.

locusdelicti
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:32 am

Bikeflip wrote:
locusdelicti wrote:
releasethehounds wrote:Someone high five me, I finally bit the goddamn bullet and took the AM session of the essay exam. You know. Reward me for shit I was supposed to do anyways.


Preexisting duty rule.



Don't be like that, breh.


Fine. We'll follow the UCC. Your good faith effort is rewarded.

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby BarbellDreams » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:32 am

SPOILER MIXED MBE

A husband was on trial for the murder of his wife. The wife’s death was attributable to a fall which the prosecution alleged was purposefully caused by her husband. Shortly after the wife’s death, the husband told a friend that there was a video recording in which he had stated that his wife’s death “was no accident.” The video recording was found during a proper search of the husband’s office, and is now in police custody. The prosecution, worried that the video recording makes the husband look sympathetic, intends to instead call the friend to testify as to the husband’s statement. The defense has objected to admission of the friend’s testimony. Should the court permit the friend to testify as to the husband’s statement to him?
Answers
Yes, because the statement is a statement of a party opponent.
Yes, because the husband’s statement to his friend is not subject to the original document rule.
No, because the testimony is hearsay.
No, because the video recording must be produced.
Rationale:
Answer choice D is correct. The original document rule requires the production of a recording where its contents are at issue. Here, the husband’s statement to his friend is not a direct inculpatory statement, but instead is an admission of making such a statement in a recording. Consequently, the contents of the recording are at issue and the recording itself must be produced since it available. Although there is an exception to the original document rule for an adverse party’s admission as to the contents of a recording, this exception applies only when the admission was made in a deposition, testimony, or written statement. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the statement would be exempt from the hearsay rule as an admission of a party opponent, the testimony runs afoul of the original document rule. Answer choice B is incorrect because the husband’s statement to his friend concerns a recording. The statement is thus subject to the original document rule because the contents of the recording (i.e., the husband’s statement that his wife’s death was no accident) are at issue. The original document rule requires production of the recording or a satisfactory explanation as to why it cannot be produced. Answer choice C is incorrect because the husband’s statement to his friend, as well as his statement in the video, are statements of a party opponent and thus not hearsay. However, despite clearing the hearsay hurdle, the testimony runs afoul of the original document rule.


I strongly disagree with this answer and believe it should be A. If the friend is testifying about statements he learned from the content of the video then absolutely the video should be produced under the best evidence rule. Instead, the friend here is only testifying that the defendant told him (in person) there was a tape where he said those statements. The friend didn't learn anything from the "document" (tape) and thus is not simply regurgitating what he learned. Instead, he is simply testifying to what the statement that the defendant in person said to him.

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:38 am

BarbellDreams wrote:SPOILER MIXED MBE

A husband was on trial for the murder of his wife. The wife’s death was attributable to a fall which the prosecution alleged was purposefully caused by her husband. Shortly after the wife’s death, the husband told a friend that there was a video recording in which he had stated that his wife’s death “was no accident.” The video recording was found during a proper search of the husband’s office, and is now in police custody. The prosecution, worried that the video recording makes the husband look sympathetic, intends to instead call the friend to testify as to the husband’s statement. The defense has objected to admission of the friend’s testimony. Should the court permit the friend to testify as to the husband’s statement to him?
Answers
Yes, because the statement is a statement of a party opponent.
Yes, because the husband’s statement to his friend is not subject to the original document rule.
No, because the testimony is hearsay.
No, because the video recording must be produced.
Rationale:
Answer choice D is correct. The original document rule requires the production of a recording where its contents are at issue. Here, the husband’s statement to his friend is not a direct inculpatory statement, but instead is an admission of making such a statement in a recording. Consequently, the contents of the recording are at issue and the recording itself must be produced since it available. Although there is an exception to the original document rule for an adverse party’s admission as to the contents of a recording, this exception applies only when the admission was made in a deposition, testimony, or written statement. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the statement would be exempt from the hearsay rule as an admission of a party opponent, the testimony runs afoul of the original document rule. Answer choice B is incorrect because the husband’s statement to his friend concerns a recording. The statement is thus subject to the original document rule because the contents of the recording (i.e., the husband’s statement that his wife’s death was no accident) are at issue. The original document rule requires production of the recording or a satisfactory explanation as to why it cannot be produced. Answer choice C is incorrect because the husband’s statement to his friend, as well as his statement in the video, are statements of a party opponent and thus not hearsay. However, despite clearing the hearsay hurdle, the testimony runs afoul of the original document rule.


I strongly disagree with this answer and believe it should be A. If the friend is testifying about statements he learned from the content of the video then absolutely the video should be produced under the best evidence rule. Instead, the friend here is only testifying that the defendant told him (in person) there was a tape where he said those statements. The friend didn't learn anything from the "document" (tape) and thus is not simply regurgitating what he learned. Instead, he is simply testifying to what the statement that the defendant in person said to him.

I agree with you. The explanation seems to be written assuming the friend is going to testify about the husband's statements on the tape, but the facts indicate he's going to testify only about the husband's statement to the friend. The tape isn't even evidence of that statement.

locusdelicti
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:52 am

dixiecupdrinking wrote:
BarbellDreams wrote:SPOILER MIXED MBE

A husband was on trial for the murder of his wife. The wife’s death was attributable to a fall which the prosecution alleged was purposefully caused by her husband. Shortly after the wife’s death, the husband told a friend that there was a video recording in which he had stated that his wife’s death “was no accident.” The video recording was found during a proper search of the husband’s office, and is now in police custody. The prosecution, worried that the video recording makes the husband look sympathetic, intends to instead call the friend to testify as to the husband’s statement. The defense has objected to admission of the friend’s testimony. Should the court permit the friend to testify as to the husband’s statement to him?
Answers
Yes, because the statement is a statement of a party opponent.
Yes, because the husband’s statement to his friend is not subject to the original document rule.
No, because the testimony is hearsay.
No, because the video recording must be produced.
Rationale:
Answer choice D is correct. The original document rule requires the production of a recording where its contents are at issue. Here, the husband’s statement to his friend is not a direct inculpatory statement, but instead is an admission of making such a statement in a recording. Consequently, the contents of the recording are at issue and the recording itself must be produced since it available. Although there is an exception to the original document rule for an adverse party’s admission as to the contents of a recording, this exception applies only when the admission was made in a deposition, testimony, or written statement. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the statement would be exempt from the hearsay rule as an admission of a party opponent, the testimony runs afoul of the original document rule. Answer choice B is incorrect because the husband’s statement to his friend concerns a recording. The statement is thus subject to the original document rule because the contents of the recording (i.e., the husband’s statement that his wife’s death was no accident) are at issue. The original document rule requires production of the recording or a satisfactory explanation as to why it cannot be produced. Answer choice C is incorrect because the husband’s statement to his friend, as well as his statement in the video, are statements of a party opponent and thus not hearsay. However, despite clearing the hearsay hurdle, the testimony runs afoul of the original document rule.


I strongly disagree with this answer and believe it should be A. If the friend is testifying about statements he learned from the content of the video then absolutely the video should be produced under the best evidence rule. Instead, the friend here is only testifying that the defendant told him (in person) there was a tape where he said those statements. The friend didn't learn anything from the "document" (tape) and thus is not simply regurgitating what he learned. Instead, he is simply testifying to what the statement that the defendant in person said to him.

I agree with you. The explanation seems to be written assuming the friend is going to testify about the husband's statements on the tape, but the facts indicate he's going to testify only about the husband's statement to the friend. The tape isn't even evidence of that statement.


I don't agree. The "statement" is that the death was no accident, not that the husband said there was a tape. It's a really nitpicky question, and poorly worded, but the issue is the best evidence rule, not hearsay.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11726
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:11 am

locusdelicti wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:
BarbellDreams wrote:SPOILER MIXED MBE

A husband was on trial for the murder of his wife. The wife’s death was attributable to a fall which the prosecution alleged was purposefully caused by her husband. Shortly after the wife’s death, the husband told a friend that there was a video recording in which he had stated that his wife’s death “was no accident.” The video recording was found during a proper search of the husband’s office, and is now in police custody. The prosecution, worried that the video recording makes the husband look sympathetic, intends to instead call the friend to testify as to the husband’s statement. The defense has objected to admission of the friend’s testimony. Should the court permit the friend to testify as to the husband’s statement to him?
Answers
Yes, because the statement is a statement of a party opponent.
Yes, because the husband’s statement to his friend is not subject to the original document rule.
No, because the testimony is hearsay.
No, because the video recording must be produced.
Rationale:
Answer choice D is correct. The original document rule requires the production of a recording where its contents are at issue. Here, the husband’s statement to his friend is not a direct inculpatory statement, but instead is an admission of making such a statement in a recording. Consequently, the contents of the recording are at issue and the recording itself must be produced since it available. Although there is an exception to the original document rule for an adverse party’s admission as to the contents of a recording, this exception applies only when the admission was made in a deposition, testimony, or written statement. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the statement would be exempt from the hearsay rule as an admission of a party opponent, the testimony runs afoul of the original document rule. Answer choice B is incorrect because the husband’s statement to his friend concerns a recording. The statement is thus subject to the original document rule because the contents of the recording (i.e., the husband’s statement that his wife’s death was no accident) are at issue. The original document rule requires production of the recording or a satisfactory explanation as to why it cannot be produced. Answer choice C is incorrect because the husband’s statement to his friend, as well as his statement in the video, are statements of a party opponent and thus not hearsay. However, despite clearing the hearsay hurdle, the testimony runs afoul of the original document rule.


I strongly disagree with this answer and believe it should be A. If the friend is testifying about statements he learned from the content of the video then absolutely the video should be produced under the best evidence rule. Instead, the friend here is only testifying that the defendant told him (in person) there was a tape where he said those statements. The friend didn't learn anything from the "document" (tape) and thus is not simply regurgitating what he learned. Instead, he is simply testifying to what the statement that the defendant in person said to him.

I agree with you. The explanation seems to be written assuming the friend is going to testify about the husband's statements on the tape, but the facts indicate he's going to testify only about the husband's statement to the friend. The tape isn't even evidence of that statement.


I don't agree. The "statement" is that the death was no accident, not that the husband said there was a tape. It's a really nitpicky question, and poorly worded, but the issue is the best evidence rule, not hearsay.



Yeah, they want the friend to testify as to what was said in the video instead of producing the video.

releasethehounds
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:18 am

locusdelicti wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:
locusdelicti wrote:
releasethehounds wrote:Someone high five me, I finally bit the goddamn bullet and took the AM session of the essay exam. You know. Reward me for shit I was supposed to do anyways.


Preexisting duty rule.



Don't be like that, breh.


Fine. We'll follow the UCC. Your good faith effort is rewarded.


Pretty sure this made me laugh for a solid three or four minutes. +800.

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby BarbellDreams » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:20 am

kalvano wrote:
locusdelicti wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:
BarbellDreams wrote:SPOILER MIXED MBE

A husband was on trial for the murder of his wife. The wife’s death was attributable to a fall which the prosecution alleged was purposefully caused by her husband. Shortly after the wife’s death, the husband told a friend that there was a video recording in which he had stated that his wife’s death “was no accident.” The video recording was found during a proper search of the husband’s office, and is now in police custody. The prosecution, worried that the video recording makes the husband look sympathetic, intends to instead call the friend to testify as to the husband’s statement. The defense has objected to admission of the friend’s testimony. Should the court permit the friend to testify as to the husband’s statement to him?
Answers
Yes, because the statement is a statement of a party opponent.
Yes, because the husband’s statement to his friend is not subject to the original document rule.
No, because the testimony is hearsay.
No, because the video recording must be produced.
Rationale:
Answer choice D is correct. The original document rule requires the production of a recording where its contents are at issue. Here, the husband’s statement to his friend is not a direct inculpatory statement, but instead is an admission of making such a statement in a recording. Consequently, the contents of the recording are at issue and the recording itself must be produced since it available. Although there is an exception to the original document rule for an adverse party’s admission as to the contents of a recording, this exception applies only when the admission was made in a deposition, testimony, or written statement. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the statement would be exempt from the hearsay rule as an admission of a party opponent, the testimony runs afoul of the original document rule. Answer choice B is incorrect because the husband’s statement to his friend concerns a recording. The statement is thus subject to the original document rule because the contents of the recording (i.e., the husband’s statement that his wife’s death was no accident) are at issue. The original document rule requires production of the recording or a satisfactory explanation as to why it cannot be produced. Answer choice C is incorrect because the husband’s statement to his friend, as well as his statement in the video, are statements of a party opponent and thus not hearsay. However, despite clearing the hearsay hurdle, the testimony runs afoul of the original document rule.


I strongly disagree with this answer and believe it should be A. If the friend is testifying about statements he learned from the content of the video then absolutely the video should be produced under the best evidence rule. Instead, the friend here is only testifying that the defendant told him (in person) there was a tape where he said those statements. The friend didn't learn anything from the "document" (tape) and thus is not simply regurgitating what he learned. Instead, he is simply testifying to what the statement that the defendant in person said to him.

I agree with you. The explanation seems to be written assuming the friend is going to testify about the husband's statements on the tape, but the facts indicate he's going to testify only about the husband's statement to the friend. The tape isn't even evidence of that statement.


I don't agree. The "statement" is that the death was no accident, not that the husband said there was a tape. It's a really nitpicky question, and poorly worded, but the issue is the best evidence rule, not hearsay.



Yeah, they want the friend to testify as to what was said in the video instead of producing the video.


They want the friend to testify to the statement that the defendant said to him in person, which happened to include the contents of the video. The friend never even saw the video, so he couldn't have learned the information he testified to from the video and the regurgitated it, which is the sole reason for the best evidence rule.

locusdelicti
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:23 am

BarbellDreams wrote:
kalvano wrote:
locusdelicti wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:I agree with you. The explanation seems to be written assuming the friend is going to testify about the husband's statements on the tape, but the facts indicate he's going to testify only about the husband's statement to the friend. The tape isn't even evidence of that statement.


I don't agree. The "statement" is that the death was no accident, not that the husband said there was a tape. It's a really nitpicky question, and poorly worded, but the issue is the best evidence rule, not hearsay.



Yeah, they want the friend to testify as to what was said in the video instead of producing the video.


They want the friend to testify to the statement that the defendant said to him in person, which happened to include the contents of the video. The friend never even saw the video, so he couldn't have learned the information he testified to from the video and the regurgitated it, which is the sole reason for the best evidence rule.


Exactly.

locusdelicti
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:25 am

releasethehounds wrote:
locusdelicti wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:
locusdelicti wrote:

Don't be like that, breh.


Fine. We'll follow the UCC. Your good faith effort is rewarded.


Pretty sure this made me laugh for a solid three or four minutes. +800.


:wink:

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11726
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:27 am

BarbellDreams wrote:They want the friend to testify to the statement that the defendant said to him in person, which happened to include the contents of the video. The friend never even saw the video, so he couldn't have learned the information he testified to from the video and the regurgitated it, which is the sole reason for the best evidence rule.



I read it was they want him to testify as to what was said in the video (which is utterly stupid), which to me triggers something about best evidence.

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby BarbellDreams » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:30 am

kalvano wrote:
BarbellDreams wrote:They want the friend to testify to the statement that the defendant said to him in person, which happened to include the contents of the video. The friend never even saw the video, so he couldn't have learned the information he testified to from the video and the regurgitated it, which is the sole reason for the best evidence rule.



I read it was they want him to testify as to what was said in the video (which is utterly stupid), which to me triggers something about best evidence.


The friend never saw the video, so he can't testify to what he saw in the video or what he learned from the contents of the video, because he never saw it. If he did and wanted to testify that would be a best evidence rule violation. Thats what really didn't sit right with me on this question, I should alway be able to testify to statements made to me in person by a defendant as 801d2a.

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:32 am

BarbellDreams wrote:
kalvano wrote:
BarbellDreams wrote:They want the friend to testify to the statement that the defendant said to him in person, which happened to include the contents of the video. The friend never even saw the video, so he couldn't have learned the information he testified to from the video and the regurgitated it, which is the sole reason for the best evidence rule.



I read it was they want him to testify as to what was said in the video (which is utterly stupid), which to me triggers something about best evidence.


The friend never saw the video, so he can't testify to what he saw in the video or what he learned from the contents of the video, because he never saw it. If he did and wanted to testify that would be a best evidence rule violation. Thats what really didn't sit right with me on this question, I should alway be able to testify to statements made to me in person by a defendant as 801d2a.

Yeah. If I say to you, "I wrote in my diary that I killed my wife," and then the cops find the diary but you never see it, you can't testify that I told you that? Meh.

locusdelicti
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:34 am

BarbellDreams wrote:
kalvano wrote:
BarbellDreams wrote:They want the friend to testify to the statement that the defendant said to him in person, which happened to include the contents of the video. The friend never even saw the video, so he couldn't have learned the information he testified to from the video and the regurgitated it, which is the sole reason for the best evidence rule.



I read it was they want him to testify as to what was said in the video (which is utterly stupid), which to me triggers something about best evidence.


The friend never saw the video, so he can't testify to what he saw in the video or what he learned from the contents of the video, because he never saw it. If he did and wanted to testify that would be a best evidence rule violation. Thats what really didn't sit right with me on this question, I should alway be able to testify to statements made to me in person by a defendant as 801d2a.


They're not asking him to testify about what he saw in the video. They're asking him to testify about what the defendant told him was in the video. Which still violates the best evidence rule. The reason the prosecution wants to introduce the testimony is because they're worried that watching the video will make the defendant look sympathetic, so instead, they're going to have this friend testify about what's in the video, which violates best evidence.

User avatar
JuTMSY4
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:40 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby JuTMSY4 » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:37 am

The friend is testifying about what is in the video. I think the problem with the question is it asks about the "husband's statement" which could be read is either "there's a video where I say it was no accident" or "I said it was no accident, and it's in this video." You're supposed to believe it's the former (and it reads that way).

I believe, whether the friend saw it, is irrelevant.

releasethehounds
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:47 am

locusdelicti wrote:
BarbellDreams wrote:
kalvano wrote:
BarbellDreams wrote:They want the friend to testify to the statement that the defendant said to him in person, which happened to include the contents of the video. The friend never even saw the video, so he couldn't have learned the information he testified to from the video and the regurgitated it, which is the sole reason for the best evidence rule.



I read it was they want him to testify as to what was said in the video (which is utterly stupid), which to me triggers something about best evidence.


The friend never saw the video, so he can't testify to what he saw in the video or what he learned from the contents of the video, because he never saw it. If he did and wanted to testify that would be a best evidence rule violation. Thats what really didn't sit right with me on this question, I should alway be able to testify to statements made to me in person by a defendant as 801d2a.


They're not asking him to testify about what he saw in the video. They're asking him to testify about what the defendant told him was in the video. Which still violates the best evidence rule. The reason the prosecution wants to introduce the testimony is because they're worried that watching the video will make the defendant look sympathetic, so instead, they're going to have this friend testify about what's in the video, which violates best evidence.


Agreed. All the friend has personal knowledge of is that the defendant said there's a video and it says this. So literally all he can do if he gets on the stand is say 'the defendant told me there's this video in which he said this'. They're not putting him on the stand to say 'The defendant said his wife's murder was no accident', they're putting him on the stand to say 'the defendant told me there was a video in which he said 'my wife's death was no accident'. How is that not testifying to what he has been told is the content of the video? and how does that not violate best evidence if you also have the video? If you don't have the video, sure. Bring on the friend's testimony.

sidenote: ....Anyone else kind of curious how the husband's statement that his wife's death was no accident makes the defendant look sympathetic in a trial where HE is the one being prosecuted for HER murder that was made to look like an accident?

locusdelicti
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:50 am

releasethehounds wrote:
Agreed. All the friend has personal knowledge of is that the defendant said there's a video and it says this. So literally all he can do if he gets on the stand is say 'the defendant told me there's this video in which he said this'. How is that not testifying to what he has been told is the content of the video? and how does that not violate best evidence if you also have the video? If you don't have the video, sure. Bring on the friend's testimony.

sidenote: ....Anyone else kind of curious how the husband's statement that his wife's death was no accident makes the defendant look sympathetic in a trial where HE is the one being prosecuted for HER murder that was made to look like an accident?


Maybe in the video, he's tearfully shaking his fist in the air while he says it. "This was no accident!" Like "I will avenge her!"

releasethehounds
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:55 am

locusdelicti wrote:
releasethehounds wrote:
Agreed. All the friend has personal knowledge of is that the defendant said there's a video and it says this. So literally all he can do if he gets on the stand is say 'the defendant told me there's this video in which he said this'. How is that not testifying to what he has been told is the content of the video? and how does that not violate best evidence if you also have the video? If you don't have the video, sure. Bring on the friend's testimony.

sidenote: ....Anyone else kind of curious how the husband's statement that his wife's death was no accident makes the defendant look sympathetic in a trial where HE is the one being prosecuted for HER murder that was made to look like an accident?


Maybe in the video, he's tearfully shaking his fist in the air while he says it. "This was no accident!" Like "I will avenge her!"


All the more reason to admit the video and not the friend's testimony: that sounds entertaining as hell.


Also:

random torts question wrote:One block away from the accident site, a child was watching television when the power went out, and her house became pitch black. The child, who was scared of the dark, ran out of the house and into the street where the child was struck by a bicyclist and seriously injured.


Darwin says let the kid die, humanity is better for it. Running into more dark to escape dark is just dumb. End of inquiry.

Though I suppose Huxley and Haeckel were the ones to apply Darwinism to humans. But still. Also the fact that I even know their names proves my degree is useless. Also the kid didn't die. Also I'm clearly grouchy this morning.

locusdelicti
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:59 am

releasethehounds wrote:
locusdelicti wrote:
releasethehounds wrote:
Agreed. All the friend has personal knowledge of is that the defendant said there's a video and it says this. So literally all he can do if he gets on the stand is say 'the defendant told me there's this video in which he said this'. How is that not testifying to what he has been told is the content of the video? and how does that not violate best evidence if you also have the video? If you don't have the video, sure. Bring on the friend's testimony.

sidenote: ....Anyone else kind of curious how the husband's statement that his wife's death was no accident makes the defendant look sympathetic in a trial where HE is the one being prosecuted for HER murder that was made to look like an accident?


Maybe in the video, he's tearfully shaking his fist in the air while he says it. "This was no accident!" Like "I will avenge her!"


All the more reason to admit the video and not the friend's testimony: that sounds entertaining as hell.


Also:

random torts question wrote:One block away from the accident site, a child was watching television when the power went out, and her house became pitch black. The child, who was scared of the dark, ran out of the house and into the street where the child was struck by a bicyclist and seriously injured.


Darwin says let the kid die, humanity is better for it. Running into more dark to escape dark is just dumb. End of inquiry.

Though I suppose Huxley and Haeckel were the ones to apply Darwinism to humans. But still. Also the fact that I even know their names proves my degree is useless. Also the kid didn't die. Also I'm clearly grouchy this morning.


I'm REALLY grouchy.

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby BarbellDreams » Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:03 pm

releasethehounds wrote:
locusdelicti wrote:
releasethehounds wrote:
Agreed. All the friend has personal knowledge of is that the defendant said there's a video and it says this. So literally all he can do if he gets on the stand is say 'the defendant told me there's this video in which he said this'. How is that not testifying to what he has been told is the content of the video? and how does that not violate best evidence if you also have the video? If you don't have the video, sure. Bring on the friend's testimony.

sidenote: ....Anyone else kind of curious how the husband's statement that his wife's death was no accident makes the defendant look sympathetic in a trial where HE is the one being prosecuted for HER murder that was made to look like an accident?


Maybe in the video, he's tearfully shaking his fist in the air while he says it. "This was no accident!" Like "I will avenge her!"


All the more reason to admit the video and not the friend's testimony: that sounds entertaining as hell.


Also:

random torts question wrote:One block away from the accident site, a child was watching television when the power went out, and her house became pitch black. The child, who was scared of the dark, ran out of the house and into the street where the child was struck by a bicyclist and seriously injured.


Darwin says let the kid die, humanity is better for it. Running into more dark to escape dark is just dumb. End of inquiry.

Though I suppose Huxley and Haeckel were the ones to apply Darwinism to humans. But still. Also the fact that I even know their names proves my degree is useless. Also the kid didn't die. Also I'm clearly grouchy this morning.



Yeah, something like "Defendant said (insert quote) to me" shouldn't be best evidence violation. Just not how it works in my view, and I'm putting down A 100 out of 100 times on the real MBE (hoping that real MBE words the question better so it swings harsher one way or the other).

Also, the child running into the street thing is ridiculous. I've been entertained by how far some of the Themis scenarios have gone to hint at lack of forseeability. I still remember when the helicopter who was searching for a defendant in the woods ran out of fuel and crashed into a mountain or something and they wanted to charge the defendant with murder.

Talar
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:56 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Talar » Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:13 pm

Does everyone agree that Geis, the contracts/sales guy, never went into anticipatory breach this in depth? I know he discussed the exception where one party completely finishes performance and is waiting on the other side, but this question seems to take it a step further.

16. (Question ID#266)
A broker needed a certain rare coin to complete a set that he had contracted to assemble and sell to a collector. On February 1, the broker obtained such a coin from a third party in exchange for $1,000 and the broker's signed, written promise to re-deliver to the third party "not later than December 31 this year" a comparable specimen of the same kind of coin without charge to the third party. On February 2, the broker consummated sale of the complete set to the collector. On October 1, the market price of rare coins suddenly began a rapid, sustained rise; on October 15 the third party wrote the broker for assurance that the latter would timely meet his coin-replacement commitment. The broker replied, "In view of the surprising market, it seems unfair that I should have to replace your coin within the next few weeks." After receiving the broker's message on October 17, the third party telephoned the broker, who said, "I absolutely will not replace your coin until the market drops far below its present level." The third party then sued the broker on November 15 for the market value of a comparable replacement coin as promised by the broker in February. The trial began on December 1.

If the broker moves to dismiss the third party's complaint, which of the following is the third party's best argument in opposing the motion?

A. The third party's implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in enforcement of the contract required her to mitigate her losses on the rising market by suing promptly, as she did, after becoming reasonably apprehensive of a prospective breach by the broker.
B. Although the doctrine of anticipatory breach is not applicable under the prevailing view if, at the time of repudiation, the repudiatee owes the repudiator no remaining duty of performance, the doctrine applies in this case because the third party, the repudiatee, remains potentially liable under an implied warranty that the coin advanced to the broker was genuine.
C. When either party to a sale-of-goods contract repudiates with respect to a performance not yet due, the loss of which will substantially impair the value of the contract to the other, the aggrieved party may, in good faith, resort to any appropriate remedy for breach.
D. Anticipatory repudiation, as a deliberate disruption without legal excuse of an ongoing contractual relationship between the parties, may be treated by the repudiatee at her election as a present tort, actionable at once.


Incorrect: Answer choice C is correct. Upon repudiation, the promisee can treat the repudiation as a breach and resort to any appropriate remedies. Answer choice A is incorrect, as good faith, fair dealing, and mitigation are all used out of context here. What matters is that the broker repudiated, and the third party is entitled to treat that as a breach and seek any appropriate remedies. Answer choice B is incorrect, as the U.C.C. permits treatment as a breach under these circumstances if the prospective loss will substantially impair the value of the contract for the aggrieved party. Answer choice D is incorrect, as this is a repudiation of a contract under contract law and not an actionable tort.

Talar
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:56 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Talar » Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:21 pm

After thinking about the question some more, it makes more sense to me, but I think the explanation at the bottom does a poor job.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11726
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:21 pm

As far as I can tell, when it comes to anticipatory repudiation, the rules change daily.

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Dr. Review » Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:26 pm

Image

I just want each number to say at least 75, then I can rest.

releasethehounds
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:33 pm

Question: in the world of theft crimes, if you obtain possession of cash, how is it possible that you have not also obtained title to the money? I feel like money is its own thing. I also feel like I've seen answer explanations tell me both that possession = title in cash and also that possession does not = title in cash. Just not sure which way is right.

releasethehounds
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:34 pm

Bedsole wrote:
I just want each number to say at least 75, then I can rest.


I am right there with you. I finally hit 75% on the essay PQs. Now I just need to do the stupid PM essay exam and i'll be at 75%+ across the board. Until they inevitably tell me when I fail the bar that I didn't do SOMETHING right and they've managed to lawyer themselves a loophole.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests