The difference between an A and a B

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
DaydreamBeliever
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:44 pm

The difference between an A and a B

Postby DaydreamBeliever » Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:15 pm

Whats up TLS,

As always, I would like to start by thanking the moderators of this site and the owners. This site has tremendously helped me through my first year of law school. I mention it to people all the time who are considering going to law school and some friends have actually joined.

As I prepare for my finals, I would like to ask you guys who are 2Ls and 3Ls for guidance. At this point, everyone knows the material ( or I'm assuming know enough of the material) that they can get a B on a test. However, I would like to know how I can get an A.

For example, I have my Crim Law test on Thursday.
We are using the Moskovitz book
I know the elements of the offenses and the cases. But how can I get an A as opposed to a B?
I know, it all depends on the teachers, but I believe that there is a general consensus on what to do to get an A and then writing in a style favorable to your professor would get you a high A as opposed to a low one.
What, in your opinion, can I do to stand out above the rest?

Thank you in advance.

DB

User avatar
Aberzombie1892
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:56 am

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby Aberzombie1892 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:17 pm

Unless your professor uses page/word limits, write a lot.

User avatar
uzpakalis
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:36 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby uzpakalis » Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:18 pm

You should ask your professor.

DaydreamBeliever
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:44 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby DaydreamBeliever » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:33 pm

^ LOL

Aberzombie1892 wrote:Unless your professor uses page/word limits, write a lot.


I was weary about writing too much. Under the impression that sometimes writing too much means you aren't being clear and concise with your answer, but can you be more specific as to what parts I should write a lot in, etc?

Baylan
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby Baylan » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:47 pm

DaydreamBeliever wrote:^ LOL

Aberzombie1892 wrote:Unless your professor uses page/word limits, write a lot.


I was weary about writing too much. Under the impression that sometimes writing too much means you aren't being clear and concise with your answer, but can you be more specific as to what parts I should write a lot in, etc?


I'm sure if someone did a regression analysis they'd find a correlation between answer length and grades. May not be a great correlation, but it probably exists. Would need enough data points, though.

User avatar
Ty Webb
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby Ty Webb » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:06 pm

If you're smart enough and write well enough, you can differentiate yourself by being "concise."

Chances are that you're not. Providing more analysis is a pretty consistent way to help out lazy law professors who are looking for simple ways to differentiate among 65 similarly written tests.

User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby BruceWayne » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:15 pm

Ty Webb wrote:If you're smart enough and write well enough, you can differentiate yourself by being "concise."

Chances are that you're not. Providing more analysis is a pretty consistent way to help out lazy law professors who are looking for simple ways to differentiate among 65 similarly written tests.


People heavily overdo this "smart" shit when it comes to law school in general, and especially law exams. Law school isn't a PHD program in Physics or the medical curriculum at Johns Hopkins. Frankly, with a discipline that's so subjective in terms of what one person considers to be a "good" argument might be entirely different from another person's idea, who knows what that even means in the context of law. And after having seen the exams that got the highest grades in various classes I took last semester it seems that professors really like to see: 1. As much information as possible about every single issue on their exam. I'm talking to the point where your exam ends up being 20 pages or more and 2. Their own viewpoints coming back at them in your exam.

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

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby kalvano » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:18 pm

Aberzombie1892 wrote:Unless your professor uses page/word limits, write a lot.



This.

You don't start with 100 points and lose a point for everything you say wrong, you start with 0 points and get more the more issues you hit on.

So write about everything that's related. And, if in the given facts, your analysis hits a real-world legal snag, move on and keep going. For instance, in a Torts negligence analysis, if the given facts don't support a legal duty, say so. And then say "assuming the plaintiff was able to overcome this hurdle..." and keep going with analysis. Just because in the real world the case would end, doesn't mean your exam analysis should.

Just because you write a lot doesn't mean it's wrong. But if it's a single person homicide hypo, you probably wouldn't want to write about felony murder. BUt absolutely play out all the relevant angles you spot. You can't lose points.*








* Generally - some professors do take off if your obviously spouting bullshit. But for the most part, even if you aren't getting points for something, it probably won't hurt you.

blsingindisguise
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:08 am

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby blsingindisguise » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:36 pm

The difference between an A and a B is the difference between writing one of the best answers in your class versus writing an answer that is about average for your class. That is all that can conclusively be said. HTH.

User avatar
MrPapagiorgio
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:36 am

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby MrPapagiorgio » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:45 pm

BruceWayne wrote:And after having seen the exams that got the highest grades in various classes I took last semester it seems that professors really like to see their own viewpoints coming back at them in your exam.

Isn't this TCR for nearly every instructor at every level of education? I mean, common sense would explain that a professor is less likely to tear apart an argument he agrees with than one he disagrees with based on the simple fact that he will be looking to spot weak points in that argument he disagrees with and will counter those with his vast command of his favored viewpoint.

User avatar
Cupidity
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:21 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby Cupidity » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:47 pm

Raise and dismiss losing arguments, the right answer is only worth one point. For example, in a contracts issue spotter:

B answer
"A will recover in restitution on the basis of promisory estoppel."

A answer
"A will argue that the contract is binding, B will sucessfully counter that it is void under the statute against frauds. A will respond by saying that he has a claim under promissory estoppel Rest.S.90 and will sue for expectation damages. B will claim that it was unreasonable for A to detrimentally rely on his promise, but given the facts, it is likely a court will find A's reliance reasonable. (Cite to similar case) B will likely defeat A's claim for expectation damages because they are too difficult to ascertain. (Cite to Kearsarge or something) A cannot claim reliance damages because on the facts there are none. Therefore, A will seek restitution of the amount paid and will likely recover.

DaydreamBeliever
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:44 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby DaydreamBeliever » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:52 pm

Cupidity wrote:Raise and dismiss losing arguments, the right answer is only worth one point. For example, in a contracts issue spotter:

B answer
"A will recover in restitution on the basis of promisory estoppel."

A answer
"A will argue that the contract is binding, B will sucessfully counter that it is void under the statute against frauds. A will respond by saying that he has a claim under promissory estoppel Rest.S.90 and will sue for expectation damages. B will claim that it was unreasonable for A to detrimentally rely on his promise, but given the facts, it is likely a court will find A's reliance reasonable. (Cite to similar case) B will likely defeat A's claim for expectation damages because they are too difficult to ascertain. (Cite to Kearsarge or something) A cannot claim reliance damages because on the facts there are none. Therefore, A will seek restitution of the amount paid and will likely recover.


Very thorough. Thank you for taking the time to do this.


Basically, instead of deciding in my head what will and won't work. Jot everything down. Raise a reasonable argument then dismiss it and explain why. Thank you for that.

Any advice as to how I would effectively argue this in criminal law?

User avatar
Cupidity
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:21 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby Cupidity » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:55 pm

DaydreamBeliever wrote:
Cupidity wrote:Raise and dismiss losing arguments, the right answer is only worth one point. For example, in a contracts issue spotter:

B answer
"A will recover in restitution on the basis of promisory estoppel."

A answer
"A will argue that the contract is binding, B will sucessfully counter that it is void under the statute against frauds. A will respond by saying that he has a claim under promissory estoppel Rest.S.90 and will sue for expectation damages. B will claim that it was unreasonable for A to detrimentally rely on his promise, but given the facts, it is likely a court will find A's reliance reasonable. (Cite to similar case) B will likely defeat A's claim for expectation damages because they are too difficult to ascertain. (Cite to Kearsarge or something) A cannot claim reliance damages because on the facts there are none. Therefore, A will seek restitution of the amount paid and will likely recover.


Very thorough. Thank you for taking the time to do this.


Basically, instead of deciding in my head what will and won't work. Jot everything down. Raise a reasonable argument then dismiss it and explain why. Thank you for that.

Any advice as to how I would effectively argue this in criminal law?


Alas, I am a lowly 1L and Crim Law is in a few weeks, but I imagine it will be the same. A professor is unlikely to give an exam where there aren't issues on both side, I can imagine the K's method of: Expectation>Reliance>Restitution could apply to an open ended fact patter in criminal law with a 1st Degree Murder>Negligent Homicide > Voluntary Manslaughter > Excused > Justified > Innocent

User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby BruceWayne » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:56 pm

MrPapagiorgio wrote:
BruceWayne wrote:And after having seen the exams that got the highest grades in various classes I took last semester it seems that professors really like to see their own viewpoints coming back at them in your exam.

Isn't this TCR for nearly every instructor at every level of education? I mean, common sense would explain that a professor is less likely to tear apart an argument he agrees with than one he disagrees with based on the simple fact that he will be looking to spot weak points in that argument he disagrees with and will counter those with his vast command of his favored viewpoint.


I'm including the non liberal arts disciplines. In other words the one's where something is either right or wrong. If your calculus professor's "view" is that the derivative of 5x raised to the 3x + 1 is something other than 15x raised to the 3x then he should be fired. A medical school professor's "views" don't come into play when he's teaching a student the proper way to perform a triple bypass.


DaydreamBeliever wrote:Very thorough. Thank you for taking the time to do this.


Basically, instead of deciding in my head what will and won't work. Jot everything down. Raise a reasonable argument then dismiss it and explain why. Thank you for that.

Any advice as to how I would effectively argue this in criminal law?


Note how this increases your length automatically.

User avatar
Cupidity
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:21 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby Cupidity » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:05 pm

Also remember to "Apply law to fact," don't just state the rule but make compelling arguments on each issue. For example, if you are dealing with a rape statute that requires "force" and "forcible resistance" you can be sure there are both facts and legal standards that support opposite conclusions. One could argue, "there was no force because she did not offer physical resistance that was overcome," we would then argue that "given the totality of the circumstances, she was not required to offer resistance because she had a reasonable apprehension that harm would result." He would argue "His force was insufficient" and she would argue that "modern approaches like MTS only require the force necessary to complete the act" or "modern statutes such as new jersey recognize a broader definition of force that encompases psychological force."

random5483
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby random5483 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:29 pm

I am only a 1L, but after taking Fall exams, I feel qualified to comment.


1. Organize your paper. Use solid headings and make it easy to read. Professor's grade many paper's and the easier time they have understanding what you say, the better.
2. Remember to analyze. Try to argue both sides of a position. In crim, make sure you state alternate rules (majority, minority, MPC, state, anything else your professor gave you. Don't forget to discuss defenses. Also, in Crim don't forget to look for conspiracy/attempt/solicitation/accomplice liability.
3. The more you write the better (usually).
4. Look at prior model exams. What is your professor looking for? Use the model answers to structure your possible answers, but most model answers have flaws, so try to write even better answers.




Crim Specific Advice: I took crim last semester and I was 1 point shy of booking the class. My crim professor focused a lot on rules, so my analysis for crim was a lot shorter than for some of my other classes. However, I brought up every variant/rule that applied and analyzed for it. Raise as many issues as you can, apply the majority rule to come up with your conclusion, but discuss what would happen under the other rules.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:31 pm

DaydreamBeliever wrote:Basically, instead of deciding in my head what will and won't work. Jot everything down. Raise a reasonable argument then dismiss it and explain why. Thank you for that.

This pretty much covers it. As I've described it before: Apply law to facts. Write out your thought process, what facts you identify as relevant, and how you'd apply the law to it. Write out the parts that show what law wouldn't work, too, as Cupidity illustrated. Prioritize your answer so that you're answering the most relevant points, but just keep applying the law to facts, on paper. This is essentially putting your thought process down on paper, with some kind of organization.

(By "organization" I mean making your argument basically convey "I'm explaining it in this order for a reason, the law requires both A and B, so first I'll explain how A could be shown, and then how B could be shown, explaining what happens after both A and B are and aren't shown."

DaydreamBeliever wrote:Any advice as to how I would effectively argue this in criminal law?

Using a purely invented law and jurisdiction on purpose (as law professors themselves are sometimes wont to do):

Sample Criminal Law Answer wrote:In order to convict Gaeta of aggravated tomfoolery, the Capricorn City prosecutor must show that Gaeta commit all the mens rea and actus reus elements of the crime. There is no need to analyze the mens rea if they cannot show he commit the physical act, so that will be analyzed first.

Aggravated tomfoolery, under the Capricorn City Penal Code, is defined as "a person who willfully engages in embarrassing, humiliating, or otherwise self-mocking conduct in a public place". The court in People v. Adama established that the statute is intended to cover "conduct which might be deemed acceptable while inebriated but considered unacceptable or humiliating when sober".

The prosecutor will likely argue that Gaeta's loud off-key singing of "Livin' La Vida Loca" to his unrequited love interest was the type of conduct that a reasonable person would have been embarrassed to commit while sober, although Gaeta will respond by arguing that he subjectively is not embarrassed by his off-key singing. However, the court in Adama applied an objective standard and said that the totality of the circumstances were to be considered. The prosecutor will likely argue that any reasonable person would be embarrassed by not only such off-key singing but performing it in a crowded venue full of his coworkers and supervisors, and the court here is likely to accept the prosecutor's argument instead of Gaeta's. Regarding the conduct occurring in a public place, Gaeta will likely concede that the city hall cafeteria during a crowded lunch is sufficiently "public". Therefore, the prosecutor will likely be able to show all the actus reus elements of the crime occurred.

The prosecutor's ability to satisfy the mens rea requirement will depend on how the court defines "willfully". If Capricorn is a state that has adopted the Model Penal Code, then "willfully" is defined as "knowledge", meaning that the defendant possesses an awareness of the nature of the conduct. Gaeta's comments to diners at the city hall cafeteria to join in, and the witnesses who saw him tell police he was "just getting started" as he was dragged off, support the prosecutor's argument that Gaeta was aware of the conduct he was engaged in at the time he was committing it. Gaeta may argue that he was not aware that his off-key singing was so bad as to be criminal, but the MPC definition of knowledge or wilfullnes does not require that the defendant knows that his conduct violates the criminal law, only that he knows that he is committing the conduct in question. Thus, in an MPC state the prosecutor would be able to show Gaeta possessed the requisite wilfullness to find him guilty of aggravated tomfoolery.

If Capricorn is a common-law jurisdiction, then the meaning of "willful" depends on case law in the state. Since there are no Capricorn cases explicitly defining the scope of "willful", the parties will likely cite the following cases in other states that have defined "wilfull" in those states' similar aggravated tomfoolery statutes...

And so on and so forth.

User avatar
mbusch22
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:08 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby mbusch22 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:36 pm

random5483 wrote:I am only a 1L, but after taking Fall exams, I feel qualified to comment.


1. Organize your paper. Use solid headings and make it easy to read. Professor's grade many paper's and the easier time they have understanding what you say, the better.
2. Remember to analyze. Try to argue both sides of a position. In crim, make sure you state alternate rules (majority, minority, MPC, state, anything else your professor gave you. Don't forget to discuss defenses. Also, in Crim don't forget to look for conspiracy/attempt/solicitation/accomplice liability.
3. The more you write the better (usually).
4. Look at prior model exams. What is your professor looking for? Use the model answers to structure your possible answers, but most model answers have flaws, so try to write even better answers.




Crim Specific Advice: I took crim last semester and I was 1 point shy of booking the class. My crim professor focused a lot on rules, so my analysis for crim was a lot shorter than for some of my other classes. However, I brought up every variant/rule that applied and analyzed for it. Raise as many issues as you can, apply the majority rule to come up with your conclusion, but discuss what would happen under the other rules.


TTICR. I disliked (the subject of) crim in general, but loved writing the exam, because it was so easy to rack up tons and tons of issues with everything random5483 mentioned up there in #2.

I didn't read all of the posts so I'm not sure if someone mentioned this, but utilize every single fact you possibly can. Likely every sentence is there for a reason, so find a way to make an argument out of all of them. NITPICK every fact.

DaydreamBeliever
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:44 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby DaydreamBeliever » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:57 pm

Thank you everyone. I sincerely appreciate it.

My professor is using the Moskovitz book and so has an imaginary jurisdiction known as the Moskovitz jurisdiction where we make our arguments based on what was argued in the book.

She only expects us to look to MPC to establish mens rea for specific/general intent crimes. She is a bit aloof but I'm sure a lot of professors are.

Thank you.

random5483
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby random5483 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:15 am

DaydreamBeliever wrote:Thank you everyone. I sincerely appreciate it.

My professor is using the Moskovitz book and so has an imaginary jurisdiction known as the Moskovitz jurisdiction where we make our arguments based on what was argued in the book.

She only expects us to look to MPC to establish mens rea for specific/general intent crimes. She is a bit aloof but I'm sure a lot of professors are.

Thank you.



Not sure what you mean by just MPC to establish mens rea. Mens rea is just the state of mind, and the MPC has its own definitions for intent (ex. purposely or knowingly), recklessness, etc. However, the elements of a crime are not all tied to the mens rea. Are you certain your professor only wants you to know the MPC elements for each crime? Most crim law professors I know/have heard of require you to remember multiple versions of the rules.


Basically, be sure that your professor truly only wants you to analyze the MPC rules. Because, when she said mens rea from the MPC, she very likely meant the purposely/knowingly/recklessly/negligently standard used by the MPC.

DaydreamBeliever
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:44 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby DaydreamBeliever » Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:20 am

random5483 wrote:
DaydreamBeliever wrote:Thank you everyone. I sincerely appreciate it.

My professor is using the Moskovitz book and so has an imaginary jurisdiction known as the Moskovitz jurisdiction where we make our arguments based on what was argued in the book.

She only expects us to look to MPC to establish mens rea for specific/general intent crimes. She is a bit aloof but I'm sure a lot of professors are.

Thank you.



Not sure what you mean by just MPC to establish mens rea. Mens rea is just the state of mind, and the MPC has its own definitions for intent (ex. purposely or knowingly), recklessness, etc. However, the elements of a crime are not all tied to the mens rea. Are you certain your professor only wants you to know the MPC elements for each crime? Most crim law professors I know/have heard of require you to remember multiple versions of the rules.


Basically, be sure that your professor truly only wants you to analyze the MPC rules. Because, when she said mens rea from the MPC, she very likely meant the purposely/knowingly/recklessly/negligently standard used by the MPC.


Strange woman.

Basically said use MPC to prove mens rea IE
prove specific intent crimes by showing that df purposely or knowingly committed the offense and prove general intent crimes by showing defendant recklessly or negligently committed the offense. She said, the ability to prove a higher MPC mens rea automatically proves a lower mens reas.

Example

Trespassory
Taking
Carrying Away
Personal Property
Of Another
W/ Intent to Permanently Deprive

This is the common law definition of larceny and the only thing we are required to know for her exam. However, she expects us to show the mens rea (intent to permanently deprive) by using the facts to show Df acted purposely or knowingly in regards to the outcome.

random5483
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby random5483 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:36 am

DaydreamBeliever wrote:
random5483 wrote:
DaydreamBeliever wrote:Thank you everyone. I sincerely appreciate it.

My professor is using the Moskovitz book and so has an imaginary jurisdiction known as the Moskovitz jurisdiction where we make our arguments based on what was argued in the book.

She only expects us to look to MPC to establish mens rea for specific/general intent crimes. She is a bit aloof but I'm sure a lot of professors are.

Thank you.



Not sure what you mean by just MPC to establish mens rea. Mens rea is just the state of mind, and the MPC has its own definitions for intent (ex. purposely or knowingly), recklessness, etc. However, the elements of a crime are not all tied to the mens rea. Are you certain your professor only wants you to know the MPC elements for each crime? Most crim law professors I know/have heard of require you to remember multiple versions of the rules.


Basically, be sure that your professor truly only wants you to analyze the MPC rules. Because, when she said mens rea from the MPC, she very likely meant the purposely/knowingly/recklessly/negligently standard used by the MPC.


Strange woman.

Basically said use MPC to prove mens rea IE
prove specific intent crimes by showing that df purposely or knowingly committed the offense and prove general intent crimes by showing defendant recklessly or negligently committed the offense. She said, the ability to prove a higher MPC mens rea automatically proves a lower mens reas.

Example

Trespassory
Taking
Carrying Away
Personal Property
Of Another
W/ Intent to Permanently Deprive

This is the common law definition of larceny and the only thing we are required to know for her exam. However, she expects us to show the mens rea (intent to permanently deprive) by using the facts to show Df acted purposely or knowingly in regards to the outcome.



First off, establishing purposely is sufficient to show any mental state below it. No one contests that. However.....

By rule variants I am taking about how each element is interpreted.
Ex.
1. What is a carrying away element? At common law slight movement was enough, but the item had to be moved. However, the majority and MPC rules do not require the object to be moved.
2. Personal Property? Common law did not allow for larceny of real property. Modern Majority/MPC allow for non-movables such as realty to fall under larceny.
3. Intent to Permanently Deprive? Continuing trespass doctrine? Claim of right? Common law allowed claim of right as a defense to this element. Modern majority rejects claim of right defense when force, violence or weapons used. Modern minority allows defense if no force used. How about sale back to owner, reward for personal property, or return for refund situations?
4. How about larceny variations? Embezzlement, larceny by trick, and false pretenses?


The above is just a rough list of things to consider. Crim law was from last semester. But my point is usually crim profs want you to analyze various rules (majority, minority, and MPC at a minimum). Maybe your prof is different. But just don't confuse MPC mens rea requirements to mean that you only need to analyze one set of rules for a given crime.

DaydreamBeliever
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:44 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby DaydreamBeliever » Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:46 am

random5483 wrote:
DaydreamBeliever wrote:
random5483 wrote:
DaydreamBeliever wrote:Thank you everyone. I sincerely appreciate it.

My professor is using the Moskovitz book and so has an imaginary jurisdiction known as the Moskovitz jurisdiction where we make our arguments based on what was argued in the book.

She only expects us to look to MPC to establish mens rea for specific/general intent crimes. She is a bit aloof but I'm sure a lot of professors are.

Thank you.



Not sure what you mean by just MPC to establish mens rea. Mens rea is just the state of mind, and the MPC has its own definitions for intent (ex. purposely or knowingly), recklessness, etc. However, the elements of a crime are not all tied to the mens rea. Are you certain your professor only wants you to know the MPC elements for each crime? Most crim law professors I know/have heard of require you to remember multiple versions of the rules.


Basically, be sure that your professor truly only wants you to analyze the MPC rules. Because, when she said mens rea from the MPC, she very likely meant the purposely/knowingly/recklessly/negligently standard used by the MPC.


Strange woman.

Basically said use MPC to prove mens rea IE
prove specific intent crimes by showing that df purposely or knowingly committed the offense and prove general intent crimes by showing defendant recklessly or negligently committed the offense. She said, the ability to prove a higher MPC mens rea automatically proves a lower mens reas.

Example

Trespassory
Taking
Carrying Away
Personal Property
Of Another
W/ Intent to Permanently Deprive

This is the common law definition of larceny and the only thing we are required to know for her exam. However, she expects us to show the mens rea (intent to permanently deprive) by using the facts to show Df acted purposely or knowingly in regards to the outcome.



First off, establishing purposely is sufficient to show any mental state below it. No one contests that. However.....

By rule variants I am taking about how each element is interpreted.
Ex.
1. What is a carrying away element? At common law slight movement was enough, but the item had to be moved. However, the majority and MPC rules do not require the object to be moved.
2. Personal Property? Common law did not allow for larceny of real property. Modern Majority/MPC allow for non-movables such as realty to fall under larceny.
3. Intent to Permanently Deprive? Continuing trespass doctrine? Claim of right? Common law allowed claim of right as a defense to this element. Modern majority rejects claim of right defense when force, violence or weapons used. Modern minority allows defense if no force used. How about sale back to owner, reward for personal property, or return for refund situations?
4. How about larceny variations? Embezzlement, larceny by trick, and false pretenses?


The above is just a rough list of things to consider. Crim law was from last semester. But my point is usually crim profs want you to analyze various rules (majority, minority, and MPC at a minimum). Maybe your prof is different. But just don't confuse MPC mens rea requirements to mean that you only need to analyze one set of rules for a given crime.

Wow. Okay. I see.

Thanks for pointing that out. She has definitely spoken on the above mentioned issues, but I was unsure if I would need to mention them on the exam. But I definitely will. Thank you.

Any advice as to felony murder and even if the murder occurred as a result of the victim or a police man shooting, how one can be found guilty of depraved heart murder under vicarious liability. That is a bit confusing to me.

random5483
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby random5483 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:59 am

Accomplice liability for felony murder has three variants: 1) The common law rule, 2) The Agency Rule (Majority), and 3) The Redline Rule (Minority). Some supplements call the redline rule the majority position. The common law rule makes all killings done during the felony fall under the felony murder rule (FMR). The redline rule makes the felons culpable of all murders unless justified (justification defense). The Agency rule makes the felon culpable of all murders done by the felons (agents of the felons are basically the felons). Under the Agency rule, the felons are not guilty because the cop was not on their team. Under the redline rule, if the cop was justified, they are not guilty; however, if the cop was not justified in killing someone, they are guilty. Under the common law rule, they are guilty period. Note, that the other FMR requirements must be met for guilt.

Not sure what you mean by depraved heart and vicarious liability. Vicarious liability is more pertinent to FMR than depraved heart. Depraved heart needs a showing of extreme recklessness (malignant or depraved heart) on the part of the killer. Are you talking about accomplice liability for depraved heart murders? If so, an FMR analysis might be more accurate. You could argue depraved heart murder by one felon and accomplice liability for the accomplices, but you run into mental state issues since accomplice liability requires intent. However, if I recall right some versions of the accomplice liability rule allow you to find accomplice liability through a depraved heart murder (but I digress from the point here).

User avatar
YourCaptain
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: The difference between an A and a B

Postby YourCaptain » Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:40 am

The exams I did the best on I used a stream of consciousness approach as to my analysis -

"This looks like X, but X requires A, B, C, D, E. Well, Jimmy has A, B, C, D. Jimmy will argue that X is satisfied because the rule requires E only as a slight precaution, where A and B are the main components. Sally will say no, because otherwise here interest isn't protected, and that E is a proper..." etc.

I genuinely thought of a lot of Getting to Maybe is kind of obvious and extraneous (his section on policy was just absurd) but the part where he states "put your agony on the paper so that your professor knows what you're wrestling with" is pretty valuable.

It's like showing your work in algebra, except your professor cares significantly less about the 'right' answer and much more about your work, because that ultimately shows what you know.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: heresthesitch and 6 guests