benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / A student was a junior criminology major at state university and a member of a…

Problem

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

question

A student was a junior criminology major at state university and a member of a fraternity. While new members were pledging the fraternity, the student had a reputation for initiating pranks and hazing the pledges. Late one night, after a fraternity party, the student decided to kidnap one of the pledges. Enlisting the help of his friend, they grabbed the pledge, tied him up, and locked him in the trunk of the student's car. They then drove into the downtown section of a city where they dropped the pledge at a street corner. While the pledge was wandering around and trying to find a telephone booth, a gang of youths saw his predicament and attacked him. The pledge, who was severely beaten, suffered a broken nose, multiple lacerations, and contusions. When the pledge finally returned to the school, he filed a criminal complaint against the student who was charged with violating a state law, which provides:"Every person who hazes a student and thereby is responsible for causing bodily harm to said student is guilty of a felony punishable by three years in prison. "At thai, the prosecuting attorney called the student's alleged accomplice as a witness. The friend refused to answer any questions and was cited for contempt. After the friend left the witness stand, the prosecutor offered into evidence a transcript of the friend's testimony given at the student's preliminary hearing. At the preliminary hearing, the friend testified under oath that he and the student were responsible for hazing the pledge and driving the victim against his will to the city. During the preliminary hearing, the friend was also cross-examined by the student's defense counsel. Over defense objections, the trial court admitted the transcript of the friend's testimony at the preliminary hearing. Thereafter, the student was convicted of violating the aforementioned hazing statute. The student appeals the conviction and contends that the admission of the transcript of the friend's testimony at the preliminary hearing violated his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. As to this claim, the student's appeal will most likely be

choices

  1. granted, because there was no opportunity to cross-examine the witness at trial.
  2. granted, because in order to admit prior testimony, the witness must be shown to be unavailable.
  3. denied, because the witness was unavailable, and there was adequate opportunity for crossexamination at the preliminary hearing.
  4. denied, because the testimony was a statement by a co-conspirator and, therefore, admissible as a recognized exception to the hearsay rule.

subject

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

task_id
c135095d-ebf7-5a24-8984-fc62792c6d51
task_key
all--test--c135095d-ebf7-5a24-8984-fc62792c6d51
task_revision_id
1
config / split
all / test

Official source

initial import