Congress passed a bill prohibiting the president from granting a pardon to any person who had not served at least one-third of the sentence imposed by the court which convicted that person. The President vetoed the bill claiming that it was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Congress passed it over the President’s veto by a two-thirds vote of each house.
This act of Congress is:
A. Constitutional, because it was enacted over the President’s veto by a two-thirds vote of each house.
B. Constitutional, because it is a necessary and proper means of carrying out the powers of Congress.
C. Unconstitutional, because it interferes with the plenary power of the President to grant pardons.
D. Unconstitutional, because a presidential veto based upon constitutional grounds may be overridden only with the concurrence of three-fourths of the state legislatures.
In a criminal prosecution for a robbery which took place on June 1, the defendant took the stand and denied that he had committed the crime. On cross-examination, the defendant was asked if he had assaulted a police officer on December 1.
Upon objection, the trial judge should rule the question:
A. Inadmissible, because prior bad acts can only be proven by extrinsic evidence.
B. Inadmissible, because it is not relevant on the issue of the defendant’s credibility.
C. Admissible, because the prosecution may inquire into specific instances of conduct on cross-examination.
D. Admissible, because it lays the foundation which is necessary before the act may be proven by extrinsic evidence.
A driver takes his new sedan on a test drive. The new car features a car phone that records telephone conversations at the driver’s option. During the test drive, the sedan driver places and records a call to his friend, using his new car phone. As the sedan driver rounds a curve on the road, he remarks to his friend, “There is a large truck with license plate number 789123H which is about to force a jeep off the road.” Subsequently, the jeep was forced off the road by the truck, and the jeep driver was injured. The truck continued on its way without stopping.
The sedan driver assisted at the accident scene and permitted the investigating police officer to listen to the recorded telephone conversation and to make a copy of it on her portable tape recorder. The jeep driver traced the owner of the truck through the license plate number and brought suit against the truck driver for her injuries.
At the trial, the sedan driver is called as a witness by the plaintiff (the jeep driver). Although he testifies generally about the accident, he cannot remember the license plate number of the car.
The plaintiff then calls the officer, who establishes the circumstances under which she recorded the sedan driver’s conversation with his friend and then proposes to play for the jury that portion of the recording dealing with the license plate number.
The trial judge should rule that the playing of the recording is:
A. Admissible only as a past recollection recorded.
B. Admissible only as a present sense impression.
C. Admissible either as a present sense impression or a past recollection recorded.
D. Inadmissible, unless the original tape from the sedan is offered into evidence.
