OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

[Nova]

All of my exams so far have been closed book, with the exception of one in which we could take in an outline. My Con Law exam this semester lets us bring in a single sheet, double sided of info. For those of you who have had similar limitations, how do you suggest that I organize it?

Try using 2 Columns. They save a lot of space.

Of course, set the margins to like .3 on all sides & use the smallest font you can efficiently read (6.5?)

[smaug_]

In response to your ninja edit, I'm not sure if you're talking about reckless endangerment or depraved heart murder (they normally use the same language) and I'm doubly unsure as to what either has to do with malice aforethought. If you're arguing for first degree murder in a jurisdiction that requires malice aforethought, that type of intentionality is going to differ from the recklessness standard normally used for reckless endangerment or depraved heart murder, if that makes sense.

I have no clue what the MPC says about that stuff. (murder one/malice aforethought is antiquated common law, no?)

[gaud]

All of my exams so far have been closed book, with the exception of one in which we could take in an outline. My Con Law exam this semester lets us bring in a single sheet, double sided of info. For those of you who have had similar limitations, how do you suggest that I organize it?

Try using 2 Columns. They save a lot of space.

Of course, set the margins to like .3 on all sides & use the smallest font you can efficiently read (6.5?)

I do both. Very credited.

[Nova]

Does death alway have to be objectively likely for extreme recklessness to meet the standard of malice aforethought?

or are jurisdicitons split?

or am I misunderstanding, and it never has to be objectively likely?

[gaud]

In response to your ninja edit, I'm not sure if you're talking about reckless endangerment or depraved heart murder (they normally use the same language) and I'm doubly unsure as to what either has to do with malice aforethought. If you're arguing for first degree murder in a jurisdiction that requires malice aforethought, that type of intentionality is going to differ from the recklessness standard normally used for reckless endangerment or depraved heart murder, if that makes sense.

I have no clue what the MPC says about that stuff. (murder one/malice aforethought is antiquated common law, no?)

Doesn't it go like murder under common law > killing with malice aforethought > which is intent to kill, intent grievous bodily harm, depraved heart, and felony murder. Aren't they all considered a form of malice aforethought?

[dannynoonan87]

In response to your ninja edit, I'm not sure if you're talking about reckless endangerment or depraved heart murder (they normally use the same language) and I'm doubly unsure as to what either has to do with malice aforethought. If you're arguing for first degree murder in a jurisdiction that requires malice aforethought, that type of intentionality is going to differ from the recklessness standard normally used for reckless endangerment or depraved heart murder, if that makes sense.

I have no clue what the MPC says about that stuff. (murder one/malice aforethought is antiquated common law, no?)

malice aforethought is antiquated common law and has nothing to do with the MPC

[Birdnals]

Does death alway have to be objectively likely for extreme recklessness to meet the standard of malice aforethought?

or are jurisdicitons split?

or am I misunderstanding, and it never has to be objectively likely?

Are you talking MPC or common law?

They both have depraved indifference murder, so I guess it doesn't matter.

But it has to be more than regular recklessness for it to cover malice aforethought under the common law. It's the difference between driving a car while tired and killing somebody and going into a crowded room, closing your eyes, and firing a gun blindly. Both are reckless, but only one would be reckless enough to be bumped up to murder.

[Nova]

AFAIK,

Malice Aforethought at common law is the intentional infliction of death/serious bodilly harm OR acting with consicous disregard for the substatial + unjustifiable risk to human life manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

And the difference between reckless invol MS and murder is the degree of risk + indifference.

but im unsure if the risk of death has to be likely, or if a 33% or something chance of death, still very high, would count.

[Blumpbeef]

In response to your ninja edit, I'm not sure if you're talking about reckless endangerment or depraved heart murder (they normally use the same language) and I'm doubly unsure as to what either has to do with malice aforethought. If you're arguing for first degree murder in a jurisdiction that requires malice aforethought, that type of intentionality is going to differ from the recklessness standard normally used for reckless endangerment or depraved heart murder, if that makes sense.

I have no clue what the MPC says about that stuff. (murder one/malice aforethought is antiquated common law, no?)

Doesn't it go like murder under common law > killing with malice aforethought > which is intent to kill, intent grievous bodily harm, depraved heart, and felony murder. Aren't they all considered a form of malice aforethought?

Yes

[gaud]

In response to your ninja edit, I'm not sure if you're talking about reckless endangerment or depraved heart murder (they normally use the same language) and I'm doubly unsure as to what either has to do with malice aforethought. If you're arguing for first degree murder in a jurisdiction that requires malice aforethought, that type of intentionality is going to differ from the recklessness standard normally used for reckless endangerment or depraved heart murder, if that makes sense.

I have no clue what the MPC says about that stuff. (murder one/malice aforethought is antiquated common law, no?)

Doesn't it go like murder under common law > killing with malice aforethought > which is intent to kill, intent grievous bodily harm, depraved heart, and felony murder. Aren't they all considered a form of malice aforethought?

Yes

K good lol

[smaug_]

but im unsure if the risk of death has to be likely, of if a 33% or something chance of death, still very high, would count.

I mean, you're going to be looking for something evincing a depraved indifference to human life, right? I don't think the chance is as important as the way the action is performed.

Maybe I'm totally wrong (like I was about the common law thing, lol) but the mens rea requirement here is the same for either reckless endangerment or for DHM, the only difference being whether or not it succeeds. So, you can argue it in either direction: firing into a crowd? Firing above a crowd? (this wasn't enough in a case we read) Releasing a tiger?

Considering the mens rea should be "recklessly" duder would have to be aware and consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk/it must be a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. You have enough words there to interpret it in both directions and add some points.

[Tiago Splitter]

One can imagine a situation like a really drunk driver weaving in and out of traffic on a dangerous road still being considered murder even though the chance of someone dying is pretty low.

[Nova]

I mean, you're going to be looking for something evincing a depraved indifference to human life, right? I don't think the chance is as important as the way the action is performed.

One can imagine a situation like a really drunk driver weaving in and out of traffic on a dangerous road still being considered murder even though the chance of someone dying is pretty low.

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!

[Bronck]

Dressler lays out homicide pretty well:

Murder = killing of a human being by another human being w/ malice

• Malice = (1) intention to kill a human being; (2) intention to inflict grievous bodily harm on another; (3) extremely reckless disregard for value of human-life (“depraved heart”); (4) intention to commit a felony during the commission or attempted commission of which death results (“felony murder”)

Depraved Heart = “Extremely” reckless homicide (as opposed to mere ‘recklessness’ or ‘criminal negligence’ for manslaughter)

• Involves risk-taking serious enough that the actor “as good as” intended to kill his victim and displayed unwillingness to prefer the life of another person to his own objectives
  e.g.,: intentionally shoots gun into occupied room; beating person to death; plays Russian roulette, and intentionally firing it another person, killing her (People v. Roe); parent fails to feed [omission] infant for 2 weeks (People v. Burden); D voluntarily intoxicated, driving well above legal limit, and swerving in-and-out of lanes (US v. Fleming)

Manslaughter = unlawful killing that doesn’t involve malice: (1) intentional killing committed in “heat of passion” as result of adequate provocation; (2) homicide committed in criminally negligent manner; (3) misdemeanor-manslaughter

[stillwater]

So it begins...

[chiguy99]

So property exam has really crept up on me and needless to say ... unprepared. Got the concepts down pretty good, but fumbling with checklist. Anyone out there want to throw a bone to a lonely soul? If it makes you feel more compassionate, you are at a better school than me and I will likely be dwarfed in debt and likely turning to prostitution to stay afloat

[laxbrah420]

Does death alway have to be objectively likely for extreme recklessness to meet the standard of malice aforethought?

or are jurisdicitons split?

or am I misunderstanding, and it never has to be objectively likely?

Are you talking MPC or common law?

They both have depraved indifference murder, so I guess it doesn't matter.

But it has to be more than regular recklessness for it to cover malice aforethought under the common law. It's the difference between driving a car while tired and killing somebody and going into a crowded room, closing your eyes, and firing a gun blindly. Both are reckless, but only one would be reckless enough to be bumped up to murder.

Same at mpc. Reckless=msl, reckless with extreme indifference for human life = murder.

[gaud]

So property exam has really crept up on me and needless to say ... unprepared. Got the concepts down pretty good, but fumbling with checklist. Anyone out there want to throw a bone to a lonely soul? If it makes you feel more compassionate, you are at a better school than me and I will likely be dwarfed in debt and likely turning to prostitution to stay afloat

I've got one I'm working on. Could send you what I've got so far; it's kinda rough, but it could give you an easier start.

PM me your email.

[JamMasterJ]

anyone have any sort of flowchart-y type thing for admin/LRS?

[mephistopheles]

sorry about the delay, bros. my property final in the morning has been taking up SO much time.

i just emailed out the some conlaw shit. hopefully it helps.

[gaud]

ty ty

[SportsFan]

Yep, I officially think I'm going insane. Had two weird dreams last night (or maybe they were connected, I forget). TLS was in one, and the other was about a girl in my section turning into a lesbian. Fucking finals...

[Bronck]

Worth it to read other sections of Chem on EPC/DPC to get a feel for how the approach is used on individual rights topics we didn't cover?

Or is it more likely that the professor is just going to create a new hypothetical on the rights / minorities we discussed?

[Danger Zone]

Worth it to read other sections of Chem on EPC/DPC to get a feel for how the approach is used on individual rights topics we didn't cover?

Or is it more likely that the professor is just going to create a new hypothetical on the rights / minorities we discussed?

Looking at my prof's old exams, it looks like he likes for students to think outside the box. He'll give facts similar to a S Ct. case that we didn't read, so knowing other applications is always helpful.

[Tom Joad]