Part I - 1 1/2 hours


Arnold and Sally are partners in a company which imports tulip bulbs from Holland. Sally sues Arnold alleging that Arnold's negligence destroyed their thriving business. Sally claims that Arnold ruined them by entering into an agreement with their Dutch supplier that did not take into account fluctuations in the value of the dollar.

Arnold's defense is that it was Sally and not he who entered into the agreement with the Dutch supplier.


Sally presents the following evidence:

(1) The testimony of Gus, the partnership lawyer, who says Arnold came to his office to ask his legal advice about dealing with European markets. Gus says Arnold told him, "I'm in over my head on this deal. I don't know what I'm doing."

(2) The testimony by Beth, the wife of Arnold's assistant Joe, who is deceased. Beth says Joe stated, a few months before he died, "Arnold and I are going to Amsterdam to work out a big deal for bulbs."

(3) The testimony by Dr. Stem who says he has studied the trading patterns of Dutch tulip sellers for 40 years and that in his opinion any American who enters a long-term contract for Dutch tulip bulbs is an incompetent business person.

(4) An English translation of a Dutch lawbook entitled "The Law of Contracts in the Netherlands" which sets out a number of Dutch statutes relating to flower exporting which shows that Dutch law makes it very unfavorable economically for foreigners to export bulbs.

(5) The testimony of Gladys who says she used to be in the flower business with her friend Irma. Gladys testifies that Irma told her she was in love with Arnold and that Irma was going to help Arnold destroy the partnership business of Sally and Arnold so that a new flower partnership of Irma and Arnold could take over the market in imported tulips.


Arnold's lawyer cross-examines as follows:

(1) Beth is asked if it is true that she and Arnold had once been lovers and that Arnold had broken off the relationship. Beth denies this.

(2) Dr. stem is asked whether or not he has ever been convicted of felony drunk driving. Dr. Stem invokes the 5th Amendment and refuses to answer.

(3) Gladys is asked whether it is true that she has a reputation in the community for exaggerating.

 

The following evidence is then presented by Arnold:

(1) The testimony of Professor Stalk who says that he is Chair of the Department of Botany at Yale and that Arnold was the most brilliant student of botany he ever had and that Arnold's Ph.D. thesis, "The Netherlands' Bulb," is considered a classic in the field.

(2) The testimony of Carol who claims that she is an investigator hired by Arnold's lawyer, that she delivered a subpoena duces tecum to Sally's travel agent, Floyd, for Sally's travel records to Holland. That as she waited in Floyd's outer office, she smelled smoke and shortly thereafter Floyd came out and said there had been an unfortunate accident and Sally's records had been burned. Carol says that as she saw Floyd go back into his office, she caught a glimpse of Sally inside.

(3) The testimony of Jim who says that he has known Carol, the investigator, for 20 years and her reputation in the community for truthfulness is good.

(4) The testimony of Claude who says that he is custodian of the records of Rotterdam airport and who produces an airport record that contains a memo from a Dutch customs clerk about a man running up to him and shouting, "Is there any way you can hold up that plane to the United States. I think I just saw my granddaughter Sally, the flower dealer, whom I haven't seen in 10 years."


Analyze and discuss all issues raised by these facts. Identify all objections which could be raised and state how the court should rule and why.


 

Part II - 1 1 /2 hours


Anne is on trial for the murder of her husband, Larry. Larry was found hanging from a tree branch near a jogging trail in Golden Gate Park shortly after dawn.


The prosecution presents the following evidence:

(1) The testimony of Sid who says he saw Anne jogging regularly before sunup in the park the year before the killing.

(2) The testimony by Sue, Anne's neighbor, who says that Anne took out a million dollar life insurance policy on Larry a week before the killing.

(3) The testimony by Bill who says he was shopping at the local hardware store the day before the murder and that the clerk said to him, "I wonder why that woman just bought such a strong rope." Bill looked out the window in the direction the clerk was indicating and saw a white Taurus with the personalized license plate "SWINGER." ..

(4) A certified copy of the record of the California Motor Vehicle Bureau showing the license "SWINGER" is registered to a white Taurus owned by Anne.

(5) The testimony by the clerk of the San Francisco County Court that Anne was convicted of felony manslaughter of her first husband, Chris, whom she shot to death when he assaulted her while drunk 15 years before.

(6) The testimony by a psychologist employed by Anne's company to deal with employee problems. The psychologist says she delivered the news to Anne that her husband was found dead and Anne "smiled broadly."


Anne presents the following evidence in her defense:

(1) John testifies that a month before his death, Larry told him he had "welched" on paying off some "heavy gambling debts" to a "tough character in Vegas."

(2) The testimony by Jake, a homeless man who lives in Golden Gate Park. Jake says in between two gallons of wine, some LSD and pot, he believes he heard "some guy pleading with a couple of other guys in the bushes" and then saw "two guys come out of the bushes and get into a big Cadillac with Nevada plates."

(3) The Clerk of the State Franchise Tax Board is put on the stand under subpoena from Anne's lawyer. The clerk is asked whether Larry was about to be indicted for nonpayment of business taxes. The clerk refuses to answer.

(4) A mail order application in Larry's name to a company for "The Complete Guide to Houdini's rope tricks. How to make big bucks as a magician by getting out of dangerous situations."

(5) The testimony by Larry's mother that he always had a fascination with ropes as a teenager.

Analyze and discuss all issues raised by these facts. Identify all possible objections which could be raised and state how the court should rule and why.