Jil, a first year law student, while walking to school in inclement weather. accidentally slipped on ice knocking down Jack, another first year law student, breaking his glasses. He was very angry with Jill and let the air out of one of her car tires. Jack also decided to sue Jill 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 lawyer. Jack sued Jill in state court. Jill, in the same lawsulit, brought an action against Jack for letting the air out of her tire. At trial in state court, Jill told the judge that a friend, Jane, told her that she saw Jack let the air out of Jills tire. The judge disallowed Jills testimony on that issue. Jane, however, who was in the courtroom also came and testified to that effect. The state court judge ruled in favor of Jill. Jack said that he was not giving up and that he would seek double damages on appeal in federal court. Jill and Jack live in difierent states when not attending school. Aiter trial, Jill reported Jack's actions in leting the air out of her tire to the police who said that they would procesd with a criminal action against dack. Was the judge correct in disallowing Jills testimony regarding what Jane told her about the tire?

Yes, the judge was correct to disallow the testimony because it was hearsay:

O No$,$ the judge was wrong and should have considered that testimony.

Yes, the judge was correct to disallow the testimony because it involved a possible criminal action.

Yes, the judge was correct to disallow the testimony because danes testimony was batier evidence and she was in the coutroom.