Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Bias And Character
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Bias And CharacterQuestion 1 of 20

Witness denies a prior act of fraud. May counsel prove it with a document?

Yes; fraud shows dishonesty
No; prior convictions only
Yes; denial opened the door
No; extrinsic evidence barred
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Bias And Character

Practice Bias And Character in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Bias And Character, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Witness denies a prior act of fraud. May counsel prove it with a document?

  1. Yes; fraud shows dishonesty
  2. No; prior convictions only
  3. Yes; denial opened the door
  4. No; extrinsic evidence barred (correct answer)
Explanation: Because the witness denied it, a document would be extrinsic evidence offered to prove the prior act. Specific instances of conduct bearing on truthfulness may be explored on cross-examination, but they may not be proved by outside evidence. Fraud is dishonest, but that only permits the inquiry, not the document. The tempting mistake is thinking fraud's probative value lets you prove it extrinsically, but that evidence is barred.

Question 2

Witness denies bias. May the proponent prove bias extrinsically?

  1. Yes; bias is never collateral (correct answer)
  2. No; the denial is conclusive
  3. No; surprise must be shown
  4. Yes; denial waives objection
Explanation: Bias is always relevant to credibility, so a denial does not make the matter collateral. You may introduce extrinsic evidence to show bias even after the witness denies it. The tempting mistake is treating the denial as conclusive, but bias affects the witness's motive and can always be explored.

Question 3

Which conviction is automatically admissible to impeach a witness?

  1. Felony drug conviction
  2. Minor theft adjudication
  3. False-report conviction (correct answer)
  4. Felony burglary conviction
Explanation: Convictions for crimes involving dishonesty or false statement, like false-report, are automatically admissible to impeach under Rule 609(a)(2). A felony burglary conviction is tempting because felonies may impeach, but felonies require the judge to balance probative value against prejudice, so they are not automatic.

Question 4

Witness is impeached by bias. May her party offer her reputation for truthfulness?

  1. Yes; any attack opens the door
  2. No; bias is not character (correct answer)
  3. Yes; bias attacks veracity
  4. No; only convictions open door
Explanation: Bias impeachment attacks the witness's motive, not her character for truthfulness. Under the rule, reputation for truthfulness is admissible only after character for truthfulness itself has been attacked. The tempting wrong answer is 'Yes; any attack opens the door,' but bias and character are distinct grounds of impeachment.

Question 5

Which impeachment is barred by Rule 610?

  1. Bias against the defendant
  2. Prior perjury conviction
  3. Lack of religious belief (correct answer)
  4. Reputation for untruthfulness
Explanation: Rule 610 bars using a witness's religious beliefs or opinions, including a lack of belief, to attack credibility, so you cannot use lack of religious belief to impeach. The tempting wrong answer is prior perjury conviction, but Rule 609 allows convictions for dishonest crimes. Bias and reputation for untruthfulness are also permissible.

Question 6

A witness in a car accident case testifies for the plaintiff. On direct examination, the witness states, "I saw the whole thing clearly; my vision is perfect, and I have never even needed glasses." The defense attorney has obtained the witness's medical records, which indicate the witness has been diagnosed with glaucoma and was prescribed corrective lenses two years ago.

  1. No, because medical records are privileged and cannot be used for impeachment without the witness's consent.
  2. No, because this is extrinsic evidence of a specific fact that is inadmissible to attack the witness's general character for truthfulness.
  3. Yes, because the witness's statement on direct examination opened the door to impeachment by contradiction on a material issue. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, but only if the defense attorney first asks the witness about the glaucoma diagnosis on cross-examination and the witness denies it.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. This is an example of impeachment by contradiction. When a witness makes a specific, factual assertion on direct examination (a so-called "non-collateral" or material matter), the opposing party can introduce extrinsic evidence to prove that assertion is false. Here, the witness's ability to see is directly material to his testimony, and his absolute claim about his vision opens the door to be contradicted by the medical records. Choice A is incorrect because while a physician-patient privilege may exist, it can be waived or may not apply if the witness puts his physical condition at issue, which he did by testifying about his "perfect" vision. Choice B incorrectly characterizes this as an attack on general character under FRE 608(b); it's an attack on the substance of the testimony. Choice D is incorrect because there is no requirement to "ask first" when impeaching by contradiction on a statement made during direct examination.

Question 7

A defendant is being prosecuted for embezzling funds from his employer. The company's chief financial officer (CFO) testifies for the prosecution, providing key evidence of the defendant's access to the accounts. On cross-examination, the defense attorney wants to ask the CFO if he is currently the subject of an unrelated criminal investigation by the same district attorney's office.

  1. No, because an arrest or investigation that has not resulted in a conviction is inadmissible for impeachment.
  2. No, because it is an improper attempt to introduce a specific bad act under FRE 608(b).
  3. Yes, because the questioning is relevant to show the witness's potential bias or motive to cooperate with the prosecution. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because the existence of a criminal investigation is probative of the witness's character for untruthfulness.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. The evidence is not being offered to show that the CFO has a bad character for truthfulness (FRE 608) or has been convicted of a crime (FRE 609). Instead, it is being offered to show bias. A witness who is under investigation by the same prosecutor's office has a potential motive to curry favor with the prosecution by providing testimony helpful to the government. Evidence of bias is almost always relevant and admissible, and cross-examination is a proper method to expose it. Choice A incorrectly applies the rule for impeachment by conviction (FRE 609) to a situation involving bias. Choice B is incorrect because the purpose is to show bias, not to attack general character for truthfulness. Choice D is incorrect because an investigation, by itself, is not probative of character; the purpose of the inquiry is to expose a motive to lie in this specific case.

Question 8

At a defendant's trial for robbery, a defense alibi witness testifies. On cross-examination, the prosecutor seeks to introduce a certified copy of the witness's two-year-old misdemeanor conviction for filing a false police report.

  1. Admissible, because filing a false police report is a crime requiring a dishonest act or false statement. (correct answer)
  2. Admissible, but only if the court finds its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
  3. Inadmissible, because it is a misdemeanor conviction, not a felony.
  4. Inadmissible, because it is extrinsic evidence of a specific bad act.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. Under FRE 609(a)(2), evidence of a conviction for any crime, regardless of punishment, must be admitted if the elements of the crime required proving a dishonest act or false statement. Filing a false police report is a classic example of such a crime. Admission is mandatory and not subject to a balancing test. Choice B is incorrect because the Rule 403 balancing test does not apply to convictions under FRE 609(a)(2). Choice C is incorrect because FRE 609(a)(2) explicitly applies to any crime, including misdemeanors, if it meets the dishonesty element. Choice D is incorrect because FRE 609 is a specific exception that allows extrinsic evidence (the record of conviction) to be admitted for impeachment.

Question 9

In a murder trial, the prosecution's star witness is the defendant's former business partner. The defense has discovered that the witness was convicted of felony perjury 12 years ago, and has provided proper written notice to the prosecution of its intent to use the conviction for impeachment.

  1. No, because the conviction is more than 10 years old.
  2. Yes, because perjury is a crime of dishonesty, for which the 10-year time limit does not apply.
  3. Only if the court specifically finds that the conviction's probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. (correct answer)
  4. Only if the witness denies the conviction on the stand, which would then allow the defense to introduce it as extrinsic evidence.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. FRE 609(b) governs the admissibility of convictions that are more than 10 years old. Such evidence is generally inadmissible. However, it can be admitted if the proponent gives adverse party reasonable written notice and the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. This is a reverse balancing test that is difficult to meet. Choice A is incorrect because it states the general rule but ignores the exception. Choice B is incorrect because the 10-year rule applies to all convictions, including crimes of dishonesty. Choice D is incorrect because the admissibility of the conviction itself is the issue, not the procedure for introducing it if the witness is untruthful about it on the stand.

Question 10

In a trial for arson, a defense alibi witness testifies. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks, "Isn't it true that you were convicted last year of misdemeanor shoplifting for switching the price tags on a piece of merchandise?" The relevant statute defines this act as theft by deception. The defense objects.

  1. Sustain the objection, because shoplifting is not a felony.
  2. Sustain the objection, because the crime is not probative of the witness's character for testifying truthfully about an arson.
  3. Overrule the objection, because the conviction was for a crime involving a dishonest act. (correct answer)
  4. Overrule the objection, because any criminal conviction can be used to impeach a witness's general credibility.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. Under FRE 609(a)(2), a conviction for a crime must be admitted for impeachment, regardless of whether it is a felony or misdemeanor, if the elements of the crime required proving a dishonest act or false statement. While simple shoplifting may not qualify, shoplifting accomplished by an act of deceit, such as switching price tags (theft by deception), does involve a dishonest act. Therefore, the conviction is admissible. Choice A is incorrect because FRE 609(a)(2) is not limited to felonies. Choice B is incorrect because the relevance is to the witness's general character for truthfulness, not specifically about their ability to testify about arson. Choice D is an overstatement of the law; not all convictions are admissible for impeachment (e.g., misdemeanors not involving dishonesty).

Question 11

You are a prosecutor in a case where the defendant is charged with assaulting a police officer. The defendant claims the officer was the initial aggressor. You learn that the defendant's sole eyewitness has a prior felony conviction for filing a false tax return from six years ago and a misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct from two years ago.

  1. Both convictions are admissible to impeach the eyewitness.
  2. Only the felony conviction for filing a false tax return is admissible. (correct answer)
  3. Only the misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct is admissible.
  4. Neither conviction is admissible to impeach the eyewitness.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. The felony conviction for filing a false tax return is admissible under two potential rationales. First, as a felony less than 10 years old, it is admissible under FRE 609(a)(1)(A), subject to Rule 403 balancing. Second, and more directly, filing a false tax return is a crime requiring a dishonest act or false statement, making its admission mandatory under FRE 609(a)(2). The misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct is inadmissible. Under FRE 609, a misdemeanor is only admissible if it is a crime of dishonesty. Disorderly conduct does not have an element of dishonesty or false statement. Therefore, only the tax conviction is admissible.

Question 12

In a personal injury trial, the defendant testifies that he was driving carefully. On cross-examination, the plaintiff's attorney seeks to ask the defendant about a guilty plea he entered one month ago to felony mail fraud. The defendant has not yet been sentenced for the mail fraud conviction.

  1. No, because a conviction is not final for impeachment purposes until a sentence has been imposed.
  2. No, because the prejudicial effect of a financial crime is too high in a personal injury case.
  3. Yes, because mail fraud is a crime of dishonesty, and a guilty plea is sufficient to constitute a conviction for impeachment. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because it is a felony, and its admission is subject to a balancing test to determine if its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. For the purposes of FRE 609, a conviction is established upon a guilty plea or verdict, even if sentencing or appeal is pending. Mail fraud is a crime whose elements require proving a dishonest act or false statement. Therefore, under FRE 609(a)(2), its admission for impeachment is mandatory and not subject to a balancing test. Choice A is incorrect; sentencing is not required for a conviction to be used for impeachment. Choice B is incorrect because there is no special rule precluding the use of financial crimes in personal injury cases. Choice D is incorrect because as a crime of dishonesty under FRE 609(a)(2), admission is mandatory, and the balancing test of FRE 609(a)(1)(B) for defendant-witnesses does not apply.

Question 13

A defendant is on trial for assault with a deadly weapon. The defendant takes the stand and testifies in his own defense, claiming self-defense. On cross-examination, the prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant was convicted of bank fraud, a felony, five years ago.

  1. Yes, because any felony conviction less than 10 years old is automatically admissible to impeach a witness.
  2. Yes, if the court determines that the probative value of the conviction as to the defendant's credibility outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant. (correct answer)
  3. No, because bank fraud is not a crime involving a dishonest act or false statement under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
  4. No, because the prior conviction for a financial crime is not relevant to a charge of assault and is therefore inadmissible character evidence.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. Under FRE 609(a)(1)(B), when the witness in a criminal case is the defendant, evidence of a felony conviction is admissible for impeachment only if the court determines that its probative value for credibility outweighs its prejudicial effect. This is a special balancing test that is more protective of the defendant than the standard Rule 403 test. Choice A is incorrect because admissibility is not automatic for a defendant-witness; the special balancing test must be applied. Choice C is incorrect because while bank fraud might not automatically qualify as a crime of dishonesty under FRE 609(a)(2) in all jurisdictions, it is still a felony and thus potentially admissible under FRE 609(a)(1). Choice D is incorrect because the evidence is not offered as character evidence to prove the assault, but for the limited purpose of impeaching the defendant's credibility as a witness.

Question 14

Your client is a defendant in a civil battery lawsuit. The plaintiff's sole eyewitness testified on direct examination. On cross-examination, you wish to ask the witness if he was fired from his last job for padding his expense reports. The witness was never criminally charged for this conduct. The plaintiff's attorney objects before you can ask the question.

  1. The question is permissible because padding expense reports is a specific act probative of the witness's character for untruthfulness. (correct answer)
  2. The question is permissible because it is relevant to show the witness's potential financial instability and bias.
  3. The question is impermissible because there was no criminal conviction, so it is improper character evidence.
  4. The question is impermissible because being fired from a job is a collateral matter that cannot be used for impeachment.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. Under FRE 608(b), a witness may be cross-examined about specific instances of conduct, even if they did not result in a conviction, provided they are probative of the witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. Padding expense reports is an act of deceit and is therefore highly probative of character for untruthfulness. The court has discretion to allow the question. Choice B is incorrect because the facts do not support a logical link between this act and bias against your client. Choice C is incorrect because FRE 608(b) specifically allows inquiry into such acts even without a conviction. Choice D is incorrect because a witness's character for truthfulness is never considered a collateral matter.

Question 15

A 22-year-old defendant is on trial for armed robbery. The prosecution's key eyewitness is 19 years old. The defense seeks to impeach the eyewitness with a finding of delinquency from a juvenile court proceeding for felony burglary that occurred when the witness was 16 years old.

  1. Yes, because burglary is a felony and would be admissible to attack the credibility of an adult.
  2. Yes, because the evidence is necessary for the fair determination of guilt or innocence in a criminal case.
  3. No, because the witness is not the defendant in the criminal case.
  4. No, because evidence of a juvenile adjudication is presumptively inadmissible against a witness. (correct answer)
Explanation: The correct answer is D. FRE 609(d) establishes a strong presumption against the admissibility of juvenile adjudications. There is a very narrow exception for a witness other than the defendant in a criminal case, but it requires that the evidence be necessary for a fair determination of guilt or innocence. Courts apply this exception very rarely. The general rule is that juvenile adjudications are not admissible. Therefore, the evidence is presumptively inadmissible. Choice A is incorrect because the fact that the underlying act would be a felony for an adult is just one prerequisite for the narrow exception; it does not make it automatically admissible. Choice B makes a conclusory statement about the exception's requirements without establishing that they are met, which is unlikely. Choice C is incorrect because the narrow exception applies only when the witness is not the defendant.

Question 16

In a contract dispute, the defendant calls his accountant to testify about the company's financial records. The plaintiff's attorney wishes to attack the accountant's credibility. The attorney plans to call a second witness, a former colleague of the accountant, to testify that, in his opinion, the accountant is an untruthful person.

  1. Admissible, because a witness's character may be attacked by opinion evidence regarding their untruthfulness. (correct answer)
  2. Admissible, but only if the accountant's character for truthfulness was first attacked on cross-examination.
  3. Inadmissible, because character evidence is not permitted in a civil contract dispute.
  4. Inadmissible, because one witness cannot give an opinion about the truthfulness of another witness.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. FRE 608(a) explicitly allows a witness's credibility to be attacked by testimony in the form of an opinion about the witness's character for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. The plaintiff's attorney is permitted to call a character witness to give an opinion that the accountant is an untruthful person. Choice B is incorrect; this rule describes how a witness's truthful character may be supported (i.e., only after it has been attacked). A party can initiate an attack on an opposing witness's character for untruthfulness at any time. Choice C is incorrect; this type of character evidence is permissible in both civil and criminal cases. Choice D is a misstatement of the law under FRE 608(a).

Question 17

The prosecution calls an eyewitness in a bank robbery case. The witness, who previously gave a detailed statement to police, gives vague and hesitant testimony on the stand, failing to identify the defendant. Believing the witness is being intimidated, the prosecutor asks, "You're afraid of the defendant's family, aren't you?" The defense objects.

  1. Sustain the objection, because the prosecutor is leading his own witness.
  2. Sustain the objection, because the prosecutor is trying to impeach his own witness without a finding of hostility.
  3. Overrule the objection, because the question is relevant to show the witness's bias or motive for changing his testimony. (correct answer)
  4. Overrule the objection, because the witness's inconsistent testimony opened the door to character evidence.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. The prosecutor's question is designed to elicit evidence of bias or motive—specifically, that the witness is testifying in a particular way out of fear. This is a permissible way to explain the witness's change in testimony and to attack or explain his current credibility. Choice A is incorrect because leading questions are often permitted on direct examination when a witness is hostile, evasive, or an adverse party, which this witness appears to be. Choice B is incorrect because FRE 607 allows any party, including the party that called the witness, to impeach them. A formal finding of hostility is not required. Choice D is incorrect because the question is aimed at bias/motive, not the witness's general character for truthfulness.

Question 18

A witness in a car accident case testifies for the plaintiff. On direct examination, the witness states, "I saw the whole thing clearly; my vision is perfect, and I have never even needed glasses." The defense attorney has obtained the witness's medical records, which indicate the witness has been diagnosed with glaucoma and was prescribed corrective lenses two years ago.

  1. No, because medical records are privileged and cannot be used for impeachment without the witness's consent.
  2. No, because this is extrinsic evidence of a specific fact that is inadmissible to attack the witness's general character for truthfulness.
  3. Yes, because the witness's statement on direct examination opened the door to impeachment by contradiction on a material issue. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, but only if the defense attorney first asks the witness about the glaucoma diagnosis on cross-examination and the witness denies it.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. This is an example of impeachment by contradiction. When a witness makes a specific, factual assertion on direct examination (a so-called "non-collateral" or material matter), the opposing party can introduce extrinsic evidence to prove that assertion is false. Here, the witness's ability to see is directly material to his testimony, and his absolute claim about his vision opens the door to be contradicted by the medical records. Choice A is incorrect because while a physician-patient privilege may exist, it can be waived or may not apply if the witness puts his physical condition at issue, which he did by testifying about his "perfect" vision. Choice B incorrectly characterizes this as an attack on general character under FRE 608(b); it's an attack on the substance of the testimony. Choice D is incorrect because there is no requirement to "ask first" when impeaching by contradiction on a statement made during direct examination.

Question 19

At a defendant's trial for robbery, a defense alibi witness testifies. On cross-examination, the prosecutor seeks to introduce a certified copy of the witness's two-year-old misdemeanor conviction for filing a false police report.

  1. Admissible, because filing a false police report is a crime requiring a dishonest act or false statement. (correct answer)
  2. Admissible, but only if the court finds its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
  3. Inadmissible, because it is a misdemeanor conviction, not a felony.
  4. Inadmissible, because it is extrinsic evidence of a specific bad act.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. Under FRE 609(a)(2), evidence of a conviction for any crime, regardless of punishment, must be admitted if the elements of the crime required proving a dishonest act or false statement. Filing a false police report is a classic example of such a crime. Admission is mandatory and not subject to a balancing test. Choice B is incorrect because the Rule 403 balancing test does not apply to convictions under FRE 609(a)(2). Choice C is incorrect because FRE 609(a)(2) explicitly applies to any crime, including misdemeanors, if it meets the dishonesty element. Choice D is incorrect because FRE 609 is a specific exception that allows extrinsic evidence (the record of conviction) to be admitted for impeachment.

Question 20

A plaintiff sued a trucking company after a collision. The company's driver testified that he had inspected his truck's brakes that morning and they worked perfectly. On cross-examination, the plaintiff's attorney wants to ask the driver if he was fired from his previous two truck driving jobs for falsifying his driving logs. The driver was not convicted of any crime for this conduct.

  1. No, because the prior job firings are not relevant to whether the driver's brakes failed in this instance.
  2. No, because since there were no convictions, this is impermissible character evidence and extrinsic to the case.
  3. Yes, because falsifying driving logs is a specific act of dishonesty that is probative of the driver's character for truthfulness. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because the evidence shows the driver's habit of being a negligent employee, making it more likely he was negligent here.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. Under FRE 608(b), the court may allow a witness to be cross-examined on specific instances of conduct if they are probative of the witness's character for truthfulness. Falsifying official logs is an act of deceit and is highly probative of the driver's character for truthfulness. Therefore, the question is a permissible method of impeachment. Choice A is incorrect because the evidence is not being offered to prove the condition of the brakes, but to attack the credibility of the witness testifying about the brakes. Choice B is incorrect because FRE 608(b) specifically allows inquiry into such acts on cross-examination even without a conviction. Choice D is incorrect because this line of reasoning constitutes forbidden propensity evidence under FRE 404; the proper purpose is for impeachment of credibility, not to prove negligent conduct.