Evidence Is Not The Place to Fight The Hypo

The title of this blog notwithstanding there are actually areas where you shouldn’t fight the hypo. Evidence is one such time. As BigShow has intimated, it’s not the best class we’ve ever had. But it’s an important topic and our professor approaches the exam the way more professors should – it’s like the Bar Exam, closed-book,   multiple choice questions. So you have question like this followed by 4 answers:

Jennifer is suing a rug company for breach of warranty. At the time Jennifer bought the rug, the salesperson told Jennifer that the rug was one of a kind. Louise, Jennifer’s friend, heard the salesperson tell her this. At trial, however, Louise surprised Jennifer and testified that no such representations were ever made. Louise and Jennifer had been best friends until recently when they had a fight because Louise accused Jennifer of having an affair with her husband. Jennifer’s attorney now wishes to question Louise about the argument to show that the argument is what caused her testimony to change. Defendant’s attorney objects. Is it admissible?

The choices provided as answers should dictate what you look for. However, there is a temptation to ask the kind of “what if?” questions that can kill you.

(The answer by the way is that the evidence is admissible, and the court can allow extrinsic evidence if Louise denies the accusation.)