. Forum

[Reinhardt]

Monday's plan is to review every subject. Ugh. Would help if I had any way at all of predicting my MBE score. What a contrast with the LSAT, where you can easily take a bunch of real exams and then calculate your score.

[JuTMSY4]

Monday's plan is to review every subject. Ugh. Would help if I had any way at all of predicting my MBE score. What a contrast with the LSAT, where you can easily take a bunch of real exams and then calculate your score.

Definitely a big complaint with themis. I'd love just to have another 1-2 booklets of MBE tests. I, like others, have done much better on those than the MBE sets

[Bikeflip]

Monday's plan is to review every subject. Ugh. Would help if I had any way at all of predicting my MBE score. What a contrast with the LSAT, where you can easily take a bunch of real exams and then calculate your score.

I'd suggest the NCBE tests, as they tell you what your score "would be," but many of the questions we've "seen" from Themis. I say "seen" because Themis revised many of the answer choices, and I felt many of the Themis answers were not the actual answers. With that said, on NCBE 3 75% is 156. 80% is 164.

Amusingly, however, I got many answers wrong because I thought, "Oh, I must have answered C on Themis. So C here!" The answer was D.

[yeff]

The way those answers are written also makes me feel better about my own chances.

I have found pretty helpful downloading the past exams and going over the sample candidate answers on top of Themis' model answers. The two examples give different answers/analysis more frequently than one might think (which is why they warn you not to use these to study the law), but it just shows you needn't fret about hitting the legal rule with a bulls-eye.

http://www.nybarexam.org/ExamQuestions/ ... stions.htm

[ragnarok545]

Does anyone have a good sense of how to draw a line between involuntary manslaughter (gross negligence, generally being an idiot) with common law murder ("depraved heart," "reckless indifference," etc.)? This question really threw me for a loop. Sure, the defendant here was incredibly stupid, but this didn't jump out at me as a "depraved heart" deserving murder. After all, he had practiced knife throwing for years, so it's not like he was just throwing knives at someone, not knowing or caring if he could avoid hitting them.

Question Text: A man decided to master the art of throwing knives. He practiced for several years, until he had the perfected his skills and was able to hit a spot no larger than a dime with confidence. After demonstrating his prowess to a friend, the man convinced the friend to stand against a wall while the man threw knives at her. The man threw three knives extremely close to the friend, but the fourth knife struck the friend, injuring her slightly. Although the friend’s injury was minor, unbeknownst to the man, she had a rare blood disorder that caused her to bleed to death. The crimes below are listed in ascending order of seriousness. What is the most serious common law crime for which the man can be convicted?
Answer Choices:
Battery
Involuntary manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter
Murder
Learner Selected Answer: Involuntary manslaughter
Correct Answer: Murder
Rationale: Answer choice D is correct. The man may be convicted of depraved heart murder. Depraved heart murder is a killing that results when the defendant recklessly acts with extreme indifference to human life. For this type of murder, the man need not have had the intent to cause either death or serious bodily injury. The woman’s consent to the act that led to her death is not a defense. Nor is the fact that the woman’s death would not have happened but for her rare medical condition, or the man’s lack of awareness of that condition. Because the man may be convicted of murder, the less serious crimes listed in answer choices A, B, and C are incorrect.

[JuTMSY4]

Does anyone have a good sense of how to draw a line between involuntary manslaughter (gross negligence, generally being an idiot) with common law murder ("depraved heart," "reckless indifference," etc.)? This question really threw me for a loop. Sure, the defendant here was incredibly stupid, but this didn't jump out at me as a "depraved heart" deserving murder. After all, he had practiced knife throwing for years, so it's not like he was just throwing knives at someone, not knowing or caring if he could avoid hitting them.

Question Text: A man decided to master the art of throwing knives. He practiced for several years, until he had the perfected his skills and was able to hit a spot no larger than a dime with confidence. After demonstrating his prowess to a friend, the man convinced the friend to stand against a wall while the man threw knives at her. The man threw three knives extremely close to the friend, but the fourth knife struck the friend, injuring her slightly. Although the friend’s injury was minor, unbeknownst to the man, she had a rare blood disorder that caused her to bleed to death. The crimes below are listed in ascending order of seriousness. What is the most serious common law crime for which the man can be convicted?
Answer Choices:
Battery
Involuntary manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter
Murder
Learner Selected Answer: Involuntary manslaughter
Correct Answer: Murder
Rationale: Answer choice D is correct. The man may be convicted of depraved heart murder. Depraved heart murder is a killing that results when the defendant recklessly acts with extreme indifference to human life. For this type of murder, the man need not have had the intent to cause either death or serious bodily injury. The woman’s consent to the act that led to her death is not a defense. Nor is the fact that the woman’s death would not have happened but for her rare medical condition, or the man’s lack of awareness of that condition. Because the man may be convicted of murder, the less serious crimes listed in answer choices A, B, and C are incorrect.

The difference is slight, but in depraved heart (common law) murder, the recklessness must be one which manifests extreme indifference to human life. So, by telling the friend to stand there as you throw knives, you're not just being reckless, you're recklessly indifferent to human life.

[Bikeflip]

Does anyone have a good sense of how to draw a line between involuntary manslaughter (gross negligence, generally being an idiot) with common law murder ("depraved heart," "reckless indifference," etc.)? This question really threw me for a loop. Sure, the defendant here was incredibly stupid, but this didn't jump out at me as a "depraved heart" deserving murder. After all, he had practiced knife throwing for years, so it's not like he was just throwing knives at someone, not knowing or caring if he could avoid hitting them.

Question Text: A man decided to master the art of throwing knives. He practiced for several years, until he had the perfected his skills and was able to hit a spot no larger than a dime with confidence. After demonstrating his prowess to a friend, the man convinced the friend to stand against a wall while the man threw knives at her. The man threw three knives extremely close to the friend, but the fourth knife struck the friend, injuring her slightly. Although the friend’s injury was minor, unbeknownst to the man, she had a rare blood disorder that caused her to bleed to death. The crimes below are listed in ascending order of seriousness. What is the most serious common law crime for which the man can be convicted?
Answer Choices:
Battery
Involuntary manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter
Murder
Learner Selected Answer: Involuntary manslaughter
Correct Answer: Murder
Rationale: Answer choice D is correct. The man may be convicted of depraved heart murder. Depraved heart murder is a killing that results when the defendant recklessly acts with extreme indifference to human life. For this type of murder, the man need not have had the intent to cause either death or serious bodily injury. The woman’s consent to the act that led to her death is not a defense. Nor is the fact that the woman’s death would not have happened but for her rare medical condition, or the man’s lack of awareness of that condition. Because the man may be convicted of murder, the less serious crimes listed in answer choices A, B, and C are incorrect.

In addition to the response above, this is how a set of jury instructions clarify the distinction for the jury:

2. The crucial distinction between involuntary manslaughter and second degree murder turns on the degree of indifference and the extremity of the risk of death which may be seen in, or deferred from the defendant's acts. To find the defendant acted grossly recklessness, and with the kind of extreme indifference to constitute second degree murder, the defendant’s acts must be something akin to an individual intentionally shooting a gun into a crowd of people, State v. Douglass, 28 W. Va. 297, 300 (1886), or one who thows a dangerous object, such as a large piece of wood, concrete, or metal, off a roof into a crowded street below. See State v. Saunders, 150 S.E. 519, 520 (W. Va. 1929). Other analogous examples would include driving a car at a high rate of speed, in inclement weather, while highly intoxicated. See Davis v. State, 593 So. 2d 145 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). Still other examples would be playing Russian Roulette, by loading a gun and intentionally firing it at another person, People v. Roe, 542 N.E.2d 610 (N.Y. 1989).

To me, an example of involuntary manslaughter is when a defendant, running late to a meeting, goes 10 miles over the speed limit and crashes into another car, killing that car's driver. The defendant wasn't recklessly indifferent to life; she was just trying to make it to a meeting.

[kalvano]

What's everyone's monday plan?

Tuesday in Texas is MPT and then short-answer Crim and Civ Pro questions, so go over a couple MPT's and do a ton of procedure practice questions, since they tend to repeat a lot of them.

So jealous Texas tells you what will be on the test.

On the flip side, absolutely anything is fair game. And since they have about 8 different possible main topics, basically anything in Texas law is up for grabs.

[kalvano]

Also, random thought: when I bought my iPad, I thought it was a fun toy to have. Doing bar prep, it's become absolutely essential for helping me get out of the house. All the books are on it, it's linked up to Dropbox so the handouts are available, and the Themis app...I've really come to appreciate just how useful this thing is.

Which I constantly point out to my wife, who was irritated by the $400 expenditure.

[antonious13]

Monday's plan is to review every subject. Ugh. Would help if I had any way at all of predicting my MBE score. What a contrast with the LSAT, where you can easily take a bunch of real exams and then calculate your score.

Definitely a big complaint with themis. I'd love just to have another 1-2 booklets of MBE tests. I, like others, have done much better on those than the MBE sets

This is why I'm glad I dropped a buck-fifty on the Kaplan MBE Qbank back in June when it was half off. I quit doing Themis MBE sets because they are waaaay too damn nitpicky and nuancy. So far, I've found myself running the same percentage in the Qbank as I did in the Simulated MBE. Most things I get wrong are shit I've been getting wrong and will probably always get wrong. Other things are because I run through questions and answers too quickly and make a bone headed error.

[09042014]

I'd kill to know the topics. It sucks studying 22 topics knowing only half, at best, are on the real thing.

[antonious13]

Also, random thought: when I bought my iPad, I thought it was a fun toy to have. Doing bar prep, it's become absolutely essential for helping me get out of the house. All the books are on it, it's linked up to Dropbox so the handouts are available, and the Themis app...I've really come to appreciate just how useful this thing is.

Which I constantly point out to my wife, who was irritated by the $400 expenditure.

Yeah, I got myself a Galaxy Tab as a graduation gift near the end of May. Little did I know how damn useful that thing would be in my bar study. I think quite a few nifty apps have helped me be a little more efficient.

Then again, it also enabled my procrastination a bit more some days... damn you, Pocket Tanks!

[Bikeflip]

Also, random thought: when I bought my iPad, I thought it was a fun toy to have. Doing bar prep, it's become absolutely essential for helping me get out of the house. All the books are on it, it's linked up to Dropbox so the handouts are available, and the Themis app...I've really come to appreciate just how useful this thing is.

Which I constantly point out to my wife, who was irritated by the $400 expenditure.

I started using my iPad for bar prep, but I hated how much of a pain in the ass it was to update my outlines. Maybe I shouldn't have been cheap and downloaded something like Pages, but oh well. I still like my laptop way more than my iPad.

[TheBeard]

Quick poll: How many hours per day did you spend seriously studying? If you're all over the place, estimate an average.

I feel that if I subtract all the time I was fucking around on the internet, I probably spent a solid 5-6 hours per day. I took 5 days completely off, and probably another 5 where I did some work in between taking extended periods of time off. Despite not putting in the insane 10 hours straight crap, I feel okay going in. I'm not super confident because I can see how shit can hit the fan, but not insecure either.

[kalvano]

Probably a legit 6-8 hours a day.

[JuTMSY4]

Quick poll: How many hours per day did you spend seriously studying? If you're all over the place, estimate an average.

I feel that if I subtract all the time I was fucking around on the internet, I probably spent a solid 5-6 hours per day. I took 5 days completely off, and probably another 5 where I did some work in between taking extended periods of time off. Despite not putting in the insane 10 hours straight crap, I feel okay going in. I'm not super confident because I can see how shit can hit the fan, but not insecure either.

I'd probably go 6-8 as well. Until I took the practice exam, I really was convinced I was going to fail and didn't give myself enough credit for knowing what I do. I'm also in the same boat - I know I can do it, but I know I could also fail.

[Reinhardt]

When does a preliminary injunction end? Themis says it lasts "until trial." Does this mean until trial begins, or until trial is over?

[Bikeflip]

When does a preliminary injunction end? Themis says it lasts "until trial." Does this mean until trial begins, or until trial is over?

I believe the preliminary injunction ends at the end of trial. The court then decides whether to issue a permanent injunction or to do nothing, which would end all injunctions.

Also, been listening to this on repeat for the last 10 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU9Uwhjlog8&feature=fvwp

Now this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npdARG8ffms

[Bikeflip]

Is it me, or this question petty? I choose. A.

A defendant was on trial for arson of an office building. During the trial, the police officers who initially arrested him began to suspect that the defendant was also responsible for a theft of several computers that took place in the office building on the same night as the arson. One evening during the arson trial, the police visited the defendant in jail, read him his Miranda rights, and began to question him about the theft. The defendant eventually confessed, and the police informed the prosecutor of his confession. The prosecutor later wants to charge the defendant with theft, using the statement that was obtained by the police in the jail. The defendant's attorney objects on the grounds that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were violated.

The court should:
A. Allow the prosecutor to use the confession because the defendant was read his Miranda rights.
B. Allow the prosecutor to use the confession because theft and arson each require proof of an additional element that the other does not.
C. Prevent the prosecutor from using the confession because the arson and the theft took place during the same criminal transaction.
D. Prevent the prosecutor from using the confession because the defendant was represented by counsel in connection with the arson case.
Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. The Sixth Amendment is offense-specific, meaning that the interrogation that is the subject of the Sixth Amendment inquiry must relate to the crime for which criminal proceedings have commenced. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach to other crimes for which the accused may be under investigation but which are unrelated to the pending prosecution. Under Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S.299 (1932), two different crimes committed in one criminal transaction are deemed to be the same offense for Sixth Amendment purposes unless one offense requires proof of an element that the other does not. Since arson and theft each require elements the other crime does not, they are not the same crime for Sixth Amendment purposes and the confession may therefore be used to charge the additional crime. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while a Miranda warning was necessary in order to elicit an admissible confession, Miranda warnings have no effect on a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. Answer choice C is incorrect because, as discussed above, two different crimes in one criminal transaction are not the same for Sixth Amendment purposes if one requires proof of an element that the other does not. Answer choice D is incorrect because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific; it applies only to the offense at issue in those proceedings.

[BarbellDreams]

A defendant, charged with armed robbery of a store, denied that he was the person who had robbed the store. In presenting the state's case, the prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant had robbed two other stores in the past year.

Dude. If you guys know he robbed the other two stores in the past year and have the evidence how the hell is he not in jail for the other two robberies already and instead is out committing more robberies? Robberies run like 5-10 for a first offense. Did he get out on good behavior due to overcrowding or something?

[BarbellDreams]

Is it me, or this question petty? I choose. A.

A defendant was on trial for arson of an office building. During the trial, the police officers who initially arrested him began to suspect that the defendant was also responsible for a theft of several computers that took place in the office building on the same night as the arson. One evening during the arson trial, the police visited the defendant in jail, read him his Miranda rights, and began to question him about the theft. The defendant eventually confessed, and the police informed the prosecutor of his confession. The prosecutor later wants to charge the defendant with theft, using the statement that was obtained by the police in the jail. The defendant's attorney objects on the grounds that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were violated.

The court should:
A. Allow the prosecutor to use the confession because the defendant was read his Miranda rights.
B. Allow the prosecutor to use the confession because theft and arson each require proof of an additional element that the other does not.
C. Prevent the prosecutor from using the confession because the arson and the theft took place during the same criminal transaction.
D. Prevent the prosecutor from using the confession because the defendant was represented by counsel in connection with the arson case.
Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. The Sixth Amendment is offense-specific, meaning that the interrogation that is the subject of the Sixth Amendment inquiry must relate to the crime for which criminal proceedings have commenced. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach to other crimes for which the accused may be under investigation but which are unrelated to the pending prosecution. Under Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S.299 (1932), two different crimes committed in one criminal transaction are deemed to be the same offense for Sixth Amendment purposes unless one offense requires proof of an element that the other does not. Since arson and theft each require elements the other crime does not, they are not the same crime for Sixth Amendment purposes and the confession may therefore be used to charge the additional crime. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while a Miranda warning was necessary in order to elicit an admissible confession, Miranda warnings have no effect on a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. Answer choice C is incorrect because, as discussed above, two different crimes in one criminal transaction are not the same for Sixth Amendment purposes if one requires proof of an element that the other does not. Answer choice D is incorrect because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific; it applies only to the offense at issue in those proceedings.

The question is explicitly telling you that this is being challenged based on Sixth Amendment grounds, thus your only focus should be on whether he had his right to counsel under the 6th amendment. This question was basically testing whether 6th amendment offense specific rights attach if you're being asked about another crime. To figure out whether it is another crime or not use the blockburger test.

[Agoraphobia]

Probably a legit 6-8 hours a day.

Close to 8 most days. Sometimes 10.

[kalvano]

Is it me, or this question petty? I choose. A.

A defendant was on trial for arson of an office building. During the trial, the police officers who initially arrested him began to suspect that the defendant was also responsible for a theft of several computers that took place in the office building on the same night as the arson. One evening during the arson trial, the police visited the defendant in jail, read him his Miranda rights, and began to question him about the theft. The defendant eventually confessed, and the police informed the prosecutor of his confession. The prosecutor later wants to charge the defendant with theft, using the statement that was obtained by the police in the jail. The defendant's attorney objects on the grounds that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were violated.

The court should:
A. Allow the prosecutor to use the confession because the defendant was read his Miranda rights.
B. Allow the prosecutor to use the confession because theft and arson each require proof of an additional element that the other does not.
C. Prevent the prosecutor from using the confession because the arson and the theft took place during the same criminal transaction.
D. Prevent the prosecutor from using the confession because the defendant was represented by counsel in connection with the arson case.
Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. The Sixth Amendment is offense-specific, meaning that the interrogation that is the subject of the Sixth Amendment inquiry must relate to the crime for which criminal proceedings have commenced. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach to other crimes for which the accused may be under investigation but which are unrelated to the pending prosecution. Under Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S.299 (1932), two different crimes committed in one criminal transaction are deemed to be the same offense for Sixth Amendment purposes unless one offense requires proof of an element that the other does not. Since arson and theft each require elements the other crime does not, they are not the same crime for Sixth Amendment purposes and the confession may therefore be used to charge the additional crime. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while a Miranda warning was necessary in order to elicit an admissible confession, Miranda warnings have no effect on a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. Answer choice C is incorrect because, as discussed above, two different crimes in one criminal transaction are not the same for Sixth Amendment purposes if one requires proof of an element that the other does not. Answer choice D is incorrect because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific; it applies only to the offense at issue in those proceedings.

That's definitely something you need to be aware of on the exam. The offense-specific nature of the 6th Amendment seems to pop up a good bit. Since the question said that it was explicitly the 6th Amendment, Miranda isn't correct.

[antonious13]

Quick poll: How many hours per day did you spend seriously studying? If you're all over the place, estimate an average.

I feel that if I subtract all the time I was fucking around on the internet, I probably spent a solid 5-6 hours per day. I took 5 days completely off, and probably another 5 where I did some work in between taking extended periods of time off. Despite not putting in the insane 10 hours straight crap, I feel okay going in. I'm not super confident because I can see how shit can hit the fan, but not insecure either.

8 on good days, 2 - 4 on not so good days. Probably took about 7 or 8 full days off or with very little study.

[kalvano]

Probably a legit 6-8 hours a day.

Close to 8 most days. Sometimes 10.

I'm going to look back at that post and cry when I fail.