🚀 go-pugleaf

Apologies if this is not appropriate for this newsgroup.  Please put this
thread in your kill file if you don't want to read about law school
Evidence study problems. 

I'm a 2L at Boalt Hall and am preparing for my final in Evidence.  Our
professor has recommended two study questions from An Analytic Approach to
Evidence by Allen & Kuhns.  I'd like to create a sort of virtual study
group here on the Internet by posting these questions and then discussing
the answers. 

The first one is problem 8 on p. 248 of the text:

D is charged with possession and sale of narcotics.  As part of her 
defense she offers to testify that she has never been arrested or 
convicted for anything more serious than a minor traffic violation.  
Should the prosecutor's objection to this testimony be sustained?

The second question is problem 2, p. 381:

A has sued C for injuries received in an automobile accident.  F, a 
passenger in A's car, testified on direct examination that C caused the 
accident by turning without warning into the traffic lane occupied by A's 
vehicle.  On cross-examination, F specifically denied telling an 
insurance investigator for F's insurance company that A had been speeding 
at the time of the accident.  Later in the trial the insurance 
investigator testified that F had told him that A had been speeding.  
During the cross-examination of the insurance investigator, A's attorney 
has the investigator authenticate the report of the interview that the 
agent prepared and F signed.  The report contains the following: "We were 
in a hurry to get to an appointment, but I knew we would be late.  The 
traffic was so bad that we just couldn't move very quickly.  And then C's 
car cut right in front of us."  A's attorney now offers the report into 
evidence.  Should it be admitted?

I'll post my answers to these questions on Friday.  I hope we get a 
useful discussion going!

Fred