Substrate Record: qid 1238

← back to the Substrate Record

qid 1238 · law

Question: A defendant is on trial for kidnapping. The victim has testified that one of the kidnappers referred to the other as "Speed." The prosecutor calls a jail employee to testify that, while the defendant was in jail awaiting trial, other inmates addressed the defendant as "Speed." Is the jail employee's testimony admissible?

1. Yes, it's relevant to show the defendant's nickname.
2. No, because it's irrelevant to the case.
3. No, because the jail employee is not a reliable source of information.
4. Yes, to corroborate the truthfulness of the victim.
5. Yes, as circumstantial evidence that the defendant was one of the kidnappers.
6. No, because it is substantially more prejudicial than probative.
7. Yes, because it provides character evidence about the defendant.
8. No, because it's an opinion not based on the employee's personal knowledge.
9. Yes, because it's a statement made by the defendant.
10. No, because it is hearsay not within any exception. exception.

Our answer: J. No, because it is hearsay not within any exception. exception. Source quote machine-checked (at mint)

A machine check confirms the quoted words appear at the source. A person has not yet reviewed these. EARN MARKS as a Human Reviewer