1L Finals: Freaking Out About Criminal Law Exam Forum

[thebookcollector]

I worked my ass off in criminal law this semester, but today during the final, there was a situation... just wanted to get the TLS wisdom on how bad I should be freaking out.

In the SOLE HYPO the professor didn't mention whether he wanted us to apply common law or the MPC or both. Naturally, I'd just try to apply both, but:

1. The word limit was draconian.
2. The statute selections CLEARLY indicated that it was a jurisdiction NOT persuaded by the MPC. (For example, they kept referring to murder as opposed to criminal homicide, they split out manslaughter into voluntary and involuntary, there was the "lawful act in an unlawful way" view of conspiracy, et cetera.)
3. In a practice exam he gave us (the only practice exam), there was a similar situation: he only gave us common law statutes. In the model answer, he never mentioned the MPC.

Just to make sure I wouldn't be penalized, I went and talked to the professor in the middle of the exam, but he wouldn't say either way and just kept telling me to read the question carefully. (I did... three times.) So I put an explanation on my answer saying that the statutes indicated the jurisdiction probably hadn't adopted MPC provisions.

Come to find out, every one of my friends put both the MPC and the common law in their answer. Now I'm freaking out. Am I worried for nothing?

[evilxs]

You probably have an honor code provision that prohibits you from talking about exam answers with each other.

There are so many good reasons for that. It is seriously over and done with. Walk away, have a beer, forget it, and study your ass off for the next exam. There is no telling what exactly the professor was looking for. Wait for grades.

No matter what do not freak out. Literally shove that shit out of your mind and push forward you have to focus on your next exam.

My study partner bombed a part of the last final and I drug her ass headfirst into studying for our next exam. You gotta keep swimming or you'll never be a shark (lawyer).

[thebookcollector]

I don't think we have that provision, but I suppose mistake of the law is no excuse if we do...

Great advice, by the way. Thanks.

[evilxs]

lmfao, nope mistake of law is not an excuse

What exam you have next?

[downstream]

"You probably have an honor code provision that prohibits you from talking about exam answers with each other. "

goodness

[Geist13]

I worked my ass off in criminal law this semester, but today during the final, there was a situation... just wanted to get the TLS wisdom on how bad I should be freaking out.

In the SOLE HYPO the professor didn't mention whether he wanted us to apply common law or the MPC or both. Naturally, I'd just try to apply both, but:

1. The word limit was draconian.
2. The statute selections CLEARLY indicated that it was a jurisdiction NOT persuaded by the MPC. (For example, they kept referring to murder as opposed to criminal homicide, they split out manslaughter into voluntary and involuntary, there was the "lawful act in an unlawful way" view of conspiracy, et cetera.)
3. In a practice exam he gave us (the only practice exam), there was a similar situation: he only gave us common law statutes. In the model answer, he never mentioned the MPC.

Just to make sure I wouldn't be penalized, I went and talked to the professor in the middle of the exam, but he wouldn't say either way and just kept telling me to read the question carefully. (I did... three times.) So I put an explanation on my answer saying that the statutes indicated the jurisdiction probably hadn't adopted MPC provisions.

Come to find out, every one of my friends put both the MPC and the common law in their answer. Now I'm freaking out. Am I worried for nothing?

a. saturday exam? f. that.

b. think about it this way. On every other question your professor instructed you to use both. Then all of a sudden he doesn't and the language of the statute indicates that you shouldn't. Given that much of criminal law is about statute interpretation, it sounds to me like you did exactly what he was looking for. At the very least you can tell yourself that to get past it and move forward.

[evilxs]

"You probably have an honor code provision that prohibits you from talking about exam answers with each other. "

goodness

Seriously, talking about an exam with other students afterwards usually is not worth it. You're either gonna feel like shit or they are. Some folks sot some issues and some folks spot others. A red herring might have you thinking you should have done something "everyone else" did but in reality is not what the professor wanted you to do. Dissecting exams is a waste of time. Walking away and leaving it behind is the best course of action until you get grades. There's no telling comparatively how he has done. And right now getting his mind in the game for the next exam is THE most important thing to do.

[ChattTNdt]

Seriously, talking about an exam with other students afterwards usually is not worth it. You're either gonna feel like shit or they are. Some folks sot some issues and some folks spot others. A red herring might have you thinking you should have done something "everyone else" did but in reality is not what the professor wanted you to do. Dissecting exams is a waste of time. Walking away and leaving it behind is the best course of action until you get grades. There's no telling comparatively how he has done. And right now getting his mind in the game for the next exam is THE most important thing to do.

This is all true. But that doesn't mean its an actual honor code provision. Professors at my school simply gave the same advice you did. A waste of time to talk about? Yes. But a violation of the honor code? Haha...no

[evilxs]

It actually is at my school. You'd be surprised what all can be hidden in the code lmao

[5ky]

Judging from the information you gave, I would say you probably answered the question correctly.

[Columbia Law]

I worked my ass off in criminal law this semester, but today during the final, there was a situation... just wanted to get the TLS wisdom on how bad I should be freaking out.

In the SOLE HYPO the professor didn't mention whether he wanted us to apply common law or the MPC or both. Naturally, I'd just try to apply both, but:

1. The word limit was draconian.
2. The statute selections CLEARLY indicated that it was a jurisdiction NOT persuaded by the MPC. (For example, they kept referring to murder as opposed to criminal homicide, they split out manslaughter into voluntary and involuntary, there was the "lawful act in an unlawful way" view of conspiracy, et cetera.)
3. In a practice exam he gave us (the only practice exam), there was a similar situation: he only gave us common law statutes. In the model answer, he never mentioned the MPC.

Just to make sure I wouldn't be penalized, I went and talked to the professor in the middle of the exam, but he wouldn't say either way and just kept telling me to read the question carefully. (I did... three times.) So I put an explanation on my answer saying that the statutes indicated the jurisdiction probably hadn't adopted MPC provisions.

Come to find out, every one of my friends put both the MPC and the common law in their answer. Now I'm freaking out. Am I worried for nothing?

WOW, people on this site are really clueless. OF COURSE you had to discuss both! Just like on Ks, you need to discuss both if there's a ball hair chance that it could be for services. In crim, ALWAYS, ALWAYS discuss both.

[20160810]

I worked my ass off in criminal law this semester, but today during the final, there was a situation... just wanted to get the TLS wisdom on how bad I should be freaking out.

In the SOLE HYPO the professor didn't mention whether he wanted us to apply common law or the MPC or both. Naturally, I'd just try to apply both, but:

1. The word limit was draconian.
2. The statute selections CLEARLY indicated that it was a jurisdiction NOT persuaded by the MPC. (For example, they kept referring to murder as opposed to criminal homicide, they split out manslaughter into voluntary and involuntary, there was the "lawful act in an unlawful way" view of conspiracy, et cetera.)
3. In a practice exam he gave us (the only practice exam), there was a similar situation: he only gave us common law statutes. In the model answer, he never mentioned the MPC.

Just to make sure I wouldn't be penalized, I went and talked to the professor in the middle of the exam, but he wouldn't say either way and just kept telling me to read the question carefully. (I did... three times.) So I put an explanation on my answer saying that the statutes indicated the jurisdiction probably hadn't adopted MPC provisions.

Come to find out, every one of my friends put both the MPC and the common law in their answer. Now I'm freaking out. Am I worried for nothing?

WOW, people on this site are really clueless. OF COURSE you had to discuss both! Just like on Ks, you need to discuss both if there's a ball hair chance that it could be for services. In crim, ALWAYS, ALWAYS discuss both.

Nah, every other question said which governed, and the question made it clear. OP's probably fine.

Besides, the MPC blows.