July 2014 MEE - 예제 답안: Evidence

안녕하세요. 미국 변호사 장수훈입니다.

​

MEE 작성에 어려움을 겪는 분들을 위해, 제가 작성한 답안지를 올려드리고자 합니다. 제가 쓴 답안지를 보고, 통찰력을 얻으셨으면 합니다. 관건은 Application입니다. 한번 본인의 답안지와 비교를 해보시면 좋을 것 같습니다.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 2014 MEE - Evidence

​

1. The Inmate’s felony conviction is admissible for impeachment purpose because the inmate was released 9 years ago.

Conviction is admissible for impeachment purpose as follows: felony substantially related to FRE 403 balancing test, dishonesty crimes.

Here, the inmate was convicted of felony distribution of marijuana, which was one of the felony crimes. This conviction shows that probative value substantially outweighs a danger of unfair prejudice to the jury because felony distribution is likely to indicate the lack of reliability of the inmate’s statement.

Moreover, the inmate was released from prison 9 years ago, which satisfied the 10-year limitation on the purpose of impeachment use. It is because the court applies either time of sentence or one of releasement which is close to the trial moment. Thus, a 9-year period was accepted to determine the 10-year standard for impeachment. The conviction is admissible.

 

​

2. The inmate’s perjury conviction is admissible because of the feature of the crime related to credibility.

Crime pertinent to dishonesty is admissible for impeachment when it occurred within 10 years regardless of the crime’s weight.

Here, the inmate pleaded guilty to perjury, a misdemeanor. This was the convicted crime related to credibility, the contempt of the court. Moreover, the inmate committed it within 10 years from this trial. Thus, this perjury conviction is admissible.

 

​

3. The inmate’s sexual crime is likely to be inadmissible because it probably misleads the jury having an unfair prejudice against the inmate.

Under FRE, the felony conviction is admissible when its probative value substantially outweighs a danger of unfair prejudice to the jury.

Here, the inmate was convicted of felony sexual assault to the inmate’s daughter, 13 years old. Since the inmate is currently serving this sentence, this conviction can be used in purpose for impeachment under the felony crime.

However, the court does not merely accept the crime for the impeachment unless the evidence passes the balancing test, FRE 403. The sexual assault, itself, had the probative value to show that the inmate was unlikely to believe the inmate’s statement as truth because of a terrible crime against the daughter. However, this conviction was substantially likely to negatively affect the jury to have the prejudice against the inmate without reasonable grounds. It is because the sexual crime was too miserable for reasonable people to maintain neutral. Thus, this conviction is likely to be inadmissible not passing the balancing test in FRE 403.

 

​

4. The court should allow the inmate’s counsel to cross-examine the guard with respect to the false resume for impeachment, which was not collateral.

Under FRE, a party is entitled to cross-exam an opponent party about the bad act as the specific instance in connection to intrinsic evidence.

Here, the guard submitted a resume to the state that indicated B.A in Criminal Justice. However, the official copy indicated that the guard committed false statement by hiding dropping out his academic history. This conduct was substantially pertinent to dishonesty as a bad act.

For purpose of impeachment, the court must permit the party to cross-exam the hostiles including the opponent party to check the credibility. Since inmate’s counsel would question the guard the resume issue relevant to the statement’s reliability, thus, this cross-examination is allowed, the statement among them is admissible.

 

​

5. The exhibit regarding the false resume is not admissible because of extrinsic evidence.

Under FRE, the extrinsic evidence is allowed to be accepted to show the reputation or opinion about the credibility.

Here, the inmate’s counsel wanted to bring this false resume into the court to prove the impeachment of the guard. However, the court did not permit the exhibit as the evidence to show the incredibility of the guard because the resume, itself, was the extrinsic evidence. If the extrinsic evidence had represented the general opinion or reputation relevant to guard’s credibility, the resume might have been accepted. However, this resume contained the specific instance against the guard in light of honesty. Thus, the resume is not admissible.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

감사합니다.

 

*본 내용의 전부 또는 일부를 재사용, 또는 강의에 사용하려면

반드시 저작권자의 동의를 받으셔야 합니다.

저자의 허락 없이 사용시 민형사상 불이익을 받을 수 있습니다.

이 글에 대한 저작권 문의는

uslawacademy@naver.com으로 해 주시기 바랍니다.

​

*위 자료는 개인적 견해이므로, 이를 통한 결정에 책임을 지지 않음을 알려드립니다.

​

미국 변호사 시험 책 개정판이 출간 되었습니다. 책 내용이 많이 보강되었습니다. 많은 도움 받으셨으면 합니다.

 

이번 [개정판]이 미국 로스쿨 1L과 2L 기간을 좀 더 수월하게 보낼 수 있는, "좋은 도구"가 되었으면 합니다.

​

그리고

​

미국 변호사 시험을 준비하는 분들에게, 좋은 길잡이가 되었으면 합니다.

http://www.bookk.co.kr/search?keyword=%EC%9E%A5%EC%88%98%ED%9B%88