California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Busyvee
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Busyvee » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:18 pm

Gloriaha wrote:So my boyfriend of a year has yet to ask me out for celebratory drinks or any other kind of post-bar date, other than to go to his house and chill while he studies for a calc. test.

Are your significant others taking you on dates this weekend?

My fiancée was dragging me to steak house and spa,all I want, to stay in bed and be left alone :cry: :cry:
He got pissed off and left

User avatar
Hoggle
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Hoggle » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:23 pm

LegalReality wrote:I read the motion at least ten times and interpreted it to only refer to his testimony.


I thought it included the phone transcripts as well.

User avatar
MURPH
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:20 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby MURPH » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:34 pm

Hoggle wrote:
1swift wrote:
Gloriaha wrote:
CourtneyElizabeth wrote:I said

TRANSCRIPT OF PRIOR TESTIMONY

Evidence Rule

Evidence Rule blah blah

TRANSCRIPT OF VOICE MAIL

Evidence Rule

Evidence Rue

TRANSCRIPT OF PHONE CALL

Evidence Rule Evidence Rule Kill me.


This is exactly what I did.



I wrote more like

Hearsay Rule, these 3 things are Hearsay

Thing 1 (Former testimony)

Relevant exception/case

Thing 2 (Statement against interest)

Relevant exception/case

Thing 3 (catch all)

Relevant exception/case


AT the onset, I thought about both of these ways of organizing it.

I selected #2 because I realized that the the phone call and voice mail would not be admissible under the first two exceptions. So, it would require me to type a lot more if I did #1.

I used the Columbia Evidence Code as my outline. So the first issue was whether the statement was hearsay (rule, analysis, Yes it is hearsay). Then I went through and did the analysis for each § of the code and each subsection - whether it was admissible as 804, as the other 804 as 807... I concluded that it was not admissible as prior testimony because the DA was not a predecessor in interest but it was admissible as a statement against interest and as a residual exception. I did a lot of facts. I cited every case including the case within a case that was quoted. The phone calls were not admissible in themselves but they were corroborating evidence that could be used out of the presence of the jury to get the transcript admitted. They also supported the spontaneity factor.

User avatar
fl0w
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:46 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby fl0w » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:35 pm

Lasers wrote:congrats everyone! must feel good to be done with the bar...

i just wanted to ask if you guys had any opinion on barbri v. kaplan now that you have been through it all? i would like the structure of a commercial prep course and i just want to make sure i can rely on the accuracy and (relative) helpfulness of the materials they give me. ideally, i would like to take kaplan because it's significantly cheaper, but price is secondary to me passing the first time.


i think the commercial prep courses are crap. scare tactics to get your money. "be bar-bri ready." sure buddy, whatever.
Like I said before, I highly recommend getting a good tutor. Trust me, a good one will give you far more structure than a commercial prep course. If you want a recommendation let me know.

I did commercial course the first time and took the bar and felt like i was very unprepared, watching all of the lectures is a huge time-sink and isn't needed to pass the bar, and didn't understand how things were tested. my tutor really opened my eyes to the method of the bar exam.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby a male human » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:45 pm

MURPH wrote:I used the Columbia Evidence Code as my outline. So the first issue was whether the statement was hearsay (rule, analysis, Yes it is hearsay). Then I went through and did the analysis for each § of the code and each subsection - whether it was admissible as 804, as the other 804 as 807... I concluded that it was not admissible as prior testimony because the DA was not a predecessor in interest but it was admissible as a statement against interest and as a residual exception. I did a lot of facts. I cited every case including the case within a case that was quoted. The phone calls were not admissible in themselves but they were corroborating evidence that could be used out of the presence of the jury to get the transcript admitted. They also supported the spontaneity factor.

Was there a CEC? I only saw FRE. But damn I didn't even establish that the testimony was hearsay.

User avatar
Lasers
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:46 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Lasers » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:48 pm

fl0w wrote:
Lasers wrote:congrats everyone! must feel good to be done with the bar...

i just wanted to ask if you guys had any opinion on barbri v. kaplan now that you have been through it all? i would like the structure of a commercial prep course and i just want to make sure i can rely on the accuracy and (relative) helpfulness of the materials they give me. ideally, i would like to take kaplan because it's significantly cheaper, but price is secondary to me passing the first time.


i think the commercial prep courses are crap. scare tactics to get your money. "be bar-bri ready." sure buddy, whatever.
Like I said before, I highly recommend getting a good tutor. Trust me, a good one will give you far more structure than a commercial prep course. If you want a recommendation let me know.

I did commercial course the first time and took the bar and felt like i was very unprepared, watching all of the lectures is a huge time-sink and isn't needed to pass the bar, and didn't understand how things were tested. my tutor really opened my eyes to the method of the bar exam.

hmm, interesting. which bar course did you take the first time?

1swift
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:49 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby 1swift » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:57 pm

a male human wrote:
MURPH wrote:I used the Columbia Evidence Code as my outline. So the first issue was whether the statement was hearsay (rule, analysis, Yes it is hearsay). Then I went through and did the analysis for each § of the code and each subsection - whether it was admissible as 804, as the other 804 as 807... I concluded that it was not admissible as prior testimony because the DA was not a predecessor in interest but it was admissible as a statement against interest and as a residual exception. I did a lot of facts. I cited every case including the case within a case that was quoted. The phone calls were not admissible in themselves but they were corroborating evidence that could be used out of the presence of the jury to get the transcript admitted. They also supported the spontaneity factor.

Was there a CEC? I only saw FRE. But damn I didn't even establish that the testimony was hearsay.


The rules were all FRE.

And the motion said all transcripts relating to former testimony. The voicemail and the phone transcripts were relating enough for me.

It felt pretty 1:1 matchup. Former testimony was one (could also be statement against interest in hindsight). Statement against interest was the voicemail because if you read it more carefully he mentioned he lied on the stand but he didn't technically say that in the phone transcript. The phone conversation was the 807 sort of catch all rule because thats the only evidence showing the police struck him or whatever to coerce his testimony which goes to the elements of what they are charged with.

Thats just how I saw it

User avatar
Hoggle
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Hoggle » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:58 pm

a male human wrote:
MURPH wrote:I used the Columbia Evidence Code as my outline. So the first issue was whether the statement was hearsay (rule, analysis, Yes it is hearsay). Then I went through and did the analysis for each § of the code and each subsection - whether it was admissible as 804, as the other 804 as 807... I concluded that it was not admissible as prior testimony because the DA was not a predecessor in interest but it was admissible as a statement against interest and as a residual exception. I did a lot of facts. I cited every case including the case within a case that was quoted. The phone calls were not admissible in themselves but they were corroborating evidence that could be used out of the presence of the jury to get the transcript admitted. They also supported the spontaneity factor.

Was there a CEC? I only saw FRE. But damn I didn't even establish that the testimony was hearsay.


That was my conclusion as well, but the calls could be analyzed under the catchall, I thought that was pretty clear on the basis of the last case in the file.

User avatar
MURPH
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:20 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby MURPH » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:59 pm

Lasers wrote:congrats everyone! must feel good to be done with the bar...

i just wanted to ask if you guys had any opinion on barbri v. kaplan now that you have been through it all? i would like the structure of a commercial prep course and i just want to make sure i can rely on the accuracy and (relative) helpfulness of the materials they give me. ideally, i would like to take kaplan because it's significantly cheaper, but price is secondary to me passing the first time.



I did not take a prep course either time. I highly recommend using baressays.com and Bar Max's 99$ app. Together they will cost you $250. You will get all the outlines and one page quick reference sheets as well as every Bar essay and PT with graded answers from the last 10 years or so. On the app you get 1400+ MBE questions. The app keeps track of the questions you get wrong, your % for each topic and other stuff. You get no lectures from dickhead professors and no one trying to scare the shit out of you so that you will attribute your success to them.

If I had to take this again I would just do essays, PTs and MBE questions non-stop. In retrospect, the time I spent reading and memorizing was mostly wasted. I learn by writing shitty essays then comparing my shit to a good essay and then doing it over. The outlines help a little but they work best after I've written a bad essay and I need to turn to the outline to see what I didn't understand. Fortunately, I figured this out in late December and didn't continue to try to memorize 30 page outlines all through January and February.

There is a place for memorizing - I'd have died on that PR essay had I not memorized the list of topics. But there is a special way to memorize that I doubt bar bri or Kaplan. See: TEDTalks: Life Hack: "Joshua Foer: Feats of Memory Anyone Can Do" on Netflix for a good demonstration of it. Basically, in order to memorize shit you need to use the part of your brain that has a mental map - you think of things in your house as you walk through the house to trigger the key words. So in order to memorize the PR topics I had this crazy story in my head that involved Judge Judy and the characters from Sesame Street and Pulp Fiction in my house. During the test when I realized I didn't know what was going on in the PR essay I closed my eyes and thought of my home. All of the triggers to show me the topics were there and the list of issues just came back to me as I mentally looked around my home. Using pneumonic and acronyms and the stuff that BarBri teaches is fine but it should supplement the thing your brain is really good at remembering - how things are arranged in your home.

But anyway, that is a back up only. The main thing is just write essays, do PTs and work on the MBE questions.

User avatar
MURPH
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:20 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby MURPH » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:59 pm

You are right. It was FRE not CEC.

Busyvee
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Busyvee » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:59 pm

Hoggle wrote:
LegalReality wrote:I read the motion at least ten times and interpreted it to only refer to his testimony.


I thought it included the phone transcripts as well.

There were no phone transcripts trust me

1swift
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:49 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby 1swift » Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:07 pm

Lasers wrote:
fl0w wrote:
Lasers wrote:congrats everyone! must feel good to be done with the bar...

i just wanted to ask if you guys had any opinion on barbri v. kaplan now that you have been through it all? i would like the structure of a commercial prep course and i just want to make sure i can rely on the accuracy and (relative) helpfulness of the materials they give me. ideally, i would like to take kaplan because it's significantly cheaper, but price is secondary to me passing the first time.


i think the commercial prep courses are crap. scare tactics to get your money. "be bar-bri ready." sure buddy, whatever.
Like I said before, I highly recommend getting a good tutor. Trust me, a good one will give you far more structure than a commercial prep course. If you want a recommendation let me know.

I did commercial course the first time and took the bar and felt like i was very unprepared, watching all of the lectures is a huge time-sink and isn't needed to pass the bar, and didn't understand how things were tested. my tutor really opened my eyes to the method of the bar exam.

hmm, interesting. which bar course did you take the first time?


I agree with Flow...I took Kaplan and I can't blame Kaplan for not being prepped for my first time in July though I do think they left me out to dry in the PT area.

I think the major bar preps are killing a chunk of your time with the lectures. I didn't do tutoring this time but if I had to start from day 1 again I'd do a tutoring. Actual feedback, some guidance with how to break down a PT and write/organize would do wonders. During my summer I felt like I was doing good because I could say that I mentioned a lot of the stuff I saw in the "good" essay...turns out I was missing the boat because my facts/law/theories etc that would get me points were buried in long paragraphs instead of having a clear heading etc etc. Just organizing my thoughts better may have gotten me to a pass in July. Thats the key

This time I did a PT weekend workshop, did Adaptibar, and then just wrote essay after essay after essay. We'll see how it turns out

kershawfan
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:05 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby kershawfan » Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:45 pm

The motion said all evidence of transcripts and testimony related to his testimony in the Columbia v. Rock trial

kershawfan
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:05 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby kershawfan » Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:51 pm

Busyvee wrote:
Hoggle wrote:
LegalReality wrote:I read the motion at least ten times and interpreted it to only refer to his testimony.


I thought it included the phone transcripts as well.

There were no phone transcripts trust me

There was a transcript of the voicemail from Watts to Hill and a transcript of Hill's telephone conversation with Watts.

siaynoqq
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby siaynoqq » Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:58 pm

I used the complaint/answer to set up the body, then specifically connected how Watts' statements proved the truth of.... [connected the evidence to each claim/defense]. What else could they be used for?

Busyvee
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Busyvee » Fri Feb 28, 2014 8:04 pm

kershawfan wrote:
Busyvee wrote:
Hoggle wrote:
LegalReality wrote:I read the motion at least ten times and interpreted it to only refer to his testimony.


I thought it included the phone transcripts as well.

There were no phone transcripts trust me

There was a transcript of the voicemail from Watts to Hill and a transcript of Hill's telephone conversation with Watts.

Yes but that's not what was asked for

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Fri Feb 28, 2014 8:42 pm

It said all transcripts relating to Watts testimony. The phone calls related to watts testimony.

LegalReality
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:08 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby LegalReality » Fri Feb 28, 2014 8:54 pm

There are two ways to introduce hearsay, testimony of someone who personally heard it and transcripts of the testimony itself. The transcript regarding the testimony just refers to a way the testimony could be introduced. Further, the transcripts in the case were not regarding the testimony, the conversations in the transcript had nothing to do with the defendant testifying.

get it to x
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:31 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby get it to x » Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:36 pm

fl0w wrote:
Lasers wrote:congrats everyone! must feel good to be done with the bar...

i just wanted to ask if you guys had any opinion on barbri v. kaplan now that you have been through it all? i would like the structure of a commercial prep course and i just want to make sure i can rely on the accuracy and (relative) helpfulness of the materials they give me. ideally, i would like to take kaplan because it's significantly cheaper, but price is secondary to me passing the first time.


i think the commercial prep courses are crap. scare tactics to get your money. "be bar-bri ready." sure buddy, whatever.
Like I said before, I highly recommend getting a good tutor. Trust me, a good one will give you far more structure than a commercial prep course. If you want a recommendation let me know.

I did commercial course the first time and took the bar and felt like i was very unprepared, watching all of the lectures is a huge time-sink and isn't needed to pass the bar, and didn't understand how things were tested. my tutor really opened my eyes to the method of the bar exam.


Agreed. I can speak to BarBri alone for the MBE and warn you about what you are getting/not getting.

One of the best posts I saw on here was that the MBE was a mile wide and about an inch deep. That's true for the most part. The NCBE has an entire body of law at its disposal to test you on, but objectively does not drill down very deep in any topic area. That's why studying for the bar is probably one of the most nerve-wracking portions of your professional career - you can never be fully prepared because they've got you outnumbered based on the sheer scope they can test from.

The problem with BarBri, and I will venture to say the other test preparation companies, is that if the bar is a mile wide, their subject matter outlines cover maybe 3/4's of that mile. The other 1/4 is subject material that objectively is not very difficult if you knew the law, but because you don't you either have to try to reason your way through it (which sometimes can be done) or blindly guess (this happens more than maybe TLS posters would be willing to outright admit). That's why if you search the forums you will see posts like "holy hell, who saw 6 questions on Native American sovereignty?" It makes it infinitely harder to get the question right, if you have no idea what the law is. However, in test taker's general defense, we don't know how many of those questions get factored into the curve and ultimately never impact our score. But when you combine it with the fact that the NCBE asks some really hard questions on subject material covered in the outlines along with some rules you misapply or just forget because you probably are sleep-deprived and cannot apply everything correctly under the time constraints, the wrong answers do add up.

BarBri needs to update their materials. I do not know if they are waiting until Federal Civil Procedure gets implemented next February or if they will just add in questions and keep the outlines the same, but there is a disconnect between the current Conviser Mini Review (which should be your main study tool no matter what they say about how effective the lectures are) and the MBE's emphasis on the subject material. Maybe their approach worked four years ago regarding how specific topics were tested, but it's not working now. I understand and accept that bar preparation courses are reactive, but I do fault BarBri for not adapting quickly enough. Their job is to study the bar trends and react accordingly or they are doing their students an extreme disservice with so much on the line after paying them thousands of dollars. That's leaving bar takers to, in my opinion, rely too extensively on the curve to push them over the line.

As far as the multitude of questions that BarBri provides...I think BarBri does an excellent job of preparing you for the test if that test was prepared by BarBri test-takers. There is a substantial difference between the formatting and approach of MBE questions and BarBri's. I found purchasing the released questions on either the NCBE website or Emmanuel's book do not provide an accurate assessment of the difficulty of the current MBE. So BarBri makes you BarBri ready, but not necessarily MBE ready.

siaynoqq
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby siaynoqq » Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:50 pm

The Barbri Mini Conviser covered 99% of what I saw on the MBE. Don't know what you guys are talking about. The essay approaches they have are also massively helpful. I would just not spend time on lectures.

User avatar
ChinaMex
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:51 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby ChinaMex » Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:37 pm

Busyvee wrote:
kershawfan wrote:
Busyvee wrote:There were no phone transcripts trust me

There was a transcript of the voicemail from Watts to Hill and a transcript of Hill's telephone conversation with Watts.

Yes but that's not what was asked for


I did think the motion said all transcripts but I don't think we'll agree on what it said. I will say that it's likely we were supposed to write on the phone transcripts given that there was a case directly on point with phone transcripts. If we were only supposed to analyze how sworn testimony is treated, the PT likely wouldn't have included a case on non-sworn phone transcripts.

siaynoqq
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby siaynoqq » Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:57 pm

ChinaMex wrote:
Busyvee wrote:
kershawfan wrote:
Busyvee wrote:There were no phone transcripts trust me

There was a transcript of the voicemail from Watts to Hill and a transcript of Hill's telephone conversation with Watts.

Yes but that's not what was asked for


I did think the motion said all transcripts but I don't think we'll agree on what it said. I will say that it's likely we were supposed to write on the phone transcripts given that there was a case directly on point with phone transcripts. If we were only supposed to analyze how sworn testimony is treated, the PT likely wouldn't have included a case on non-sworn phone transcripts.



I recall writing the writing the relevant sentence from the motion word for word: "... all statements and transcripts..."

sykopoet
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:46 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby sykopoet » Fri Feb 28, 2014 11:01 pm

kershawfan wrote:
sykopoet wrote:So, don't want to freak anyone out, but did anyone else see Erie in the Civ Pro question? Haven't scrolled through the whole thread, but so far haven't seen anyone mention it.


I mentioned it for the damages cap statute. No idea if that works though


My 2 friends who were taking the test w/ me looked at me like I was insane when I mentioned Erie. I thought maybe I had gone totally off the rails. After this post, glad to know that I wasn't the only person who mentioned it. So, seems like I did well on the civ pro question, which will help to make up for the total BS I wrote about zoning ordinances yesterday.

User avatar
2807
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:23 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby 2807 » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:40 am

Y'all see this?

CA Bar posts message about the "incidents" during the exam.

--LinkRemoved--

squirtle
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby squirtle » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:41 am

2807 wrote:Y'all see this?

CA Bar posts message about the "incidents" during the exam.

--LinkRemoved--






I'm really curious to see what happens. I wonder what the State Bar will do. You think people who had issues with examsoft will get added points?




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JJAB, theave and 8 guests