KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby northwood » Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:26 pm

so once you are arraigned, 6th controls then??

Pokemon
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:58 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby Pokemon » Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:27 pm

northwood wrote:so once you are arraigned, 6th controls then??



Do you own studying you free-riding lazy vagrant!!!!!!







just joking; these questions are pretty helpful
Last edited by Pokemon on Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bdubs
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby bdubs » Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:27 pm

northwood wrote:so once you are arraigned, 6th controls then??


Yes, any interrogation after arraignment you have a right to presence of counsel. Also counsel needs to be present at "critical junctures" or something like that (line ups, hearings, etc.)

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby northwood » Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:29 pm

Pokemon wrote:
northwood wrote:so once you are arraigned, 6th controls then??



Do you own studying you free-riding lazy vagrant!!!!!!







just joking; these questions are pretty helpful





its not free riding, its riding while effectively conserving my resources, thank you very little

NonTradHealthLaw
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 2:44 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby NonTradHealthLaw » Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:29 pm

northwood wrote:so once you are arraigned, 6th controls then??


But only for the offense relating to the arraignment

User avatar
silky bruh
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:17 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby silky bruh » Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:45 pm

NonTradHealthLaw wrote:
northwood wrote:so once you are arraigned, 6th controls then??


But only for the offense relating to the arraignment


Yup, important distinction. They can ask you about unrelated shit without presence of counsel.

objctnyrhnr
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby objctnyrhnr » Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:15 pm

let's say one can get a 140 MBE in a 50-50 jurisdiction. let's also say one is pretty good at almost all the essays. with this MBE score, assuming 4-6 on the other essays, about how many essays can I total screw (1-2)? like how many subjects is it normal to go into the test being far from comfortable with? I am trying to teach myself commercial paper right now...and then there's still secured transactions, and it's not going well.

bdubs
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby bdubs » Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:03 pm

I was just writing an essay and then when I hit submit I got a message about "Early Access Preview" now whenever I go to the essay homepage I can't see anything other than this damn message. Argh!

Anyone else having this problem? Is this Kaplan's way of saying they don't want to grade any more of my essays?

ixwad
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:54 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby ixwad » Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:25 pm

objctnyrhnr wrote:let's say one can get a 140 MBE in a 50-50 jurisdiction. let's also say one is pretty good at almost all the essays. with this MBE score, assuming 4-6 on the other essays, about how many essays can I total screw (1-2)? like how many subjects is it normal to go into the test being far from comfortable with? I am trying to teach myself commercial paper right now...and then there's still secured transactions, and it's not going well.


If the essays are scaled to the MBE, then I think with a 140 on the MBE you would need to exceed somewhere between the 13th-ish and 20th percentile of test takers on the essay portion (depending on if you need a 264, 272, etc.). (http://www.ncbex.org/assets/media_files ... istics.pdf see page 32). Feel free to correct my estimate if it seems off. I'm not sure how many essays that would allow you to screw -- probably at least a couple of them.

shock259
Posts: 1737
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:30 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby shock259 » Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:49 pm

This comparative data for MBE questions occasionally makes me feel awesome, but usually makes me feel dumb. "92% of people got this question right? And I didn't?!?!"

semplice
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby semplice » Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:31 pm

Bro Bono wrote:
NonTradHealthLaw wrote:
northwood wrote:so once you are arraigned, 6th controls then??


But only for the offense relating to the arraignment


Yup, important distinction. They can ask you about unrelated shit without presence of counsel.


But if you invoke your Miranda / Fifth Amendment right to counsel they can't question you about anything, whether related to the original focus of interrogation or not, until they provide counsel or a significant period of time has passed. In other words, the right to counsel there is not offense-specific. I guess it's custody/interrogation specific, you could say.

Also, for New York people: even before formal charges have been filed, if an attorney has intervened on the suspect's behalf he can't waive the right to counsel without his attorney present.

If I write it enough times, maybe I'll actually remember it!

User avatar
LeDique
Posts: 12766
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby LeDique » Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:33 pm

Bro Bono's post was about when 6th amend controls right to counsel

semplice
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby semplice » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:15 pm

LeDique wrote:Bro Bono's post was about when 6th amend controls right to counsel


Right-- sorry to muddy the waters. My "but" was meant to compare the 5th vs 6th amendment right, not contradict the previous post.

User avatar
silky bruh
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:17 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby silky bruh » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:28 pm

semplice wrote:
LeDique wrote:Bro Bono's post was about when 6th amend controls right to counsel


Right-- sorry to muddy the waters. My "but" was meant to compare the 5th vs 6th amendment right, not contradict the previous post.


Ahhhhhh now it all fits together. That makes sense.

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby Tanicius » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:53 pm

Hey guys, substantive question.

Over in the Themis thread, we've become confused by two seemingly contradictory question and answers from a test. One answer explanation claims that felony murder merges with the underlying offense -- you can only be punished for one of them. But another questions answer explanation claims you an be punished for both.

What have you guys been taught about this?

User avatar
LeDique
Posts: 12766
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby LeDique » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:54 pm

Tanicius wrote:Hey guys, substantive question.

Over in the Themis thread, we've become confused by two seemingly contradictory question and answers from a test. One answer explanation claims that felony murder merges with the underlying offense -- you can only be punished for one of them. But another questions answer explanation claims you an be punished for both.

What have you guys been taught about this?


Are you asking you can be convicted of felony murder and burglary? Because yes, you have to be convicted of both.

bdubs
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby bdubs » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:55 pm

Anyone get way off track with really general essay prompts? I got really low marks on a contracts practice essay that only asked "what are the likely theories [for voiding a contract] and how should the court resolve them?"

Kaplan went through a full contracts analysis of formation, statute of frauds, mistake of fact, parol evidence, impossibility, etc. But there were no plausible reasons to conclude that anything other than mistake of fact and potentially duress (not even discussed by Kaplan) were at issue. The contract's subject matter was also about family law (paternity) so I wrote an analysis of the family law implications and whether the court would uphold the contract under that law, but that also wasn't even mentioned in Kaplan's "sample."

The essay workshop and some of the other samples do seem to isolate the issues instead of doing a step by step dismiss every bad argument kind of write up. Not sure what to do when. Really frustrated here.

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby Tanicius » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:55 pm

LeDique wrote:
Tanicius wrote:Hey guys, substantive question.

Over in the Themis thread, we've become confused by two seemingly contradictory question and answers from a test. One answer explanation claims that felony murder merges with the underlying offense -- you can only be punished for one of them. But another questions answer explanation claims you an be punished for both.

What have you guys been taught about this?


Are you asking you can be convicted of felony murder and burglary? Because yes, you have to be convicted of both.


I'm asking if they merge.

User avatar
LeDique
Posts: 12766
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby LeDique » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:56 pm

Tanicius wrote:
LeDique wrote:
Tanicius wrote:Hey guys, substantive question.

Over in the Themis thread, we've become confused by two seemingly contradictory question and answers from a test. One answer explanation claims that felony murder merges with the underlying offense -- you can only be punished for one of them. But another questions answer explanation claims you an be punished for both.

What have you guys been taught about this?


Are you asking you can be convicted of felony murder and burglary? Because yes, you have to be convicted of both.


I'm asking if they merge.


Yes, I'm saying no, they do not (except assault and that's jx dependent).

bdubs
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby bdubs » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:57 pm

Tanicius wrote:Hey guys, substantive question.

Over in the Themis thread, we've become confused by two seemingly contradictory question and answers from a test. One answer explanation claims that felony murder merges with the underlying offense -- you can only be punished for one of them. But another questions answer explanation claims you an be punished for both.

What have you guys been taught about this?


Is it a lesser included offense issue? Since you need all of the same facts as the burglary to prove felony murder it is a lesser included offense of felony murder (essentially need burglary + elements of felony murder). Lesser included offense means you can only be punished for the greater offense and not both under double jeopardy.

User avatar
LeDique
Posts: 12766
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby LeDique » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:59 pm

btw i'm basing this off of mbe questions we get all the time like "what can D be charged with" and the correct answer being like "felony murder and burglary"

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby Tanicius » Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:01 pm

Here's Themis's screw-up.

Compare:

In a common-law jurisdiction, if the defendant is charged with murder and arson, he should be:
A. convicted of both offenses.

At common law, arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another. The defendant's act of driving his car into a gasoline tank created an obvious likelihood that a burning would ensue, thus satisfying the malice requirement of arson. The question limits the discussion to common law arson, but as the gas station was also the owner's home, even the common law definition of dwelling is satisfied. Murder is an unlawful killing of a human being committed with malice aforethought. The defendant's conduct of driving into the gas tank amounts to a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (depraved heart), which satisfies the malice requirement. Additionally, arson can be the underlying felony for a felony murder conviction.


with this:

Felony murder is an unintended killing proximately caused by and during the commission or attempted commission of an inherently dangerous felony. Robbery is one such inherently dangerous felony. The underlying felony will generally merge into the crime of felony murder, so here, the robbery merges into the felony murder and the man can only be convicted and punished for felony murder, not both felony murder and robbery.

User avatar
LeDique
Posts: 12766
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby LeDique » Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:06 pm

Yea the statement "The underlying felony will generally merge into the crime of felony murder" is…wrong? Why else would there be such a big issue about assualt merging?

bdubs
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby bdubs » Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:07 pm

See the bottom of this page (lesser included offenses) for the issue in CT:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part5/5.4-1.htm

Also appears to be the law in my jxd (IL)

I think the issue with the quote you have above is that the primary logic of Themis' first response is that depraved heart murder and not felony murder is the best argument for liability for the death. In that case there would be separate facts supporting each conviction.

sidhesadie
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout

Postby sidhesadie » Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:08 am

So when the underlying crime is one like assault, or assault with a deadly weapon, when they say it merges, they mean that the felony can't form the basis of a felony-murder instruction, because that would essentially take away from the jury the consideration of malice aforethought.

Basically, A beats the crap out of B with a bat. If we apply the felony murder rule, then we take away from the jury the consideration of whether when they STARTED beating the crap out of B, A had the requisite mens rea for murder.
The same doesn't apply to, say, Robbery, because the question doesn't arise. Robbery couldn't be attempted murder without something more. But beating someone with a bat could be attempted murder or assault, depending on the mens rea when they started. See what I mean?

I think the other part is a separate issue, and what they mean by merger there is merger at conviction & sentencing.

You can be CHARGED with both Robbery and Felony Murder. I think what they are saying is that conviction and sentencing, the robbery will merge FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCING with the Felony Murder, because "committing a felony" is an ELEMENT of felony murder.

So you have to look at the call of your question. Is it asking you what the defendant can be CHARGED with, or convicted of/sentenced for?

(to be clear, the jury will find him guilty of Robbery. They have to, to find him guilty of felony murder. But then the convictions merge for the purposes of sentencing. It's like, in my state, you can be charged with separate counts of aggravated murder for different aggravation theories (like if the victim was a child, and you tortured the victim, you can get two counts of aggravated murder) and the jury can find you GUILTY of two counts. But it's only one victim, and the same harm, so the convictions merge at sentencing.)
Last edited by sidhesadie on Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:22 am, edited 2 times in total.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deadthrone7, electriklemon, Nachoo2019, newhere21, sblock60, TheSpanishMain and 12 guests