2015 February California Bar Exam

User avatar
esq
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby esq » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:42 pm

I mean it is tough to know, but you'd definitely get fired for presenting a pro-prosecution (aka, let's fry this fucker) argument to your supervising defender.

injun
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:28 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby injun » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:48 pm

What do you mean by writing for the wrong side? Do you mean that you were arguing that all the evidence would be admissible?[/quote]

Basically, I wrote that it would be inadmissible hearsay. Then I stated how the statements qualify as Excited Utterance....then I concluded that the statements should be inadmissible as hearsay. Essentially, for obviously stupid reasons, I equated excited utterance = inadmissible hearsay. I used the cases to support this and then concluded that it should be inadmissible as excited utterance.

s1m4
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:04 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby s1m4 » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:59 pm

^ Honestly, I don't know, but I barely saw anything below a 55 on baressays.

s1m4
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:04 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby s1m4 » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:59 pm

So how does the curve in february work? We need more essay points to pass than in July right?

Astronaut Teemo
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:37 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Astronaut Teemo » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:04 pm

injun wrote:What do you mean by writing for the wrong side? Do you mean that you were arguing that all the evidence would be admissible?

Basically, I wrote that it would be inadmissible hearsay. Then I stated how the statements qualify as Excited Utterance....then I concluded that the statements should be inadmissible as hearsay. Essentially, for obviously stupid reasons, I equated excited utterance = inadmissible hearsay. I used the cases to support this and then concluded that it should be inadmissible as excited utterance.


How? If it is an excited utterance it is admissible though hearsay... It would be admissible. The only way to exclude it is to make sure it doesn't come in under 6ACC.

Sorry man, it clearly stated like 3 sentences in that you were supposed to argue for the defenses motion to suppress the evidence. I am not really sure how you concluded that it was supposed to come in.

AMCD
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 11:33 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby AMCD » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:13 pm

THANKS -- Tearsforbeers, Esq. and anyone else who has sympathized with NY Lawyer guy's comments to me throughout. This is also the same guy who thought the civ pro essay was evidence, and did remedies for the K's essay 1 and Ks for the essay 4. I just can't believe I screwed up so badly. I have twice failed by less than 5 points, and both times got a 55 and a 75 on the two PTs, so know what it takes to get a 55. BUT.... now that I just read people did a THIRD heading for "other relief", I feel like I was doing another test entirely -- so give me a 50. Crap, that's so bad. I did two main headings with two sub-headings for the Hearsay/6th A and tried to plug in all the cases throughout. BUT NO THIRD SECTION. Ridiculous considering I did, what, the 11 total sections on Tuesday with the sub-parts to each of part two. That thing was insane. Oh God. Why me.

Thanks for all your support, all of you.

And in case you all want a good laugh, on the wills essay I wrote about honorary trusts (and that this was not one) RAP briefly (and why it didn't apply) and then ....... PRETERMITTED CHILD!!!!!!!!! I was so tired after churning through the four wills that I forgot I had written about 100 times that he was her grandchild and threw in 4 lines about how he would argue when she cut him out he was pretermitted but was not!!! I think I have the winning f-ups at this point!! Lawyer guy told me: They will probably just laugh at you and take off 5 points.

mind_fuch
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:28 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby mind_fuch » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:19 pm

For PT B, did anyone else read in the partner memo that the 911 transcript was a certified copy, so that if what was in the transcript came in, the transcript would automatically come in? For that reason, I did not discuss the public records/business records exception for the transcript.

I thought the public records exception was supposed to be used for Kevin Robert's Statement. I discussed that in the third call.

arizzle
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:40 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby arizzle » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:24 pm

tearsforbeers wrote:I said no excited utterance because she was sedated when interrogated. She was on the gurney. The paramedic just gave her sedative before Officer asked. The paramedic said she was calm. Not so sure that it was a great argument but I think that's what the sedative fact went. I also referenced doctor's affidavit that she was likely incapable of remembering the event due to head injuries. I don't think I cited the relevance rule there but that would have been a good place for it. I used the lack of ongoing emergency (he had searched house to make sure assailant was gone) to state that the nods were testimonial.

The 911 transcript= nontestimonial after the point when dispatcher responded to emergency statement. Thereafter it was testimonial b/c she was interrogating. Used rule stating dispatchers can be agents for the police. B/c the testimonial parts were prepared in anticipation of prosecution, they're not reliable biz/public records, citing the cocaine affidavits. I conceded that dad's statements were excited utterances but the testimonial portions were 6th A violations.

Did anybody reference the interviews with the son or the mom? I didn't think they'd be usable in the motion.


I basically had the exact same line of reasoning. To me the whole thing turned almost entirely on the excited utterance.

If you concede that any of it is an excited utterance, it destroys every other argument you have.

Almost by definition an excited utterance is non testimonial. So if you concede it was an excited utterance, that defeats the confrontation clause argument.

User avatar
tearsforbeers
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:40 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby tearsforbeers » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:59 pm

Did anybody reference the interviews with the son or the mom? I didn't think they'd be usable in the motion.[/quote]

I basically had the exact same line of reasoning. To me the whole thing turned almost entirely on the excited utterance.

If you concede that any of it is an excited utterance, it destroys every other argument you have.


Almost by definition an excited utterance is non testimonial. So if you concede it was an excited utterance, that defeats the confrontation clause argument.[/quote]
Last edited by tearsforbeers on Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

s1m4
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:04 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby s1m4 » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:03 pm

[quote="AMCD"]THANKS -- Tearsforbeers, Esq. and anyone else who has sympathized with NY Lawyer guy's comments to me throughout. This is also the same guy who thought the civ pro essay was evidence, and did remedies for the K's essay 1 and Ks for the essay 4. I just can't believe I screwed up so badly. I have twice failed by less than 5 points, and both times got a 55 and a 75 on the two PTs, so know what it takes to get a 55. BUT.... now that I just read people did a THIRD heading for "other relief", I feel like I was doing another test entirely -- so give me a 50. Crap, that's so bad. I did two main headings with two sub-headings for the Hearsay/6th A and tried to plug in all the cases throughout. BUT NO THIRD SECTION. Ridiculous considering I did, what, the 11 total sections on Tuesday with the sub-parts to each of part two. That thing was insane. Oh God. Why me.

Thanks for all your support, all of you.

And in case you all want a good laugh, on the wills essay I wrote about honorary trusts (and that this was not one) RAP briefly (and why it didn't apply) and then ....... PRETERMITTED CHILD!!!!!!!!! I was so tired after churning through the four wills that I forgot I had written about 100 times that he was her grandchild and threw in 4 lines about how he would argue when she cut him out he was pretermitted but was not!!! I think I have the winning f-ups at this point!! Lawyer guy told me: They will probably just laugh at you and take off 5 points.[/purse can it be searched under automobile exception?



Dude do not trip out like this - I am the only one I know from my friends that added the third section, and that section was not asked for - you just need the two headings - I think most motions have a section that says "other relief that court sees fit" but you dont ever bring in additional arguments - I wrote that because I was reaching like crazy the last 20 min - but I made a lot of other mistakes and spotting issues (saying officers testimony was an affidavit and spending too much time talking about it..) im in this thread because I got 55s on PTs in July, I have no idea wtf im doing

Fyi I also mentioned it was not an honorary trust :/

arizzle
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:40 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby arizzle » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:14 pm

tearsforbeers wrote:
arizzle wrote:
tearsforbeers wrote:I said no excited utterance because she was sedated when interrogated. She was on the gurney. The paramedic just gave her sedative before Officer asked. The paramedic said she was calm. Not so sure that it was a great argument but I think that's what the sedative fact went. I also referenced doctor's affidavit that she was likely incapable of remembering the event due to head injuries. I don't think I cited the relevance rule there but that would have been a good place for it. I used the lack of ongoing emergency (he had searched house to make sure assailant was gone) to state that the nods were testimonial.

The 911 transcript= nontestimonial after the point when dispatcher responded to emergency statement. Thereafter it was testimonial b/c she was interrogating. Used rule stating dispatchers can be agents for the police. B/c the testimonial parts were prepared in anticipation of prosecution, they're not reliable biz/public records, citing the cocaine affidavits. I conceded that dad's statements were excited utterances but the testimonial portions were 6th A violations.

Did anybody reference the interviews with the son or the mom? I didn't think they'd be usable in the motion.


I basically had the exact same line of reasoning. To me the whole thing turned almost entirely on the excited utterance.

If you concede that any of it is an excited utterance, it destroys every other argument you have.

I don't think it does away with the right to confront.

"Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to
dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty."


Almost by definition an excited utterance is non testimonial. So if you concede it was an excited utterance, that defeats the confrontation clause argument.



But when the witness is unavailable, as they are in this case, the only way the statements could come in is if it satisfies the conditions for prior testimony, or under a hearsay exception.

The prior testimony exception only applies to testimonial statements and requires that the D had an opportunity to cross-examine.

So if you're representing D, you WANT the statements to be considered testimonial.

If the statements qualify as an excited utterance, and thus non-testimonial, then the confrontation clause argument becomes moot because witness availability is immaterial to that hearsay exception.


...............it makes sense in my head. Not so much when I actually write it out.

User avatar
Elms
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:06 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Elms » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:16 pm

s1m4 wrote:
AMCD wrote:THANKS -- Tearsforbeers, Esq. and anyone else who has sympathized with NY Lawyer guy's comments to me throughout. This is also the same guy who thought the civ pro essay was evidence, and did remedies for the K's essay 1 and Ks for the essay 4. I just can't believe I screwed up so badly. I have twice failed by less than 5 points, and both times got a 55 and a 75 on the two PTs, so know what it takes to get a 55. BUT.... now that I just read people did a THIRD heading for "other relief", I feel like I was doing another test entirely -- so give me a 50. Crap, that's so bad. I did two main headings with two sub-headings for the Hearsay/6th A and tried to plug in all the cases throughout. BUT NO THIRD SECTION. Ridiculous considering I did, what, the 11 total sections on Tuesday with the sub-parts to each of part two. That thing was insane. Oh God. Why me.

Thanks for all your support, all of you.

And in case you all want a good laugh, on the wills essay I wrote about honorary trusts (and that this was not one) RAP briefly (and why it didn't apply) and then ....... PRETERMITTED CHILD!!!!!!!!! I was so tired after churning through the four wills that I forgot I had written about 100 times that he was her grandchild and threw in 4 lines about how he would argue when she cut him out he was pretermitted but was not!!! I think I have the winning f-ups at this point!! Lawyer guy told me: They will probably just laugh at you and take off 5 points.[/purse can it be searched under automobile exception?


Dude do not trip out like this - I am the only one I know from my friends that added the third section, and that section was not asked for - you just need the two headings - I think most motions have a section that says "other relief that court sees fit" but you dont ever bring in additional arguments - I wrote that because I was reaching like crazy the last 20 min - but I made a lot of other mistakes and spotting issues (saying officers testimony was an affidavit and spending too much time talking about it..) im in this thread because I got 55s on PTs in July, I have no idea wtf im doing

Fyi I also mentioned it was not an honorary trust :/


I also did not add a third section. And I am not worried about it all. I would be worried about it if the instructions specifically said list three sections, but they did not. They said "use appropriate headings." As long as your headings are reasonably appropriate, you will be fine. I guarantee you that the variances in headings that the graders see is going to be HUGE.

JDMBALLMMS
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:25 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby JDMBALLMMS » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:18 pm

s1m4 wrote:
AMCD wrote:THANKS -- Tearsforbeers, Esq. and anyone else who has sympathized with NY Lawyer guy's comments to me throughout. This is also the same guy who thought the civ pro essay was evidence, and did remedies for the K's essay 1 and Ks for the essay 4. I just can't believe I screwed up so badly. I have twice failed by less than 5 points, and both times got a 55 and a 75 on the two PTs, so know what it takes to get a 55. BUT.... now that I just read people did a THIRD heading for "other relief", I feel like I was doing another test entirely -- so give me a 50. Crap, that's so bad. I did two main headings with two sub-headings for the Hearsay/6th A and tried to plug in all the cases throughout. BUT NO THIRD SECTION. Ridiculous considering I did, what, the 11 total sections on Tuesday with the sub-parts to each of part two. That thing was insane. Oh God. Why me.

Thanks for all your support, all of you.

And in case you all want a good laugh, on the wills essay I wrote about honorary trusts (and that this was not one) RAP briefly (and why it didn't apply) and then ....... PRETERMITTED CHILD!!!!!!!!! I was so tired after churning through the four wills that I forgot I had written about 100 times that he was her grandchild and threw in 4 lines about how he would argue when she cut him out he was pretermitted but was not!!! I think I have the winning f-ups at this point!! Lawyer guy told me: They will probably just laugh at you and take off 5 points.[/purse can it be searched under automobile exception?



Dude do not trip out like this - I am the only one I know from my friends that added the third section, and that section was not asked for - you just need the two headings - I think most motions have a section that says "other relief that court sees fit" but you dont ever bring in additional arguments - I wrote that because I was reaching like crazy the last 20 min - but I made a lot of other mistakes and spotting issues (saying officers testimony was an affidavit and spending too much time talking about it..) im in this thread because I got 55s on PTs in July, I have no idea wtf im doing

Fyi I also mentioned it was not an honorary trust :/


I did not add the 3rd option and basically dividided the 2 options as follows:
1.
Relevance
Hearsay
Hearsay exception: Excited Utterance
6th amendment/confrontational clause
2.
Relevance
Hearsay
Hearsay exception: Excited utterance
Public Records
6th Amendment/confrontational clause

Under relevance, quoted the CRE rule 401 defining what statements to show that nodding as a conduct is a statement and also a declarant in line with the case laws provided.
There was no other issues that I was aware of.

Astronaut Teemo
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:37 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Astronaut Teemo » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:19 pm

arizzle wrote:
tearsforbeers wrote:
arizzle wrote:
tearsforbeers wrote:I said no excited utterance because she was sedated when interrogated. She was on the gurney. The paramedic just gave her sedative before Officer asked. The paramedic said she was calm. Not so sure that it was a great argument but I think that's what the sedative fact went. I also referenced doctor's affidavit that she was likely incapable of remembering the event due to head injuries. I don't think I cited the relevance rule there but that would have been a good place for it. I used the lack of ongoing emergency (he had searched house to make sure assailant was gone) to state that the nods were testimonial.

The 911 transcript= nontestimonial after the point when dispatcher responded to emergency statement. Thereafter it was testimonial b/c she was interrogating. Used rule stating dispatchers can be agents for the police. B/c the testimonial parts were prepared in anticipation of prosecution, they're not reliable biz/public records, citing the cocaine affidavits. I conceded that dad's statements were excited utterances but the testimonial portions were 6th A violations.

Did anybody reference the interviews with the son or the mom? I didn't think they'd be usable in the motion.


I basically had the exact same line of reasoning. To me the whole thing turned almost entirely on the excited utterance.

If you concede that any of it is an excited utterance, it destroys every other argument you have.

I don't think it does away with the right to confront.

"Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to
dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty."


Almost by definition an excited utterance is non testimonial. So if you concede it was an excited utterance, that defeats the confrontation clause argument.



But when the witness is unavailable, as they are in this case, the only way the statements could come in is if it satisfies the conditions for prior testimony, or under a hearsay exception.

The prior testimony exception only applies to testimonial statements and requires that the D had an opportunity to cross-examine.

So if you're representing D, you WANT the statements to be considered testimonial.

If the statements qualify as an excited utterance, and thus non-testimonial, then the confrontation clause argument becomes moot because witness availability is immaterial to that hearsay exception.


...............it makes sense in my head. Not so much when I actually write it out.



I get what you're saying. But something CAN be hearsay and can come in under an excited utterance but also simultaneously be excluded for violation of the 6thACC.

Something is testimonial based on wheter it was said in an going emergency or not.

User avatar
tearsforbeers
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:40 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby tearsforbeers » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:21 pm

arizzle wrote:
tearsforbeers wrote:
arizzle wrote:
tearsforbeers wrote:I said no excited utterance because she was sedated when interrogated. She was on the gurney. The paramedic just gave her sedative before Officer asked. The paramedic said she was calm. Not so sure that it was a great argument but I think that's what the sedative fact went. I also referenced doctor's affidavit that she was likely incapable of remembering the event due to head injuries. I don't think I cited the relevance rule there but that would have been a good place for it. I used the lack of ongoing emergency (he had searched house to make sure assailant was gone) to state that the nods were testimonial.

The 911 transcript= nontestimonial after the point when dispatcher responded to emergency statement. Thereafter it was testimonial b/c she was interrogating. Used rule stating dispatchers can be agents for the police. B/c the testimonial parts were prepared in anticipation of prosecution, they're not reliable biz/public records, citing the cocaine affidavits. I conceded that dad's statements were excited utterances but the testimonial portions were 6th A violations.

Did anybody reference the interviews with the son or the mom? I didn't think they'd be usable in the motion.


I basically had the exact same line of reasoning. To me the whole thing turned almost entirely on the excited utterance.

If you concede that any of it is an excited utterance, it destroys every other argument you have.

I don't think it does away with the right to confront.

"Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to
dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty."


Almost by definition an excited utterance is non testimonial. So if you concede it was an excited utterance, that defeats the confrontation clause argument.



But when the witness is unavailable, as they are in this case, the only way the statements could come in is if it satisfies the conditions for prior testimony, or under a hearsay exception.

The prior testimony exception only applies to testimonial statements and requires that the D had an opportunity to cross-examine.

So if you're representing D, you WANT the statements to be considered testimonial.

If the statements qualify as an excited utterance, and thus non-testimonial, then the confrontation clause argument becomes moot because witness availability is immaterial to that hearsay exception.


...............it makes sense in my head. Not so much when I actually write it out.



I agree it makes sense. It was the rule before Crawford.

http://confrontationright.blogspot.com/ ... cited.html


"Crawford changes the landscape dramatically. If a statement is deemed to be testimonial, then the accused has an unequivocal right to prevent admission of the statement unless he has had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness and the witness is unavailable. The fact that a statement fits within a given exception to the rule against hearsay does not alter its status so far as the confrontation right is concerned."

That said, it appears that some courts are finding ways around Crawford. The article goes into more detail.

I am by no means a scholar in this area. Just trying to make myself feel better about the BS conclusions I wrote.

Astronaut Teemo
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:37 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Astronaut Teemo » Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:55 pm

Can't believe the NY guy thought it was evidence.. Are you sure he passed in NY? I mean damn..

User avatar
tearsforbeers
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:40 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby tearsforbeers » Fri Feb 27, 2015 10:10 pm

Astronaut Teemo wrote:Can't believe the NY guy thought it was evidence.. Are you sure he passed in NY? I mean damn..


physician/patient privilege aspect is evidence-y but yeah that essay will probably be called civ pro not civ pro/evidence

That NY guy though... seems like a character fit for a movie... So many characters taking the bar exam someone ought to write a movie about it... Let's see- 77 days or so to kill... After I finish binge watching house of cards maybe I should do something useful instead of acting like I know it all on TLS. AMCD- can we get a detailed description of NY d-bag?

AMCD
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 11:33 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby AMCD » Fri Feb 27, 2015 10:38 pm

tearsforbeers wrote:
Astronaut Teemo wrote:Can't believe the NY guy thought it was evidence.. Are you sure he passed in NY? I mean damn..


physician/patient privilege aspect is evidence-y but yeah that essay will probably be called civ pro not civ pro/evidence

That NY guy though... seems like a character fit for a movie... So many characters taking the bar exam someone ought to write a movie about it... Let's see- 77 days or so to kill... After I finish binge watching house of cards maybe I should do something useful instead of acting like I know it all on TLS. AMCD- can we get a detailed description of NY d-bag?


BTW, before I forget, your mock memo cracked me up. Just what I needed this morning. THANKS!!

Other notable moments for the screenplay:

NY Douche: (for the Remedies essay) I only wrote about SP b/c that's all she's going to get. It's one of those benefits you have as a practicing attorney and not a Bar taker."

NY Douche: I made up a brilliant 5-part test for the motion, based upon XYZ case. I didn't put in any facts, well actually throughout I really didn't put in facts, just cited the law b/c that's what you do in real life.

NY Douche: The court never told the stepson to write the will. Where did you get that from? It just said he was the conservator.

To prove me wrong, he madly pulled out the question booklet again from the envelope as the proctor was coming around to prove me wrong. Showed me the page and proceeded to read, "The court asked him to write another will for her" -- or whatever it said. Douche: "Well that doesn't matter anyway, so what's your point?" I never raised any point. It was always the other way around. Said he had "fifty" headings for the property essay and spent 90 mins on it!

Thanks for telling me to calm down s1m4!! BTW, I am a dudette, hence the creepiness of the following me to my car/hotel each day to lecture me on what I don't know!

AMCD
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 11:33 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby AMCD » Fri Feb 27, 2015 10:43 pm

tearsforbeers wrote:
Astronaut Teemo wrote:Can't believe the NY guy thought it was evidence.. Are you sure he passed in NY? I mean damn..


physician/patient privilege aspect is evidence-y but yeah that essay will probably be called civ pro not civ pro/evidence

That NY guy though... seems like a character fit for a movie... So many characters taking the bar exam someone ought to write a movie about it... Let's see- 77 days or so to kill... After I finish binge watching house of cards maybe I should do something useful instead of acting like I know it all on TLS. AMCD- can we get a detailed description of NY d-bag?



DESCRIPTION: Sorry, forgot this. So necessary. Trying to think who will play him in our movie. He was, I hate to say it, a bit good looking. Too preppy, perhaps. Maybe Bradley Cooperish. Comes from money -- made that obvious.

injun
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:28 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby injun » Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:18 pm

I thought that the wills question stated that the will created by the lawyer was "valid", thereby making it a codicil that expressly revoked the gift to G in the first will. Does anyone remember this?

User avatar
esq
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby esq » Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:38 pm

Didn't state it explicitly, but a will signed my the testator and then signed by two disinterested witnesses is also "valid." This fact pattern did, imo, hinge quite a bit on conduct of unamed dude and reasons that the court would have authorized, and to what extent, dude to execute will (was she a delusional lunatic or not?).

injun
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:28 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby injun » Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:41 pm

esq wrote:Didn't state it explicitly, but a will signed my the testator and then signed by two disinterested witnesses is also "valid." This fact pattern did, imo, hinge quite a bit on conduct of unamed dude and reasons that the court would have authorized, and to what extent, dude to execute will (was she a delusional lunatic or not?).


See I thought that the 2 disinterested witnesses were for the 2nd will created by G. I thought the one created by T after finding about the 2nd will was "valid" because it stated so. I might be wrong though.

User avatar
tearsforbeers
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:40 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby tearsforbeers » Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:44 pm

AMCD wrote:
tearsforbeers wrote:
Astronaut Teemo wrote:Can't believe the NY guy thought it was evidence.. Are you sure he passed in NY? I mean damn..


physician/patient privilege aspect is evidence-y but yeah that essay will probably be called civ pro not civ pro/evidence

That NY guy though... seems like a character fit for a movie... So many characters taking the bar exam someone ought to write a movie about it... Let's see- 77 days or so to kill... After I finish binge watching house of cards maybe I should do something useful instead of acting like I know it all on TLS. AMCD- can we get a detailed description of NY d-bag?


BTW, before I forget, your mock memo cracked me up. Just what I needed this morning. THANKS!!

Other notable moments for the screenplay:

NY Douche: (for the Remedies essay) I only wrote about SP b/c that's all she's going to get. It's one of those benefits you have as a practicing attorney and not a Bar taker."

NY Douche: I made up a brilliant 5-part test for the motion, based upon XYZ case. I didn't put in any facts, well actually throughout I really didn't put in facts, just cited the law b/c that's what you do in real life.

NY Douche: The court never told the stepson to write the will. Where did you get that from? It just said he was the conservator.

To prove me wrong, he madly pulled out the question booklet again from the envelope as the proctor was coming around to prove me wrong. Showed me the page and proceeded to read, "The court asked him to write another will for her" -- or whatever it said. Douche: "Well that doesn't matter anyway, so what's your point?" I never raised any point. It was always the other way around. Said he had "fifty" headings for the property essay and spent 90 mins on it!

Thanks for telling me to calm down s1m4!! BTW, I am a dudette, hence the creepiness of the following me to my car/hotel each day to lecture me on what I don't know!


Classic.

I think I've reached that sentimental afterglow at this point. Surely come May I will look back on these posts cursing my existence as an over-sharing soft touch. But honestly, as lawyers we are getting into a profession that requires us to be decent people. Compassion and empathy are the most valuable assets a lawyer can have.

FUCK YOU NY DOUCHE YOU CREEPY PRICK

He will be the subject matter of a half-written amateur screenplay come May.

The opening scene: An exodus of wannabe lawyers leaving the test center. Hundreds, maybe even a couple thousand debt-laden weary-eyed JDs traipsing in procession ranting in packs of 2-4, exchanging phrases barely discernible to the nonordained.

Enter NY Douchebag and AMCD. AMCD, a worried and distant look in her eyes. NY-Dbag, gesticulating in a manner belying his overbearing personality in a state that can only be described as bar exam pontification. Loving the sweet sound of his own voice and the adrenaline that could only be derived from the clear-eyed powers of deduction known to only a select few admitted attorneys. He was too good for this exam and he knew it. He tried unsuccessfully to argue at the California Supreme Court that California's lack reciprocation was tantamount to a substantive due process violation...or was it equal protection. It really didn't matter. He knew that he was right.. He was always right....

User avatar
esq
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby esq » Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:50 pm

Validly executed does not necessarily mean that it will vest when there are two validly executed wills. If granny was a loon, that may have been the reason why the court authorized will 2 by conservator. In that case, will 2 might have trumped.

User avatar
tearsforbeers
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:40 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby tearsforbeers » Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:58 pm

esq wrote:Validly executed does not necessarily mean that it will vest when there are two validly executed wills. If granny was a loon, that may have been the reason why the court authorized will 2 by conservator. In that case, will 2 might have trumped.



simply being a loon isn't enough. I'm vaguely remembering something something must know the nature of estate and objects of her bounty... She was pissed at Greg and decided Susie and Zoo should get her estate. Doesn't this mean she knew nature of estate and objects of her bounty. I am probably f'ing up the rule but to me she seemed to pretty cogent when she was speaking with her lawyer. That's not to say you can't go in and out of capacity..




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lordmac69, MSNbot Media and 4 guests