benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1714 / A defendant was charged with attempting to possess and distribute narcotics. The…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

A defendant was charged with attempting to possess and distribute narcotics. The defendant was arrested after allegedly trying to purchase several kilos of heroin from an undercover government agent. At trial, the undercover agent testified about the defendant's efforts to arrange the drug transaction. The defendant's defense, on the other hand, consisted entirely in attacking the undercover agent's credibility. During his summation, the prosecuting attorney, over defendant's objections, stated that he had produced the only witness who was willing to take the stand and testify to what occurred at the meeting when the undercover agent arrested the defendant. Based on the undercover agent's uncontradicted testimony, the prosecuting attorney urged the jury to convict the defendant. The defendant was convicted and, on appeal, argued that the judge erred in permitting the prosecutor's statement. The defendant's conviction should be

category

law

options

  1. reversed, because the prosecutor's remarks constituted an unfair personal attack on the defendant.
  2. reversed, because the prosecutor's remarks constituted improper comment about the defendant's right to testify.
  3. affirmed, because it is immaterial; the probative value of the defendant's failure to testify is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
  4. affirmed, because the defendant had the opportunity to refute the undercover agent's testimony but did not.
  5. reversed, because the prosecutor's remarks violated the defendant's right to a fair trial.
  6. reversed, because the prosecutor's remarks were not proper rebuttal to defense attacks on the undercover agent's credibility.
  7. reversed, because the prosecutor's remarks unfairly influenced the jury's decision.
  8. affirmed, because the prosecutor's remarks were a fair response to the defense's attacks on the undercover agent's credibility.
  9. affirmed, because the prosecutor was merely summarizing the evidence presented in court.
  10. affirmed, because the prosecutor had the right to express the strength of the evidence he had pursued.

src

ori_mmlu-professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

upstream_id / Original problem ID
1714
task_id
266ee32c-55be-5737-80dd-ebbc6fc494c2
task_key
default--test--1714
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import