Jane, a first year law student, while walking to school in inclement weather, accidentally slipped on ice knocking down greg, another first year law student, breaking his glasses. he was very angry with jane and let the air out of one of her car tires. greg also decided to sue jane for negligence claiming as damages $300 for his broken glasses. he decided that he already knew all about the law and did not need a awyer. greg sued jane in state court. jane, in the same lawsuit, brought an action against greg for letting the air out of her tire. at the trial in state court, jane told the judge that a friend, susie, told her that she saw greg let the air out of jane's tire. the judge disallowed jane's testimony on that issue. susie, however, who was in the courtroom also came and testified to that effect. the state court judge ruled in favor of jane. greg said that he was not giving up and that he would seek double damages on appeal in federal court. jane and greg live in different states when not attending school. after the trial, jane reported greg's action of letting the air out of her tire to the police who said that they would proceed with a criminal action against greg. greg goes to see alex, a recent graduate who had just passed the bar, and asked alex to represent him in a federal court appeal. was the judge correct in disallowing jane's testimony regarding what susie told her about the tire?
(a) yes, the judge was correct to disallow the testimony because it was hearsay. (b) yes, the judge was correct to disallow the testimony because jane's testimony was better evidence and she was in the courtroom. (c) yes, the judge was correct to disallow the testimony because it involved a possible criminal action.(d) no, the judge was wrong and should have considered that testimony. (e) yes, the judge was correct to disallow the testimony but only because it purportedly came from an admitted friend of the defendant, not an independent witness; otherwise, it should have been allowed.