Question

Problem 1-A: how did it happen?

At the intersection of Folsom and Valmont, two cars collide—a yellow Fiat driven by Abby Barton, in which Carl Dreeves rode as passenger, and a blue Buick driven by Eric Felsen. In a Rules jurisdiction, Barton sues Felsen for personal injuries and property damage. During her case-in-chief, Barton calls Carl Dreeves, who testifies on direct examination that "the Buick ran a red light."

On cross-examination, Felsen's counsel asks the following questions:
Q: Now Mr. Dreeves, you and Ms. Barton are seeing each other socially, isn't that right?
Q: Isn't it true, Mr. Dreeves, that at the time of the accident Ms. Barton here had turned clear around in her seat and was looking out the back window of the car?
Q: Tell me, Mr. Dreeves, you and Ms. Barton here had just finished lunch at Sebastian's where she drank three glasses of wine just before the accident, isn't that true?

To each question Barton's counsel objects, "Improper as beyond the scope of direct, Your Honor." How should the judge rule in each instance, and why? What arguments do you expect from Barton and Felsen?

Answer 1

In a court case where Abby Barton sues Eric Felsen due to a car accident, objections are raised during cross-examination by Felsen's counsel. A judge must consider relevance, potential prejudice, and bias when ruling on objections to questions deemed outside the scope of direct examination. The judge may allow or disallow questions based on their relation to the witness's credibility or direct testimony content.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the scenario described, Abby Barton has sued Eric Felsen for personal injuries and property damage incurred in a car accident. Upon cross-examination, Felsen's counsel asked Carl Dreeves, a witness and Barton's social acquaintance, several questions that led to objections from Barton's counsel. Each objection was based on the principle that the questions were improper and beyond the scope of direct examination.

The judge in this case should rule on the objections based on the relevance of the questions to Dreeves' direct testimony, the potential for prejudice against the witness, and whether the questions pertain to assessing the witness's credibility or bias. Typically, questions aimed at revealing a witness's bias, interest, or motive to fabricate are allowed, particularly when the witness's relationship with a party could affect their testimony.

For the first question regarding the social relationship, the judge may overrule the objection as it pertains to potential bias. The second and third questions may be more complicated; while they suggest actions affecting the accident (such as turning around or drinking wine), they should be discussed only if they directly address points made during direct examination. If these issues were not raised during direct, the objections may be sustained.