Agency Needs Preponderance Before Admission
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Evidence1
Example wrong choices
14806_wedding_cake · EVIDENCE · Choice Binadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
Why it's attractive
The 'admissions = not hearsay' tiny anchor exposes the misstatement: the FRE 801(d)(2)(D) exemption puts the statement outside the hearsay rule.
Why it's wrong
The 'admissions = not hearsay' tiny anchor exposes the misstatement: the FRE 801(d)(2)(D) exemption puts the statement outside the hearsay rule.
14806_wedding_cake · EVIDENCE · Choice Cadmissible, provided the court first finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Esther had actual or apparent authority to act for Timothy.
Why it's attractive
The 'sufficient to support a finding' Gold Key defeats the trap: FRE 104(b), not FRE 104(a), governs conditional relevance.
Why it's wrong
The 'sufficient to support a finding' Gold Key defeats the trap: FRE 104(b), not FRE 104(a), governs conditional relevance.
14806_wedding_cake · EVIDENCE · Choice Dinadmissible, if Esther does not testify and her absence is not excused.
Why it's attractive
Unavailability is a hearsay-exception framework (FRE 804); the 'admissions = not hearsay' tiny anchor removes the framework's premises.
Why it's wrong
Unavailability is a hearsay-exception framework (FRE 804); the 'admissions = not hearsay' tiny anchor removes the framework's premises.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →