The requirements for the essay:
You need to do both questions.
Read questions carefully to identify all evidence law issues.
Point out the applicable law with respect to each identified issue.
Analyze the issue based on the facts of the question by applying relevant laws.
Do not copy the questions. You need to organize your writing in the form of an essay.
There is no requirement as to how long the essay has to be. The requirement is that you need to sufficiently discuss the issues and well organize your essay.
Grading criteria
Whether you have identified all the issues;
Whether you have applied the correct law or evidence rules;
Whether you have properly analyzed the issues based on the facts and applicable laws; whether your essay is well written and organized.
Question 1
Gary is on trial for murder for killing Jay. The prosecution’s theory is that Gary killed Jay to free himself from a loan he took out from Jay. It is alleged that on the day of the murder Gary asked Jay to come to Golden Pheasant Restaurant to discuss a business collaboration. From there, Gary drove Jay to a wooded area and murdered him.
Gary denies the charge. He asserts that he did not see Jay on the day of the murder. He offers Nancy to testify as his alibi witness. Nancy is to testify that on the day of the murder Gary was with her for a whole day in a camp site four hundred miles away from the scene of the crime. The prosecution learns that Nancy is in a romantic relationship with Gary.
The prosecution intends to call Jay’s colleague, Marty, to testify. Marty is to testify that on the day of the murder at 7:00 p.m. he ran into Jay in front of the office building. Jay said to him: “I’m going to Golden Pheasant Restaurant to have dinner with Gary.” Marty then saw Jay flag down a taxi to go to the restaurant. The defense objects to the testimony, claiming it is hearsay.
The prosecution intends to call Gary’s secretary, Tiffany, to testify. Tiffany is to testify that on the day of the murder she saw Gary on the phone. After the phone conversation, Gary said to her: “I’ve just talked to Jay. He said he will come to have dinner with me at Golden Pheasant Restaurant tonight.” The defense objects to the testimony, claiming it is hearsay.
Gary denies that he owed Jay any money, claiming that he had paid the loan back to Jay. He offers his office manager, Advik, to testify. Advik is to testify that Gary had paid back the loan.
Before testifying Advik informs the court that he cannot take the oath over the Bible for he believes in a different religion. Instead, he is willing to say: “I swear by my own gods that I will tell the truth.” The prosecution challenges that, claiming that Advik is incompetent to testify because of his refusal to take the traditional oath.
With regard to his testimony that Gary paid back the loan, Advik is to testify that he saw Gary write a check at his desk and Gary then told him that the check was made payable to Jay to pay back the loan. The prosecution objects to Advik’s testimony, claiming he is incompetent to testify.
Question 2
Sam is charged with robbery for robbing a jewelry store. The robbery took place at 1:00 p.m. on a Saturday. Sam and Danny committed the crime together. Sam went into the store with a gun. He pointed the gun at the clerk and said: “Put the diamonds in the bag or I’ll shoot you.” The clerk put the diamonds in the bag.
Danny, who had a long beard, was waiting in a getaway car. When Sam got into the car after the robbery, Danny sped away. He was nervous and crashed the car into a utility pole. The crash did not disable the car. As Danny’s car was speeding away, the store owner ran out of the store, yelling: “Robbery! Don’t take my jewelry!” Fred, standing at the street corner, saw that.
Henry was also on the street and he saw Danny crash the car into the pole. At the moment, he was on the phone with his friend Leon. Over the phone Henry said calmly to Leon: “Look at that guy with a long beard. He crashed his car into a pole.”
Three months later, Sam and Danny were arrested. Danny confessed to the crime. He told the police it was Sam’s idea to rob the store. Danny reached a plea deal with the prosecution and agreed to testify against Sam. Three days before trial, Danny changed his mind. He refused to testify because Sam had threatened to harm his family if he would testify. The prosecution offers the police officer who interrogated Danny to testify as to Danny’s statement about Sam’s role in the crime. The defense objects, claiming that the officer’s testimony would violate the confrontation clause and the testimony is hearsay.
The prosecution intends to call the store clerk to testify about Sam’s statement in the store. The defense objects, claiming the testimony is hearsay.
The prosecution intends to call Fred to testify about the store owner’s conduct of chasing the getaway car while yelling. The defense objects, claiming the testimony is hearsay.
The prosecution intends to call Leon to testify about what Henry said to him over the phone. The defense objects, claiming the testimony is hearsay.
The prosecution intends to call Alice, Sam’s ex-girlfriend, to testify. Alice is to testify that about a week after the robbery, she saw Sam. Sam said to her: “You broke up with me. Now I’m rich. I have a lot of diamonds.” The defense objects, claiming the testimony is hearsay.
