1. You have three
(3) hours to complete this exam.
2. This exam is closed
book; no materials are allowed.
3. There are two parts to
this exam. Part I is to be answered
on a ParScore form. Part II is to be
answered in blue books (or typed). If you answer Part II in a blue book, please write on every other line.
4. Using a #2 pencil,
darken the letter corresponding to the correct answer on the ParScore answer
sheet. If you change your answer,
please be sure that your erasures are complete. The exam will be scored by a machine and any ambiguities will be
counted as a wrong answer.
Part I: Consists
of 40 Multiple Choice questions. Each question is worth 2 points.
Total for Part I: 80 points.
Special instructions for Part One:
You are to answer all
questions according to the Federal Rules of Evidence unless the question
indicates otherwise or unless a question of evidentiary privilege is raised -
in which latter case, you should apply the California Evidence Code, unless the
question indicates otherwise.
Part II: Consists
of one essay question, which is worth 40 points.
Total
for Part II: 40 points.
Special Instructions for Part Two:
You are to base your
answers on the Federal Rules. However, in those areas where there are
significant differences in the Federal Rules and the California Code, you
should contrast how each would apply. In the area of privilege, you should base
your answers on the California Code - but again you should note any
material differences between California and Federal law.
Deal with all issues raised - even though you believe
disposition of one is controlling.
5. Write your exam number
on your exam envelope and at the top of this page. Do not use your name, student ID number, or Social Security
Number on any exam materials.
6. At the conclusion of the
exam, return all test materials to the exam envelope and submit it to the
proctor. Do not seal the envelope.
GOOD LUCK!
PART II – ESSAY
Claimant v. Golden Gate Law School & Imperial
Sidewalk Repair Company
Clifford Claimant, a student at Golden Gate Law School, sued
Golden Gate Law School and Imperial Sidewalk Repair Corporation for injuries
sustained in an accident he had while walking into the law school. Claimant alleged that he tripped on a
portion of the sidewalk in front of the law school where the bricks were being
replaced. Claimant further alleged that
the school and its contractor were negligent in that the repair site was maintained
in an unsafe manner and was inadequately marked. The defendants responded that the work site was clearly marked
and that a yellow police tape ribbon kept pedestrians from inadvertently
walking into the work site. They
further alleged that the Claimant’s injuries were the result of his own
contributory negligence.
You should consider the following defense evidence that was
admitted at trial. Assume all
appropriate objections were made. Was
the evidence properly admitted? Why or
why not?
The defendants called Francine Forewoman, the foreperson in
charge of the job site. She testified
she was talking to her assistant when Claimant tripped and hurt himself. Her assistant turned to her and said, “That
damn fool. How could he possibly have
tripped like that? We did everything we
possibly could to make it safe and then someone like him still finds a way to
have an accident.”
Forewoman also testified that the repair work had been going
on for two days before Claimant hurt himself; that it was in the same condition
that entire time; and, although thousands of people had passed by, not a single
person had tripped or hurt themselves, other than Claimant.
On cross-examination, Forewoman was asked whether she had
changed the work site after Claimant’s accident.< Forewoman answered, “Yes. We removed the yellow police-tape ribbon and replaced it with wooden
fencing that prevented anyone from entering the work site.”
The Defense then called Samantha Scholar, another law
student at Golden Gate Law School. She
testified that she knew claimant well; that he was known around the law school
as “Clumsy Cliff” and that he had tripped and fallen several times while
entering class. She also testified that
Claimant told her he had cheated on his Professional Responsibility final exam.