply to show someone has a propensity for violence or excessive force.
Answer B is incorrect because impeachment typically involves attacking credibility through bias, prior convictions, or inconsistent statements. A disciplinary action for protocol violations doesn't directly impeach the officer's truthfulness as a witness.
Answer C misapplies the subsequent remedial measures rule. That rule excludes evidence of fixes made after an incident to encourage safety improvements. Here, the disciplinary action itself is the relevant evidence, not any departmental policy changes.
Remember: In § 1983 cases, prior incidents are often admissible not to show character, but to prove knowledge, intent, or deliberate indifference—key elements that distinguish constitutional violations from mere negligence.
- What is the defense attorney's strongest basis for the objection? Select one.
Answer: The prosecution failed to provide reasonable pretrial notice of its intent to use the evidence.
The correct answer is B. FRE 404(b)(3) requires that in a criminal case, the prosecutor must provide reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence they intend to offer at trial. This notice must typically be provided before trial. Waiting until the morning of trial is presumptively unreasonable and deprives the defense of the opportunity to prepare to meet the evidence. This procedural failure is the strongest and most immediate grounds for objection. Choices A and C are substantive objections that might also be raised, but the procedural failure of notice is a distinct and powerful threshold argument. Choice D is incorrect because introducing evidence of an uncharged crime does not implicate double jeopardy, which protects against repeated prosecution for the same offense.
- What is the prosecution's strongest argument for admitting evidence of the uncharged robbery? Select one.
Answer: The evidence is admissible to prove the identity of the perpetrator through a unique modus operandi.
The correct answer is C. The evidence of the uncharged robbery is being offered to prove identity, which is a permissible purpose under FRE 404(b). The method used in the robberies is so distinctive (a specific virus and an origami bird) that it operates as a signature, making it highly probative that the same person committed all the crimes. This is a classic example of using other acts to prove identity via modus operandi. Choice A is incorrect because propensity is a prohibited purpose. Choice B is plausible, but 'identity' is a more precise and stronger argument given the unique signature nature of the acts. Choice D is incorrect because this evidence is not offered for impeachment and is not a permissible method of attacking character under FRE 405.
- Is the evidence of the subsequent early retirement program admissible to support the employee's claim? Select one.
Answer: Yes, as evidence of a pattern and practice of age discrimination by the corporation, which is relevant to proving discriminatory motive.
When you encounter evidence questions involving workplace discrimination, you need to distinguish between different types of subsequent conduct and their admissibility purposes. The key is understanding what the evidence is being offered to prove.
Evidence of the corporation's post-termination early retirement program targeting employees over 55 is admissible as proof of a pattern and practice of age discrimination. This subsequent conduct is relevant because it demonstrates the corporation's discriminatory motive and attitude toward older workers, which supports the employee's claim that age, not performance, was the real reason for his termination. Pattern and practice evidence helps establish discriminatory intent, which is often the central issue in employment discrimination cases.
Looking at the wrong answers: (A) incorrectly applies the subsequent remedial measures rule, which typically covers safety improvements or policy changes made to prevent future harm—not discriminatory programs that continue the alleged misconduct. (C) is wrong because evidence doesn't need to be contemporaneous to be relevant; subsequent conduct can illuminate the employer's mindset and practices that likely existed during the plaintiff's employment. (D) uses incorrect character evidence reasoning—this isn't about the corporation's general character, but about specific evidence of discriminatory practices.
The correct answer is (B) because the early retirement program constitutes admissible pattern and practice evidence of age discrimination.
Study tip: In discrimination cases, distinguish between subsequent remedial measures (inadmissible to prove fault) and subsequent conduct that demonstrates ongoing discriminatory patterns (generally admissible to prove motive). Focus on what the evidence is being used to prove.
- Is the evidence of the defendant's lavish purchases admissible? Select one.
Answer: Yes, as evidence of a financial motive for the embezzlement.
The correct answer is A. In financial crime cases, evidence of a defendant's sudden acquisition of wealth or lavish spending during the time of the alleged crime is generally admissible to show motive. The desire to fund an expensive lifestyle can be the motive for the embezzlement. This is a recognized non-propensity purpose. Choice B states an impermissible character/propensity argument. Choice C is incorrect; FRE 404(b) is interpreted broadly to include any 'acts,' not just illegal or immoral ones, that are relevant to a non-propensity purpose. Choice D is incorrect because motive is an explicitly listed permissible purpose under FRE 404(b).
- How should the court rule on the admissibility of the prior conviction? Select one.
Answer: Exclude it, because the defendant's defense of misidentification does not put his intent at issue.
The correct answer is C. For other acts evidence to be admissible for a purpose like 'intent,' that purpose must actually be a disputed issue in the case. Here, the defendant is not claiming he acted accidentally or without intent; he is claiming he was not there at all. His defense of misidentification does not put his state of mind at issue. Therefore, offering the prior conviction to prove 'intent' is merely a pretext for introducing prejudicial propensity evidence. Choice A is incorrect because even if intent is a formal element, it is not a matter of consequence in this trial, so the evidence is not relevant for that purpose. Choice B is incorrect because a single prior battery, without any unique signature, is not admissible to prove identity. Choice D incorrectly conflates FRE 404(b) with FRE 609 (impeachment).
- Is the evidence of the vandalism admissible? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because the act of vandalism is highly probative of the defendant's motive and hostile state of mind toward the victim.
The correct answer is A. Evidence of other acts is admissible under FRE 404(b) to prove motive. The defendant's act of vandalizing his boss's car immediately after being fired is strong circumstantial evidence of his anger and desire for revenge, which provides a motive for the murder. Choice B is incorrect because it relies on a forbidden character/propensity argument. Choice C is incorrect because the fact that an act is an uncharged crime does not make it inadmissible if it is offered for a proper purpose under 404(b), and here its probative value on motive is high. Choice D is incorrect because motive is almost always relevant in a murder case to explain why the defendant would commit the crime.
- Is the testimony of the other three prospective tenants likely admissible? Select one.
Answer: Yes, to show a pattern of discrimination that proves the landlord's stated reason was a pretext and demonstrates discriminatory intent.
The correct answer is A. FRE 404(b) applies in civil cases. The evidence of the landlord's similar conduct towards other members of the same protected class is not offered to prove the landlord's general character. Instead, it is offered for the permissible purposes of proving discriminatory intent and showing that the landlord's proffered non-discriminatory reason (poor credit) is a pretext. This is a form of proving intent and absence of mistake. Choice B is incorrect because it uses the forbidden 'propensity' language. Choice C is incorrect because the other instances are highly relevant to establish a pattern, which is crucial in discrimination cases. Choice D is incorrect because FRE 404(b) explicitly applies in both civil and criminal cases.
- Is the evidence of the prior reprimand likely admissible? Select one.
Answer: Yes, to demonstrate the CFO's knowledge of accounting improprieties and to rebut his claim of mistake or lack of intent.
When you encounter evidence questions involving prior bad acts, focus on Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which prohibits using such evidence to show character or propensity, but allows it for other purposes like proving knowledge, intent, or absence of mistake.
Here, the CFO's defense is that he was unaware of the accounting inaccuracies and relied on auditors. The prior reprimand for pressuring auditors to approve questionable practices directly rebuts this claim by showing he has specific knowledge about accounting improprieties and how auditors operate. This makes the evidence highly relevant to prove his knowledge and negate his mistake defense—both permissible purposes under Rule 404(b).
Answer A is wrong because it misunderstands Rule 404(b). The rule doesn't require a criminal conviction; it applies to any "other acts" and focuses on the purpose of the evidence, not its form. A formal reprimand qualifies as an "other act."
Answer B is incorrect because it describes exactly what Rule 404(b) prohibits—using prior acts to show dishonest character and propensity to commit crimes. This would be impermissible character evidence.
Answer C fails because occurring at a different company doesn't make the evidence irrelevant. The location is less important than what the prior act demonstrates about the CFO's knowledge and experience with accounting manipulation.
Remember: Rule 404(b) evidence is admissible when it serves a specific, non-character purpose that's relevant to the case. Always ask whether the evidence proves something other than "defendant is a bad person who likely did it again."
- The defendant objects to the evidence of the van theft. How should the court rule? Select one.
Answer: Overrule the objection, because the van theft is intrinsic to the charged offense, showing preparation and completing the narrative of the crime.
The correct answer is C. The evidence of the van theft is not considered a separate 'other act' under FRE 404(b) analysis but is rather intrinsic to the charged crime. It is part of the continuous series of events that constitute the kidnapping and murder. This type of evidence is admissible to show preparation for the crime and to provide the jury with the full context and narrative of the events. It is not being offered to show the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes, but to show how this specific crime was committed. Choice A is incorrect because the evidence is not being used for propensity. Choice B is incorrect because the evidence is admissible for more than just motive; it's admissible as part of the story of the crime itself. Choice D misapplies the 'common plan' exception, which typically refers to a larger scheme of which the charged crime is just one part, not preparatory acts for the charged crime itself.
- Is the defense attorney permitted to ask the witness about his prior perjury convictions? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because under FRE 609, convictions for crimes involving dishonesty or false statement are automatically admissible to attack a witness's character for truthfulness.
When you encounter questions about impeaching witnesses with prior convictions, focus on Federal Rule of Evidence 609, which governs when criminal convictions can be used to attack a witness's credibility.
Under FRE 609(a)(2), evidence of any criminal conviction is admissible if the crime involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment. Perjury is a quintessential crime of dishonesty, directly relating to truthfulness under oath. Since this witness has two perjury convictions, the defense can automatically use them to impeach his credibility—no balancing test is required.
Answer D correctly identifies this rule. The convictions are "automatically admissible" because perjury involves dishonesty, making them directly relevant to the witness's character for truthfulness.
Answer A is wrong because unfair prejudice under FRE 403 doesn't apply to FRE 609(a)(2) convictions. Crimes involving dishonesty are deemed so probative of truthfulness that prejudice concerns are overridden.
Answer B misapplies FRE 404(b), which deals with using prior acts to prove motive, opportunity, or intent—not witness credibility. While the rule mentions "motive to lie," that's not the correct framework here.
Answer C incorrectly suggests prior bad acts are categorically inadmissible. While FRE 404(a) generally prohibits character evidence, FRE 609 creates a specific exception for attacking witness credibility with certain convictions.
Remember: For bar exam evidence questions, distinguish between the different rules. FRE 609 specifically governs impeachment with convictions, and crimes involving dishonesty get special treatment—they're automatically admissible regardless of prejudice.
- How should the court rule on the defendant's objection? Select one.
Answer: Overrule the objection, because the statement is not being offered to prove the defendant committed the prior robbery, but as part of the res gestae of the charged crime.
This question tests your understanding of when prior bad act evidence is admissible and how to distinguish between different grounds for exclusion. When a defendant's own statement references a prior crime, you need to analyze whether it's being offered for character purposes or as part of the immediate offense.
The court should overrule the objection because the robber's statement is being offered as part of the res gestae (the circumstances surrounding the charged crime), not to prove the defendant actually committed the prior robbery. The statement is relevant to show what happened during this robbery - the robber's words are part of the criminal act itself. The prosecution isn't trying to establish that a Second Street robbery occurred or that defendant committed it; they're presenting the complete picture of what the robber said during the charged offense.
Choice A incorrectly assumes this falls under FRE 404(b)'s prohibition on character evidence. However, 404(b) doesn't apply here because the prior robbery isn't being offered to show defendant's propensity to commit crimes - it's offered as part of what transpired during the charged offense.
Choice C misapplies hearsay rules. While the statement would be hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the prior robbery claim, it's being offered to show what was said during the robbery, making the truth of the prior incident irrelevant.
Choice D incorrectly identifies a hearsay exception. Statements against interest require the declarant to be unavailable, and the robber admitting to crimes doesn't necessarily qualify since criminals often boast about past exploits.
Remember: when prior bad acts are mentioned in a defendant's own words during the charged crime, focus on the purpose - are they part of the immediate offense or being used for character evidence?
- How should the court rule on the admissibility of the defense's proffered testimony? Select one.
Answer: Admit the evidence, as it tends to prove the identity of the perpetrator through a unique modus operandi, and the risk of prejudice to the defendant is absent.
The correct answer is B. This is an example of 'reverse 404(b)' evidence, where the defendant seeks to introduce evidence of a third party's other acts to show that the third party committed the charged crime. The standards for admissibility are relaxed because the primary concern of FRE 404(b)—prejudice against the defendant—is not implicated. The evidence of the other burglaries with the same distinctive method is highly relevant to prove the identity of the actual burglar. Choice A is less precise; while opportunity might be relevant, the key value here is identity via M.O. Choice C misstates the law; reverse 404(b) is a valid and recognized use of such evidence. Choice D states a potential FRE 403 concern, but in this context, the evidence is so highly probative of the defendant's primary defense that it is very unlikely to be excluded on these grounds.
