Fracas at Fenway Park

 

Action for damages arising out of D's alleged assault and battery on P on June 1 in the bleachers at Fenway Park. The complaint alleges that D struck P over the head with a Budweiser bottle while P was giving the Yankee pitcher a standing ovation for striking out the heart of the Red Sox batting order. The defense: self-defense.

(1) At trial, P offers the testimony of A that he was at the game with P and that he saw D strike P over the head with a Budweiser bottle without any provocation. P then offers the testimony of B that although he was not at the game with P and A, he lives on the same street in the Bronx as A and knows A's reputation in the community for peace and quietude to be good. D objects. What result and why?

(2) Suppose that B's testimony is that he is familiar with A's reputation in the community for truthfulness and veracity and that it is good. D objects. What ruling and why?

(3) On cross-examination of A, defense counsel asks A whether he has ever been convicted of possession of marijuana. P objects. What ruling and why?

(4) On cross-examination of A, defense counsel asks A if he was convicted of perjury twelve years before. P objects. What ruling and why?

(5) Suppose that the objection to B's testimony, set forth in (2), above, was overruled. On cross-examination of B, defense counsel asks B if he knows that A was convicted of perjury twelve years before. P objects. What ruling and why? What if B is asked on cross-examination whether he is aware that A was convicted of possession of marijuana?

(6) In rebuttal, D offers the testimony of C that eleven years ago A filed a false 10K statement with the SEC. P objects. What ruling and why?

(7) Suppose that after A has been asked on cross-examination by defense counsel whether he was previously convicted for perjury, or after C testified to the false 10K statement, or after rebuttal reputation testimony that A's reputation in the community for truthfulness is bad, B is recalled to the stand to testify to A's reputation for truthfulness. D objects. What ruling and why?

(8) Suppose that on cross-examination of A, A admits that he is P's brother. P then calls B to testify that A's reputation for truthfulness and veracity is good. D objects. What ruling and why?

(9) Suppose that as part of A's direct examination, A testifies that in the third inning he saw D drink three large beers. In rebuttal, D testifies that in the third inning he had two cokes, three hot dogs, a box of popcorn, two bags of peanuts, two pieces of pizza, and an ice cream, but no beer. In surrebuttal, may B testify to A's reputation for truthfulness and veracity?



div1.gif (1531 bytes)
Home | Contents | Topical Index | Syllabi | Search | Contact Us | Professors' Pages
Cases | Problems | Rules | Statutes | Articles | Commentary