Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
19. The letter is
A defendant is on trial for evading $100,000 in taxes. The prosecution offers in evidence an anonymous letter to the IRS, identified as being in the defendant's handwriting, saying, «I promised my mother on her deathbed I would try to pay my back taxes. Here is $10,000. I'll make other payments if you promise not to prosecute. Answer yes by personal ad saying, 'OK on tax deal.'»
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Under the FRE 801(d)(2), a statement by an opposing party (traditionally known as an «admission by a party-opponent») is not hearsay. Under this FRE, when the opposing party's statement is offered against that same opposing party and was made in either an individual or representative capacity, it is admissible.
Evidence of offers to compromise or settle is typically inadmissible. There must be a claim at issue for the rule to apply. There need not be a filed lawsuit, but there must be at least some indication, expressed or implied of a claim. Additionally, the claim must be disputed as to liability or amount for the exclusionary rule to apply. Thus, if a party admits liability and the amount of liability, but offers to settle rather than litigate, the statements will be admissible.
B is correct. The applicable rule is that a statement made by an opposing party, offered against that party, will be admissible as non-hearsay. The anonymous letter is being offered by the prosecution against the defendant, which makes it admissible as a non-hearsay admission by a party-opponent.
A is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The letter is not being offered to establish the defendant's then-existing mental condition, but rather, it is being offered substantively to prove that the defendant owed back taxes. It is admissible as an admission, not as a statement of the defendant's intention or plan.
C is incorrect. The anonymous letter was not disputing liability or the amount, but rather, it was an admission of liability and an offer to settle as opposed to litigating. Therefore, the letter would not be excluded as an offer of settlement, but admissible as an admission of a party-opponent.
D is incorrect. It is true that the letter is detrimental to the defendant's case. However, any detriment to the defendant's case is not because it is unfairly prejudicial. Rather, the anonymous letter is highly probative and should be admitted as an admission.