law
beginner
10 sample questions
Evidence Standards MCQ Practice Test
Proof requirements and admissibility
Q1. DNA evidence matches the defendant at 99.99%, but the sample contained contaminating DNA from an unknown individual. To rely on the match, what must the prosecution establish?
-
A. Beyond a reasonable doubt, that the match reflects the defendant's DNA and not the contaminant ✓
-
B. By a preponderance of the evidence, that contamination is unlikely
-
C. By clear and convincing evidence only
-
D. Nothing, since the 99.99% figure suffices
Explanation: The criminal standard — proof beyond a reasonable doubt — applies to every element, including the identification inference; unresolved contamination that could explain the match raises reasonable doubt unless the prosecution excludes it at that standard.
Q2. A forensic scientist testifies that hair found at the crime scene microscopically matches the defendant’s hair, noting it could have been transferred by secondary contact. Under the Frye standard, which statement is most accurate?
-
A. The testimony is admissible because it is based on a generally accepted scientific technique, even if it is not conclusive. ✓
-
B. The testimony is inadmissible because it is based on a novel scientific technique.
-
C. The testimony is admissible only if the scientist is personally acquainted with the defendant.
-
D. The testimony is inadmissible because hair evidence is always excluded.
Explanation: Under Frye, evidence derived from a technique that has gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community is admissible; microscopic hair comparison was long treated as generally accepted, and the possibility of secondary transfer goes to weight, not admissibility.
Q3. At trial, a defendant’s own prior out-of-court statement offered against the defendant is best classified as:
-
A. An admission by a party-opponent, which is defined as non-hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence ✓
-
B. Inadmissible hearsay unless it was written and signed
-
C. Hearsay admissible only through the co-conspirator exception
-
D. Inadmissible without an eyewitness
Explanation: Under FRE 801(d)(2), a statement offered against an opposing party that is the party’s own statement is an admission by a party-opponent and is by definition not hearsay.
Q4. A prosecutor seeks to admit a video recording of a crime scene, but the defense objects on the grounds that the recording has been tampered with. The prosecutor intends to use the Frye test to establish the reliability of the recording. Which of the following best describes the Frye test?
-
A. A scientific technique is admissible if it has been generally accepted by the relevant scientific community, as long as the technique is properly applied in the case at bar. ✓
-
B. A scientific technique is admissible if it has been generally accepted by the relevant scientific community, but the court may still exclude the evidence if it determines that the technique is unreliable in the particular case.
-
C. A scientific technique is admissible if it has been generally accepted by the relevant scientific community, but the defense may still challenge the technique if it determines that the technique is unreliable in the particular case.
-
D. A scientific technique is inadmissible unless it has been specifically approved by the court, even if it has been generally accepted by the relevant scientific community.
Explanation: The Frye test is a standard for admitting expert scientific testimony, and it requires that the scientific technique or method be generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. If the technique is properly applied in the case at bar, it is admissible, even if the defense objects to its use.
Q5. A forensic expert testifies that a hair sample found at the crime scene matches the defendant’s hair, but the expert admits that the sample was contaminated with an unknown substance during transportation to the lab. Considering the contamination, which of the following is the most important factor for a judge to consider when determining the admissibility of this evidence?
-
A. The evidence's relevance to the case, regardless of the contamination's impact.
-
B. The evidence's reliability, even if the contamination's impact is unknown.
-
C. The extent to which the contamination affects the reliability and probative value of the evidence. ✓
-
D. The expert's qualifications, regardless of the contamination's impact.
Explanation: The judge must assess the evidence's reliability and probative value in light of the contamination. The contamination could undermine the evidence's reliability and thus its relevance. The judge must consider the impact of the contamination on the evidence's ability to prove a fact at issue in the case. The other options are incorrect because they do not adequately address the central issue of the contamination's effect.
Q6. In a prosecution for armed robbery, the defendant's palm print is found on a security camera's metal casing, which was damaged during the crime. The print is matched to the defendant's palm print on file with the police department. However, the metal casing was not properly preserved and stored, and the print was lifted from the casing using a non-FBI-certified technician. Which of the following is the most likely evidentiary challenge to the admissibility of the palm print evidence?
-
A. The print is inadmissible because it was lifted by a non-FBI-certified technician.
-
B. The print is inadmissible due to a break in the chain of custody and potential for contamination or alteration. ✓
-
C. The print is inadmissible because the metal casing was not properly authenticated.
-
D. The print is admissible because it is a direct link to the defendant and is not subject to exclusion under any applicable rules.
Explanation: The primary concern with the admissibility of the palm print evidence is the potential for the evidence to be compromised due to improper preservation and storage of the metal casing. This creates a break in the chain of custody, raising questions about the reliability and integrity of the evidence. While the fact that a non-FBI-certified technician lifted the print might be a factor, it is less critical than the preservation issues. The lack of proper preservation and storage creates doubt about whether the print is truly the defendant's print from the crime scene.
Q7. In a case where the prosecution seeks to admit a statement made by the defendant to a confidential informant, which of the following statements best describes the applicable hearsay exception?
-
A. The statement is admissible under the hearsay exception for statements made by a party-opponent, as the defendant is a party to the case.
-
B. The statement is admissible under the hearsay exception for statements made by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy, as long as the informant's reliability can be established.
-
C. The statement is admissible under the hearsay exception for statements against interest, as the defendant's statement tends to subject him to criminal liability. ✓
-
D. The statement is inadmissible hearsay, as it is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
Explanation: The statement against interest exception allows for the admission of out-of-court statements that are against the declarant's interest, if the declarant is unavailable to testify. This exception is applicable in the scenario described, as the defendant's statement to the informant tends to subject him to criminal liability.
Q8. A defendant is charged with sports bribery, and the prosecution offers a wire transfer record from the defendant’s account to an offshore bank; the defense says it was a legitimate business payment. What is the appropriate admissibility standard?
-
A. The relevance and Rule 403 standard: the evidence must be relevant and its probative value must not be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice ✓
-
B. The Frye standard of general scientific acceptance
-
C. The Daubert standard of reliable methodology
-
D. The "free from mere speculation" standard of conjecture
Explanation: A bank wire record is ordinary documentary evidence, not scientific expert evidence, so Frye/Daubert do not apply; admissibility turns on relevance (FRE 401-402), authentication, and the Rule 403 probative-versus-prejudice balance.
Q9. A forensic expert testifies that a hair found at the crime scene matches the defendant\u2019s hair sample, but the expert failed to disclose that the hair comparison method used has been widely criticized by the scientific community as being unreliable. Which of the following best describes the impact on the admissibility of the expert\u2019s testimony?
-
A. The testimony is inadmissible due to the expert\u2019s failure to disclose the limitations of the hair comparison method. ✓
-
B. The testimony is admissible because the expert\u2019s opinion is based on a scientific principle, even if the principle is disputed.
-
C. The testimony is inadmissible because the hair comparison method is considered a novel scientific technique.
-
D. The testimony is admissible because the expert\u2019s failure to disclose the limitations of the method is not a requirement for admissibility.
Explanation: The expert\u2019s failure to disclose the limitations of the hair comparison method violates the duty to disclose and may render the testimony inadmissible. This is because the reliability of the expert\u2019s opinion is critical to its admissibility, and the expert\u2019s failure to disclose the limitations of the method undermines the reliability of the opinion.
Q10. In a case where a defendant's statement to a police officer is recorded, but the recording equipment malfunctioned, and the officer took notes contemporaneously, what standard of proof is generally required to admit the officer's notes as evidence of the defendant's statement under the Federal Rules of Evidence?
-
A. Preponderance of the evidence that the officer's notes are a substantially accurate representation of the defendant's statement. ✓
-
B. Clear and convincing evidence that the officer's notes are a substantially accurate representation of the defendant's statement.
-
C. Beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer's notes are a substantially accurate representation of the defendant's statement.
-
D. Substantial evidence that the officer's notes are a substantially accurate representation of the defendant's statement.
Explanation: When the original recording is unavailable due to malfunction, the officer's notes may be admitted as secondary evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 1004. The standard of proof for admitting secondary evidence is generally a preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not that the notes accurately reflect the defendant's statement. The court will consider factors such as the officer's credibility and the circumstances surrounding the note-taking.
That was just a sample. Sign up to unlock the full question bank with timed tests and certificates.
Sign Up Free