INSTRUCTIONS

This exam is closed book: no materials are allowed

There are two parts to this exam. Part I is to be answered on a separate answer sheet. 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.

Part I: Consists of 40 multiple choice questions. Each question is worth - points.

Total for Part I: 80 points.

Part II: Consists of one essay question, which is worth 40 points.

Total for Part II: 40 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.

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.

You have three hours to answer this exam. GOOD LUCK!

Part II

People v. Lester Crank

This is a criminal prosecution of Lester Crank for one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale. As part of its case the government has established that Crank was pulled over pursuant to a routine speeding violation. Incident to that speeding encounter, Crank's car was searched (with his consent) and one pound of methamphetamine was discovered in the trunk. Lester insisted to the arresting officer that the drugs were not his and that he was unaware of their presence in his trunk. He claimed he lent his car to many people and one of them must have been responsible for the drugs. In addition to the above, the following evidence was admitted at trial. Assume all appropriate objections were made, was the following evidence properly admitted? Why or why not?

The prosecution called police officer Lauren Order to the stand. She testified that two days after Crank's arrest, she spoke to Phyneas Phink, an undercover agent. According to Officer Order, Phink told her that he (Phink) had bought I ounce of methamphetamine from Crank one week before Crank's arrest for the current offense.

In his defense, Crank called Laurence Luster who testified that he had known Crank for years and that, in his opinion, Crank was an upstanding citizen who would never do something like sell drugs. On cross-examination, Crank was asked if his opinion would be different if he heard:

- that Crank had sole methamphetamine to Phink;
- that Crank had been arrested for marijuana;
- that Crank had killed his neighbor's dog because it barked too load

On rebuttal, the government called Marshall Dillon, the bailiff who had been on duty during Crank's preliminary hearing in this case. Dillon testified that during the preliminary hearing he overheard Crank turn to his attorney and whisper, "I can't believe they caught me. I just forgot I had that stuff in the trunk."

Lastly, after Crank had taken the stand in his defense, the prosecutor recalled police officer Order who testified that:

- Crank was convicted of felony possession of methamphetamine to San Francisco In 1997; and
- Crank had offered in 1999 to be a police informant, but the police department had refused his offer because he lied to them about being a police cadet in his youth and lied about obvious tracks on his arm, saying he had scratched himself working on his car.