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.
15. The banker's testimony is
A corporation sued its former vice president for return of $230,000 that had been embezzled during the previous two years. Called by the corporation as an adverse witness, the vice president testified that his annual salary had been $75,000, and he denied the embezzlement. The corporation calls a banker to show that, during the two-year period, the vice president had deposited $250,000 in his bank account.
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
A is correct. Evidence that the vice president's bank deposits consisted of more money than he legally earned has the tendency to make embezzlement more probable than it would be in the absence of that evidence. The banker's testimony is relevant, circumstantial evidence to show the vice president's guilt, and is admissible.
B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The banker's testimony would not serve to impeach any testimony that the vice president previously gave. It does not directly contradict anything the vice president said, and thus cannot attack his truthfulness. The testimony is also not evidence of an admissible bad act or bias. Therefore, this would not be proper impeachment.
C is incorrect. The evidence is clearly probative of the charge of embezzlement given that the vice president deposited more than he legally made. Although the banker's testimony would be damaging to the vice president's case, it is not prejudicial.
D is incorrect. The admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance to the case, not its possible explanations. Although the deposits could have come from legitimate sources, the evidence of the deposits is still admissible to show that the vice president had more money than he legally earned. It is for the trier of fact to determine the weight of the otherwise admissible evidence.