27 Sep Argue which rule of evidence should apply to fact patterns as to evidentiary admissibility.

Argue which rule of evidence should apply to fact patterns as to evidentiary admissibility. Fikk

Answer the following in a two page paper (excluding title and references pages).

In one-page, state how the following items might or might not be relevant in a trial for possession of cocaine. In this scenario, the defendant does not testify and the evidence comes from a police officer who arrests the defendant on a warrant for delivery of cocaine and the drugs are found in his pocket. For this assignment, the original warrant case was later dismissed because the drugs from the delivery case were inadvertently destroyed before a crime lab tested them. Argue why this evidence is or is not relevant.

The defendant’s two prior convictions for possession of cocaine.

The police officers disciplinary record for having called in sick and then being found by his supervisor at the movies working an off-duty job.

The fact that the location of the arrest was in close proximity to a school where the defendant’s child attended.

In one-page, state how you would respond (object or not object) to the situation or evidence and argue your position. In your paper, list the hearsay exception(s) or rule number and any case law that supports your answer to the following situations or evidence.

The victim makes statements to a nurse after having been shot and is in serious condition.

In a bar, a defendant brags that you, “Mess with me and you will get it like that b**** got it in Temple.”

A witness hears another person say, “This rope should be long enough to let me get from the ceiling to the floor of the bank.” (The person making the statement is incompetent and cannot go to trial but the person on trial is charged with conspiracy to commit bank robbery.)

The cell phone records of a defendant to show his phone was in proximity to a murder scene.