benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / At a defendantÕs trial for extortion, the prosecutor called a witness expecting…

Problem

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

question

At a defendantÕs trial for extortion, the prosecutor called a witness expecting her to testify that she had heard the defendant threaten a man with physical harm unless the man made payoffs to the defendant. The witness denied ever having heard the defendant make such threats, even though she had testified to that effect before the grand jury. The prosecutor now seeks to admit the witnessÕs grand jury testimony. How should the court rule with regard to the grand jury testimony?

choices

  1. Admit the testimony, because it contains a statement by a party-opponent.
  2. Admit the testimony, both for impeachment and for substantive use, because the witness made the inconsistent statement under oath at a formal proceeding.
  3. Admit the testimony under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule.
  4. Exclude the testimony for substantive use, because it is a testimonial statement.

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
f9f8ca28-a589-5eac-9a7f-56a11b36f927
task_key
all--test--f9f8ca28-a589-5eac-9a7f-56a11b36f927
task_revision_id
1
config / split
all / test

Official source

initial import