1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
traehekat
Posts: 3195
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:00 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby traehekat » Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:08 pm

solotee wrote:
traehekat wrote:I've read through the cases, casebook notes, E&E, hornbook, and Emmanuel and I still don't get RAP.


have you tried CALI?


We are one of the like 3 schools that doesn't subscribe to CALI. I expressed my utter disgust and disappointment yesterday with one of the librarians.

Me: Do we subscribe to those CALI lessons?
Librarian: We are actually one of the very few who do not.
Me: Oh, okay. Thanks!

I really let her have it, IMO.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby keg411 » Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:26 pm

traehekat wrote:
solotee wrote:
traehekat wrote:I've read through the cases, casebook notes, E&E, hornbook, and Emmanuel and I still don't get RAP.


have you tried CALI?


We are one of the like 3 schools that doesn't subscribe to CALI. I expressed my utter disgust and disappointment yesterday with one of the librarians.

Me: Do we subscribe to those CALI lessons?
Librarian: We are actually one of the very few who do not.
Me: Oh, okay. Thanks!

I really let her have it, IMO.


That sucks. CALI has been a godsend for my MC exams so far.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7249
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby beach_terror » Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:32 pm

Kalvano, that answer seems pretty solid to me... you guys covered more than we did for that tort. Does your teacher want you to define intent there? It seems trivial, but I'm pretty sure our teacher wants us to define what intent is at one point in the answer to our exam. After that, its fine to just use intent without explaining it.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kalvano » Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:15 pm

beach_terror wrote:Kalvano, that answer seems pretty solid to me... you guys covered more than we did for that tort. Does your teacher want you to define intent there? It seems trivial, but I'm pretty sure our teacher wants us to define what intent is at one point in the answer to our exam. After that, its fine to just use intent without explaining it.



He's gone over intent a metric buttload of times, along with every other element. He's going over the exam tomorrow with the class, but I just get the feeling that, as much time as he has spent on the things that make up each element, he wants you to go over them. He spends forever going on about "this is intent because..." versus "that isn't intent because..." or "this is an act because...", etc.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7249
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby beach_terror » Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:13 pm

kalvano wrote:
beach_terror wrote:Kalvano, that answer seems pretty solid to me... you guys covered more than we did for that tort. Does your teacher want you to define intent there? It seems trivial, but I'm pretty sure our teacher wants us to define what intent is at one point in the answer to our exam. After that, its fine to just use intent without explaining it.



He's gone over intent a metric buttload of times, along with every other element. He's going over the exam tomorrow with the class, but I just get the feeling that, as much time as he has spent on the things that make up each element, he wants you to go over them. He spends forever going on about "this is intent because..." versus "that isn't intent because..." or "this is an act because...", etc.


How'd you end up doing after he went over it?

kopper
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 12:15 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kopper » Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:22 pm

solotee wrote:Paichka thank you! Very helpful!!


Agreed. I plan to use this myself. Thanks Paichka.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kalvano » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:29 pm

beach_terror wrote:
kalvano wrote:
beach_terror wrote:Kalvano, that answer seems pretty solid to me... you guys covered more than we did for that tort. Does your teacher want you to define intent there? It seems trivial, but I'm pretty sure our teacher wants us to define what intent is at one point in the answer to our exam. After that, its fine to just use intent without explaining it.



He's gone over intent a metric buttload of times, along with every other element. He's going over the exam tomorrow with the class, but I just get the feeling that, as much time as he has spent on the things that make up each element, he wants you to go over them. He spends forever going on about "this is intent because..." versus "that isn't intent because..." or "this is an act because...", etc.


How'd you end up doing after he went over it?



I got to the same conclusions on almost everything, but he never discussed how he wants you to answer. I'm going to see him next week to discuss my answer specifically and see how he wants them structured / organized.

corporatelaw87
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:26 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby corporatelaw87 » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:33 pm

Hey,

Can someone give me an example of when mistake of law would negate the mens rea needed for an offense. This would be a defense under MPC.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Veyron » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:35 pm

Torts professor

"Based on these practice exams, some more terror would be useful."

FML

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby IAFG » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:35 pm

corporatelaw87 wrote:Hey,

Can someone give me an example of when mistake of law would negate the mens rea needed for an offense. This would be a defense under MPC.

tax

corporatelaw87
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:26 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby corporatelaw87 » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:39 pm

IAFG wrote:
corporatelaw87 wrote:Hey,

Can someone give me an example of when mistake of law would negate the mens rea needed for an offense. This would be a defense under MPC.

tax


Are you referring to that case when that guy said he didn't know his wages were taxable? I thought that case seemed like a stretch because a reasonable person would know that if he is making a certain amount of money, that it is taxed.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kalvano » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:42 pm

corporatelaw87 wrote:Hey,

Can someone give me an example of when mistake of law would negate the mens rea needed for an offense. This would be a defense under MPC.


I think typically, a mistake of law will not be a defense. A mistake of fact can be.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby IAFG » Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:09 pm

corporatelaw87 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
corporatelaw87 wrote:Hey,

Can someone give me an example of when mistake of law would negate the mens rea needed for an offense. This would be a defense under MPC.

tax


Are you referring to that case when that guy said he didn't know his wages were taxable? I thought that case seemed like a stretch because a reasonable person would know that if he is making a certain amount of money, that it is taxed.

what i got out of that discussion is that there is a statute that makes mistake of law a defense for federal taxes

also, when you accept a statement made by an official

User avatar
goosey
Posts: 1543
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:48 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby goosey » Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:43 pm

kalvano wrote:
corporatelaw87 wrote:Hey,

Can someone give me an example of when mistake of law would negate the mens rea needed for an offense. This would be a defense under MPC.


I think typically, a mistake of law will not be a defense. A mistake of fact can be.


kalvano, thats incorrect

under the mpc mistake of law and mistake of fact operate the same way, and they are both a defense if they negate the mens rea. a mistake of law would negate the mens rea if, for example, the law says that you have to do something knowing you are breaking the law...so a good example is tax law, where they made it hard to simply get convicted for a tax-related crime as a lay person bc the laws are sooo complicated and blah, so you have to KNOW you're doing something illegal in order to be convicted of such crimes (otherwise everyone and their mother would be getting convicted bc they just didnt know what they were doing was wrong)...if you didn't know it was illegal, the mens rea is negated and its a defense..the law would look like this: it is an offense to knowingly violate the law while doing x.

User avatar
grrrstick
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:58 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby grrrstick » Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:33 pm

goosey wrote:
kalvano wrote:
corporatelaw87 wrote:Hey,

Can someone give me an example of when mistake of law would negate the mens rea needed for an offense. This would be a defense under MPC.


I think typically, a mistake of law will not be a defense. A mistake of fact can be.


kalvano, thats incorrect

under the mpc mistake of law and mistake of fact operate the same way, and they are both a defense if they negate the mens rea. a mistake of law would negate the mens rea if, for example, the law says that you have to do something knowing you are breaking the law...so a good example is tax law, where they made it hard to simply get convicted for a tax-related crime as a lay person bc the laws are sooo complicated and blah, so you have to KNOW you're doing something illegal in order to be convicted of such crimes (otherwise everyone and their mother would be getting convicted bc they just didnt know what they were doing was wrong)...if you didn't know it was illegal, the mens rea is negated and its a defense..the law would look like this: it is an offense to knowingly violate the law while doing x.


You arrive at something like the right answer, but with skewed reasoning.

MPC § 2.04(1)(a) – Mistake of law is a defense when it negatives culpability for material element – This does not conflict with 2.02(9) because 2.02(9) refers only to law as determining elements of conduct charged, not the law itself. The only exceptions are if the law itself provides for it, as in tax law, or in reasonable reliance.

Edit: There are theoretically collateral law defenses as well, but this is unclear within common law and the MPC.

LogosEther
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:43 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby LogosEther » Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:38 pm

grrrstick wrote:
goosey wrote:
kalvano wrote:
corporatelaw87 wrote:Hey,

Can someone give me an example of when mistake of law would negate the mens rea needed for an offense. This would be a defense under MPC.


I think typically, a mistake of law will not be a defense. A mistake of fact can be.


kalvano, thats incorrect

under the mpc mistake of law and mistake of fact operate the same way, and they are both a defense if they negate the mens rea. a mistake of law would negate the mens rea if, for example, the law says that you have to do something knowing you are breaking the law...so a good example is tax law, where they made it hard to simply get convicted for a tax-related crime as a lay person bc the laws are sooo complicated and blah, so you have to KNOW you're doing something illegal in order to be convicted of such crimes (otherwise everyone and their mother would be getting convicted bc they just didnt know what they were doing was wrong)...if you didn't know it was illegal, the mens rea is negated and its a defense..the law would look like this: it is an offense to knowingly violate the law while doing x.


You arrive at something like the right answer, but with skewed reasoning.

MPC § 2.04(1)(a) – Mistake of law is a defense when it negatives culpability for material element – This does not conflict with 2.02(9) because 2.02(9) refers only to law as determining elements of conduct charged, not the law itself. The only exceptions are if the law itself provides for it, as in tax law, or in reasonable reliance.

Edit: There are theoretically collateral law defenses as well, but this is unclear within common law and the MPC.


Well just to be clear, it's not a defense when the criminal misinterprets the law. Example:

Statute says "Stealing a cat is a class A felony, punishable by death." Guy steals a jaguar, thinking to himself, "a jaguar is not a cat, so I'll be good."

Not a defense.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7249
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby beach_terror » Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:41 pm

LogosEther wrote:Well just to be clear, it's not a defense when the criminal misinterprets the law. Example:

Statute says "Stealing a cat is a class A felony, punishable by death." Guy steals a jaguar, thinking to himself, "a jaguar is not a cat, so I'll be good."

Not a defense.

Defense argument: stealing a jaguar is fucking badass, so he should be acquitted.

Geist13
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Geist13 » Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:05 pm

corporatelaw87 wrote:Hey,

Can someone give me an example of when mistake of law would negate the mens rea needed for an offense. This would be a defense under MPC.


There are three main exceptions to the common law rule that there is no defense for mistake of law.

1. Reasonable reliance on an official statement or interpretation of the law
2. Under the Lambert Principle: Lambert states that a D. can make a mistake of law defense to certain statutes on a constitutional basis. The court ruled the there is a constitutional requirement of knowledge for certain types of statutes. There are three factors to determine whether a statute qualifies under lambert: a) the statute is a status offense b) the statute is an omission offense and c) the statute is a malum prohibitum rather than a malum per se. In order to allow for a mistake of law defense, the statute will most likely need to meet all three elements.
3. For specific intent crimes (not strict liability or general intent crimes), if D. committed the offense based on his ignorance of the existence of a different law, he may be allowed a mistake-of-different-law defense.

The MPC basically follows these same rules. The biggest difference is that the MPC does not use the Lambert principle (it was written before Lambert). In its place, the MPC uses the standard of statutes that are unpublished and therefore not capable becoming known through investigation into the law. The big difference between this and Lambert is that Lambert will apply to certain statutes that are nonetheless published. In this sense, the MPC is slightly more strict than the common law.

LogosEther
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:43 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby LogosEther » Thu Nov 11, 2010 11:59 pm

beach_terror wrote:
LogosEther wrote:Well just to be clear, it's not a defense when the criminal misinterprets the law. Example:

Statute says "Stealing a cat is a class A felony, punishable by death." Guy steals a jaguar, thinking to himself, "a jaguar is not a cat, so I'll be good."

Not a defense.

Defense argument: stealing a jaguar is fucking badass, so he should be acquitted.


Maybe. I think this really turns on if he stole the jaguar with his bare hands or if he used some sort of unimpressive technological implement.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kalvano » Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:00 am

LogosEther wrote:
beach_terror wrote:
LogosEther wrote:Well just to be clear, it's not a defense when the criminal misinterprets the law. Example:

Statute says "Stealing a cat is a class A felony, punishable by death." Guy steals a jaguar, thinking to himself, "a jaguar is not a cat, so I'll be good."

Not a defense.

Defense argument: stealing a jaguar is fucking badass, so he should be acquitted.


Maybe. I think this really turns on if he stole the jaguar with his bare hands or if he used some sort of unimpressive technological implement.



What if he got blackout drunk and broke into Mike Tyson's house and stole it?

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:50 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby clintonius » Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:40 am

Defense would be negated by his referring to the animal as "kitty."

Additionally, feeding roofies to the animal before attempting to move it is not sufficiently badass to warrant acquittal.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7249
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby beach_terror » Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:51 am

kalvano wrote:
LogosEther wrote:
beach_terror wrote:
LogosEther wrote:Well just to be clear, it's not a defense when the criminal misinterprets the law. Example:

Statute says "Stealing a cat is a class A felony, punishable by death." Guy steals a jaguar, thinking to himself, "a jaguar is not a cat, so I'll be good."

Not a defense.

Defense argument: stealing a jaguar is fucking badass, so he should be acquitted.


Maybe. I think this really turns on if he stole the jaguar with his bare hands or if he used some sort of unimpressive technological implement.



What if he got blackout drunk and broke into Mike Tyson's house and stole it?

He'd still be a badass, just an unoriginal badass. For acquittal, he needs to beat it up and force it to surrender and then leash it. I think at that point, one could argue the jaguar consented.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:50 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby clintonius » Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:55 am

He could also try this: http://i.imgur.com/Sk7a2.jpg?ref=nf

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7249
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby beach_terror » Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:02 am

clintonius wrote:He could also try this: http://i.imgur.com/Sk7a2.jpg?ref=nf

I suddenly feel like less of a man. Holy shit, that's awesome.

solidsnake
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:08 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby solidsnake » Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:18 am

Bet you all wish you read Thane's book now. Quick! There's still time!




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LawHammer, MSNbot Media, Skyline55, Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests