Any Expected Witness Overclaim
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
18235_esther-paul-sequestration · EVIDENCE · Choice ADeny the exclusion request entirely because witness sequestration in civil cases is always within the court's discretion.
Why it's attractive
FRE 615 says the court 'must order' witnesses excluded at a party's request. 'Always discretionary' inverts mandatory for discretionary — flat misstatement of the rule's modal force.
Why it's wrong
FRE 615 says the court 'must order' witnesses excluded at a party's request. 'Always discretionary' inverts mandatory for discretionary — flat misstatement of the rule's modal force.
18235_esther-paul-sequestration · EVIDENCE · Choice BExclude Paul only if Esther first demonstrates that Paul has previously given false testimony in another proceeding.
Why it's attractive
FRE 615 imposes no showing of prior false testimony as a prerequisite for sequestration. This requirement does not exist in the rule. No structural signal in the stem; purely requires knowing FRE 615's actual requirements.
Why it's wrong
FRE 615 imposes no showing of prior false testimony as a prerequisite for sequestration. This requirement does not exist in the rule. No structural signal in the stem; purely requires knowing FRE 615's actual requirements.
18235_esther-paul-sequestration · EVIDENCE · Choice DExclude Paul along with all other witnesses because any witness who is expected to testify may be sequestered on request.
Why it's attractive
True that expected witnesses may be sequestered on request. But 'any witness' overstates FRE 615's scope by omitting the natural-person party exemption. Paul is not just any witness — he is the named natural-person party-defendant, and that status is dispositive.
Why it's wrong
True that expected witnesses may be sequestered on request. But 'any witness' overstates FRE 615's scope by omitting the natural-person party exemption. Paul is not just any witness — he is the named natural-person party-defendant, and that status is dispositive.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →