California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:07 pm

My understanding is that specific instances of conduct are NEVER admissible


I was pretty sure that once the defendant opened the door to his character on direct, prosecution can offer Reputation, Opinion and Specific Acts evidence for the same trait, but maybe it's different for California?

User avatar
Tangerine Gleam
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Tangerine Gleam » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:09 pm

Yeah, it's different (and confusing) in California. Apparently specific instances can only ever be used to prove the character of the victim, but never the defendant.

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:10 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
My understanding is that specific instances of conduct are NEVER admissible


I was pretty sure that once the defendant opened the door to his character on direct, prosecution can offer Reputation, Opinion and Specific Acts evidence for the same trait, but maybe it's different for California?


Yeah, barbri says for CA specific instances are never allowed for D's character, even if D has opened the door with opinion or reputation evidence of her own character.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:16 pm

Emma. wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
My understanding is that specific instances of conduct are NEVER admissible


I was pretty sure that once the defendant opened the door to his character on direct, prosecution can offer Reputation, Opinion and Specific Acts evidence for the same trait, but maybe it's different for California?


Yeah, barbri says for CA specific instances are never allowed for D's character, even if D has opened the door with opinion or reputation evidence of her own character.


Got it. Thanks.

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:29 pm

Is there any dress code for the exam? I didn't find it among all the other random information here: http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals ... tLtr_R.pdf

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:43 pm

Dress in layers but don't wear a hoodie.

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:46 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:Dress in layers but don't wear a hoodie.


No hoodie? :x

Where are the actual instructions?

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1677
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:05 pm

Emma. wrote:
Foosters Galore wrote:I have it that for Ds character, only reputation is allowed, while all 3 are allowed for victims character.


Barbri outline says reputation or opinion, just not specific instances.

And sneakily, apparently in CA prosecutors can ask a defense witness whether they've heard of any instances of D's conduct that is inconsistent with the witness's testimony. They just can't actually bring up what the specific instances are.

So they can say "have your heard of D doing anything that might contradict your opinion?" but when witness testifies that D is honest, they can't say "have you heard he lied on his tax returns?"

Cross-examining about specific acts is always allowed, I thought.

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:12 pm

a male human wrote:
Emma. wrote:
Foosters Galore wrote:I have it that for Ds character, only reputation is allowed, while all 3 are allowed for victims character.


Barbri outline says reputation or opinion, just not specific instances.

And sneakily, apparently in CA prosecutors can ask a defense witness whether they've heard of any instances of D's conduct that is inconsistent with the witness's testimony. They just can't actually bring up what the specific instances are.

So they can say "have your heard of D doing anything that might contradict your opinion?" but when witness testifies that D is honest, they can't say "have you heard he lied on his tax returns?"

Cross-examining about specific acts is always allowed, I thought.


Not according to barbri (not that I fully trust barbri):

From the CMR CA Evidence Distinctions, E.7.b Evidence of the Defendant's Conduct in Criminal Cases:

"On cross, the Federal Rules permit opinion and reputation evidence and evidence concerning specific instances. California law permits proof of the defendant's character with opinion and reputation evidence only, whether on direct or cross."

User avatar
Tangerine Gleam
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Tangerine Gleam » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:13 pm

Under the FRE, yes. But not in California (at least not for D's character).

huckabees
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:38 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby huckabees » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:19 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:Dress in layers but don't wear a hoodie.


Is this official? I only have hoodies.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:27 pm

huckabees wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:Dress in layers but don't wear a hoodie.


Is this official? I only have hoodies.


The administrators can be very arbitrary. No need to give them an excuse.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:28 pm

Just want to make sure my notes are right: The dying declaration hearsay exception is applicable in only civil and criminal homicide cases. Is that correct?

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:30 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:Just want to make sure my notes are right: The dying declaration hearsay exception is applicable in only civil and criminal homicide cases. Is that correct?


Correct for FRE. Witness must be unavailable but need not have died.

For CEC is is all civil and criminal cases but witness must actually be dead.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:34 pm

Thanks! I know this sounds strange, but I've actually given up on the CA evidence distinctions (except for prop 8 and some rando ones). To be able to properly dole those out will give you a chance at 80+, but I'm content with a 65 to solid 70 for all 6 essays :).

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:42 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:Thanks! I know this sounds strange, but I've actually given up on the CA evidence distinctions (except for prop 8 and some rando ones). To be able to properly dole those out will give you a chance at 80+, but I'm content with a 65 to solid 70 for all 6 essays :).


If I could get 65 on all the essays I'll be crying tears of joy.

Random PR question. My notes say that a lawyer may enter into business transactions with client ONLY IF (i)Terms are Fair to client, (ii) Disclosed in understandable writing, (iii) Client has opportunity to consult with outside lawyer, and (iv) Client provides written consent (Written DISCLOSURE to client is sufficient in CA).

My question is the consent part. If you are entering into a business transaction with your client, isn't it always going to be consensual? If you are disclosing the terms of the deal to the client in an "understandable writing," isn't the actual contract you sign with the client to do the deal going to provide evidence of written consent?

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:44 pm

Don't know the answer to that, but my hunch is that you might be over-thinking. If you just argue it both ways that should be sufficient, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:48 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:Don't know the answer to that, but my hunch is that you might be over-thinking. If you just argue it both ways that should be sufficient, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.


I guess disclosure issue could arise in situations like buying stock of client corp on an exchange, where they wouldn't know it was you buying it?

vacations
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby vacations » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:55 pm

For those who took BarBri, did you guys power through all the essays given in the big orange book?

That was my goal this summer and I came close to most of the subjects but at this point....i'm just throwing my hands up and just spending the next two days doing MBEs and memorizing outlines. Anybody else on same boat?

Foosters Galore
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:15 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Foosters Galore » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:58 pm

vacations wrote:For those who took BarBri, did you guys power through all the essays given in the big orange book?

That was my goal this summer and I came close to most of the subjects but at this point....i'm just throwing my hands up and just spending the next two days doing MBEs and memorizing outlines. Anybody else on same boat?


hell no. But i did outline (5-10 minutes each) a lot of them. I only wrote out a handful.

calibred
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:34 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby calibred » Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:05 pm

Wills gurus--

If I execute a formal will, can I modify it with a holographic codicil? Or does a codicil to a will require the same formalities as the modified will?

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:12 pm

calibred wrote:Wills gurus--

If I execute a formal will, can I modify it with a holographic codicil? Or does a codicil to a will require the same formalities as the modified will?


IIRC you can modify with a codicil, but the codicil has to be a fully valid codicil. I.e. watch out for a modification through interlineation, which MIGHT be sufficient to be a valid holographic codicil but then all the material terms would have to be in handwriting. You'd also have to watch out that the codicil is dated or otherwise makes clear that it comes AFTER the attested will (probably would be fine if the holographic codicil made direct reference to the prior will).

calibred
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:34 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby calibred » Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:16 pm

Emma. wrote:
calibred wrote:Wills gurus--

If I execute a formal will, can I modify it with a holographic codicil? Or does a codicil to a will require the same formalities as the modified will?


IIRC you can modify with a codicil, but the codicil has to be a fully valid codicil. I.e. watch out for a modification through interlineation, which MIGHT be sufficient to be a valid holographic codicil but then all the material terms would have to be in handwriting. You'd also have to watch out that the codicil is dated or otherwise makes clear that it comes AFTER the attested will (probably would be fine if the holographic codicil made direct reference to the prior will).


Great, thanks!

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:25 pm

In an interlineation of a formal will, beneficiary whose devise is modified takes what was originally granted if modified amount ended up being higher. If lower, beneficiary takes nothing. DRR twist.

Foosters Galore
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:15 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Foosters Galore » Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:26 pm

Property - Can someone explain the notion of transferring a mortgage without a note, or conversely, transferring a note without a mortgage. Convisor does a shitty job with this. Thanks in advance!




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Pneumonia and 1 guest