Weight Vs Admissibility
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 3 active questions. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Evidence3
Example wrong choices
14870_christian_publishing_comptroller · EVIDENCE · Choice Ainadmissible, because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value.
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
14870_christian_publishing_comptroller · EVIDENCE · Choice Cadmissible to impeach Barnabas.
Why it's wrong
Choice C is not the credited answer for this item.
14870_christian_publishing_comptroller · EVIDENCE · Choice Dinadmissible, because the deposits could have come from legitimate sources.
Why it's wrong
Choice D is not the credited answer for this item.
17102_paul_bookstore_screwdriver · EVIDENCE · Choice AExclude the screwdriver because no witness saw Paul gouge the sign with it.
Why it's attractive
The choice demands direct observation even though the stem supplies circumstantial connection.
Why it's wrong
The choice demands direct observation even though the stem supplies circumstantial connection.
17102_paul_bookstore_screwdriver · EVIDENCE · Choice BAdmit the screwdriver only if Paul admits that he touched it.
Why it's attractive
The phrase only if creates a requirement the stem and Gold Key do not support.
Why it's wrong
The phrase only if creates a requirement the stem and Gold Key do not support.
17102_paul_bookstore_screwdriver · EVIDENCE · Choice DExclude the screwdriver unless the prosecutor proves by a preponderance that it was the exact screwdriver used on the sign.
Why it's attractive
The choice turns a low relevance gate into a mini-trial on exact use.
Why it's wrong
The choice turns a low relevance gate into a mini-trial on exact use.
22216_craft-market-identification · EVIDENCE · Choice AYes, because the prosecuting attorney may not impeach his own witness.
Why it's attractive
FRE 607 permits any party to impeach any witness. Also, the prosecutor is bolstering, not impeaching.
Why it's wrong
FRE 607 permits any party to impeach any witness. Also, the prosecutor is bolstering, not impeaching.
22216_craft-market-identification · EVIDENCE · Choice BYes, because Lydia's statement is hearsay not within any exception.
Why it's attractive
The prior ID is an out-of-court statement, but FRE 801(d)(1)(C) says it's NOT hearsay if the declarant testifies and is subject to cross.
Why it's wrong
The prior ID is an out-of-court statement, but FRE 801(d)(1)(C) says it's NOT hearsay if the declarant testifies and is subject to cross.
22216_craft-market-identification · EVIDENCE · Choice CNo, because Lydia is a disinterested witness.
Why it's attractive
Witness interest goes to weight, not admissibility. This is not the legal basis for admitting the prior ID.
Why it's wrong
Witness interest goes to weight, not admissibility. This is not the legal basis for admitting the prior ID.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →