Multistate Bar
Examination (MBE)
Evidence
Questions
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Evidence – Questions
Question 1
In a federal investigation of Defendant for tax fraud, the grand jury seeks to obtain a letter
written January 15 by Defendant to her attorney in which she stated: "Please prepare a deed
giving my ranch to University but, in order to get around the tax law, I want it back-dated to
December 15." The attorney refuses to produce the letter on the ground of privilege
Production of the letter should be
(A) prohibited, because the statement is protected by the attorney-client privilege.
(B) prohibited, because the statement is protected by the client's privilege against self-
incrimination.
(C) required, because the statement was in furtherance of crime or fraud.
(D) required, because the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client and can be claimed only
by her.
1
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Evidence – Questions
Question 2
Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of a commercial contract in which Defendant had agreed
to sell Plaintiff all of Plaintiff's requirements for widgets. Plaintiff called Expert Witness to
testify as to damages. Defendant seeks to show that Expert Witness had provided false
testimony as a witness in his own divorce proceedings.
This evidence should be
(A) admitted only if elicited from Expert Witness on cross-examination.
(B) admitted only if the false testimony is established by clear and convincing extrinsic
evidence.
(C) excluded, because it is impeachment on a collateral issue.
(D) excluded, because it is improper character evidence.
2
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Evidence – Questions
Question 3
PullCo sued Davidson, its former vice president, for return of $230,000 that had been
embezzled during the previous two years. Called by PullCo as an adverse witness, Davidson
testified that his annual salary had been $75,000, and he denied the embezzlement. PullCo calls
banker Witt to show that, during the two-year period, Davidson had deposited $250,000 in his
bank account.
Witt's testimony is
(A) admissible as circumstantial evidence of Davidson's guilt.
(B) admissible to impeach Davidson.
(C) inadmissible, because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value.
(D) inadmissible, because the deposits could have come from legitimate sources.
3
Examination (MBE)
Evidence
Questions
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Evidence – Questions
Question 1
In a federal investigation of Defendant for tax fraud, the grand jury seeks to obtain a letter
written January 15 by Defendant to her attorney in which she stated: "Please prepare a deed
giving my ranch to University but, in order to get around the tax law, I want it back-dated to
December 15." The attorney refuses to produce the letter on the ground of privilege
Production of the letter should be
(A) prohibited, because the statement is protected by the attorney-client privilege.
(B) prohibited, because the statement is protected by the client's privilege against self-
incrimination.
(C) required, because the statement was in furtherance of crime or fraud.
(D) required, because the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client and can be claimed only
by her.
1
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Evidence – Questions
Question 2
Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of a commercial contract in which Defendant had agreed
to sell Plaintiff all of Plaintiff's requirements for widgets. Plaintiff called Expert Witness to
testify as to damages. Defendant seeks to show that Expert Witness had provided false
testimony as a witness in his own divorce proceedings.
This evidence should be
(A) admitted only if elicited from Expert Witness on cross-examination.
(B) admitted only if the false testimony is established by clear and convincing extrinsic
evidence.
(C) excluded, because it is impeachment on a collateral issue.
(D) excluded, because it is improper character evidence.
2
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Evidence – Questions
Question 3
PullCo sued Davidson, its former vice president, for return of $230,000 that had been
embezzled during the previous two years. Called by PullCo as an adverse witness, Davidson
testified that his annual salary had been $75,000, and he denied the embezzlement. PullCo calls
banker Witt to show that, during the two-year period, Davidson had deposited $250,000 in his
bank account.
Witt's testimony is
(A) admissible as circumstantial evidence of Davidson's guilt.
(B) admissible to impeach Davidson.
(C) inadmissible, because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value.
(D) inadmissible, because the deposits could have come from legitimate sources.
3
