Top Law Schools

Elms wrote: You should mention those terms in Evidence essays.

Oh were we not talking about evidence essays? OOPS.

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:

Elms wrote: You should mention those terms in Evidence essays.

Oh were we not talking about evidence essays? OOPS.

I think we were talking about Evidence essays when we were talking about the terms logical and legal relevance. But what I was clumsily trying to say is that I think on any essay, if you can say "see above" instead of rewriting a definition, that's always a good thing to do.

Sorrrrry if that's more confusing haha!

Well, my MBE scores are all over the place:

Torts--
Kaplan: 86%
Adaptibar: ~55%
Emanuel Strategy and Tactics: ~65%

Contracts--
K: 80%
A: ~60%
E: ~40%

Evidence--
K: 40%
A: ~20%
E: ~25%

Con Law--
K: 60%
A: ~60%
E: ~55%

Crim/Pro-- (small sample size--haven't done more than 30 tops)
K: 65%
A: ~50%
E: ~80% ??

Property--
K: 65%
A: ~40%
E: ~60%

Civ Pro--
K: 40%
A: n/a
E: n/a
Cal bar: 40% (answered 4/10 correct before studying civ pro)
_____


The sad thing is that I can answer a MC question on the basis of successful process of elimination (definitely for contracts and torts), but would flounder if given an essay because I don't have a crutch of answer choices.

I haven't even done a legit test to see yet. I plan on doing a million MBEs next week then just giving it the old college try come the 25th.

Just to confirm as I was reviewing some flash cards, but what's the official rule for MBE and essays from Crim?

MPC or Common Law?

redblueyellow wrote:Just to confirm as I was reviewing some flash cards, but what's the official rule for MBE and essays from Crim?

MPC or Common Law?

I think it's common law unless MPC specifically mentioned? Can anyone confirm?

.

underthirty wrote:

Elms wrote:

redblueyellow wrote:Just to confirm as I was reviewing some flash cards, but what's the official rule for MBE and essays from Crim?

MPC or Common Law?

I think it's common law unless MPC specifically mentioned? Can anyone confirm?

For the MBE, it's common law unless otherwise stated ("jurisdiction using the modern rule," "under the MPC," "per the aforementioned state statute," etc.). I'm not certain as to CA essays.

Yup, just found the full length outline and it confirmed the same. Looks I need to brush up on the MPC as well.

That got a 70????

Have you looked at some of these 70's in Baressays.com? I hired a former bar grader who has been brutal squared with my essays and PTs. I got to the point that I just for my own psyche needed to do one on my own and compare it to bar essays. My two strongest subjects are community property and wills. When I finished my Feb 2011 wills question then looked at the 70 answer, I thought wow they are right about BSing and getting a passing grade. I just hope since my applicant number is in the two digits that the bar graders won't be on bar grading burn out and be more generous--or they can be harder since it is 'fresh' haha.

gaagoots wrote:That got a 70????

Have you looked at some of these 70's in Baressays.com? I hired a former bar grader who has been brutal squared with my essays and PTs. I got to the point that I just for my own psyche needed to do one on my own and compare it to bar essays. My two strongest subjects are community property and wills. When I finished my Feb 2011 wills question then looked at the 70 answer, I thought wow they are right about BSing and getting a passing grade. I just hope since my applicant number is in the two digits that the bar graders won't be on bar grading burn out and be more generous--or they can be harder since it is 'fresh' haha.

What got a 70? I do have a subscription there. Sometimes the bar graders seem lenient even if issues/elements are missing (or wrong), but then again, there's plenty of 60-65s that I've read that seem very close to the model answer but only lack proper formatting/grammar or maybe don't expand on the analysis as much as some of the better essays (and that costs them 10+ points apparently).

Post what got the 70!

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:Post what got the 70!

Its the first essay in Baressays Feb 2011. I don't know if a link could work here and I don't think we can copy it and paste it in.

I was reading a 2014 thread about Bar Exam wish list and believe me mine would be:

**Wills/CP
**PR (stuck with that--need the perv lawyer http://abovethelaw.com/2014/03/lawyer-w ... r-comment/ )
**CA Civ Pro (only codes I know by heart along with the FC)

**RP/Con Law X (give me an exaction/takings I will be ready for that)
**Contracts UCC
**Criminal law: Murder (because they feel sorry for us for being 1st with Civ Pro MBEs, same as feeling sorry for the Feb 2008 group who first got hit with Agency and Partnership--the last time they tested a murder).

yes I wish

I hope its your lucky round this time Courtney

Gaagoots you actually WANT CA Civ Pro?!?



Also, when I took IL we had an involuntary manslaughter essay and I did horrible on it bc I stupidly thought there was no way they would EVER test that and didn't really pay attention to the elements. Oops.

wtf, no one wants cal civ pro.

edit: i'm actually not studying it outside of what anti-slapp is. maybe i'll look through some of the deadline changes, but that's about it.

Elms wrote:Gaagoots you actually WANT CA Civ Pro?!?



Also, when I took IL we had an involuntary manslaughter essay and I did horrible on it bc I stupidly thought there was no way they would EVER test that and didn't really pay attention to the elements. Oops.

Yeah--I am a paralegal so its shop talk. Although I have not prepared an Anti-SLAPP, I read the one against Barbra Streisand and the CA Coastal Commission and it was interesting, but too much for a bar exam unless they want to cross it over with Con Law.

Did you get a new avatar, gaagoots?

a male human wrote:Did you get a new avatar, gaagoots?

No, I've been Vanellope for a while.

gaagoots wrote:

Elms wrote:Gaagoots you actually WANT CA Civ Pro?!?



Also, when I took IL we had an involuntary manslaughter essay and I did horrible on it bc I stupidly thought there was no way they would EVER test that and didn't really pay attention to the elements. Oops.

Yeah--I am a paralegal so its shop talk. Although I have not prepared an Anti-SLAPP, I read the one against Barbra Streisand and the CA Coastal Commission and it was interesting, but too much for a bar exam unless they want to cross it over with Con Law.

Fair enough. But if you jinxed it and we get a CA civ pro question I'm going to cry.

Elms wrote:

gaagoots wrote:
Fair enough. But if you jinxed it and we get a CA civ pro question I'm going to cry.

I'll be crying with you...

I am glad the test is not next week

melvinIII wrote:I am glad the test is not next week

Haha, I'm thinking the same thing. I'll probably be thinking the same thing next weekend, but I won't be laughing then...

Can someone confirm a homicide analysis for me, please? Trying to figure out how to do an analysis of 1st/2nd degree murder. Underlined portions are those that I am particularly unsure about.

"Murder at common law is 1) unlawful killing 2) of another 3) with malice aforethought. Defendant's act requires actual and proximate causation as to the victim's death.

Malice aforethought includes 1) an intent to kill, 2) intent to inflict severe bodily injury, 3) depraved/malignant heart, 4) felony murder.

1st degree murders are a statutory modification to CL murder. These are murders that have an 1) intent to kill or 2) felony murder.
An intent to kill murder may be 1) premeditated and deliberate, or 2) a murder lying in wait, torture, poison, or terrorism." [then analysis on each type of "intent to kill murder" and then again for felony murder]

A 2nd degree murder is one that is not a 1st degree murder. This includes murder with an 1) intent to inflict severe bodily injury, 2) depraved/malignant heart murder, or 3) any felony murder where the felony is not listed in an applicable 1st degree murder statute."

Is my assumption correct that the "intent to kill" and general "felony murder" categories of common law murder are permanently 1st degree and would not require any analysis under 2nd degree murder? In other words, if I find either an intent to kill (factors listed above or if D used a deadly weapon) or a felony-murder (BARRK, statutorily enumerated), it automatically means it's 1st degree and merits absolutely no discussion under 2nd degree?

redblueyellow wrote:Can someone confirm a homicide analysis for me, please? Trying to figure out how to do an analysis of 1st/2nd degree murder. Underlined portions are those that I am particularly unsure about.

"Murder at common law is 1) unlawful killing 2) of another 3) with malice aforethought. Defendant's act requires actual and proximate causation as to the victim's death.

Malice aforethought includes 1) an intent to kill, 2) intent to inflict severe bodily injury, 3) depraved/malignant heart, 4) felony murder.

1st degree murders are a statutory modification to CL murder. These are murders that have an 1) intent to kill or 2) felony murder.
An intent to kill murder may be 1) premeditated and deliberate, or 2) a murder lying in wait, torture, poison, or terrorism." [then analysis on each type of "intent to kill murder" and then again for felony murder]

A 2nd degree murder is one that is not a 1st degree murder. This includes murder with an 1) intent to inflict severe bodily injury, 2) depraved/malignant heart murder, or 3) any felony murder where the felony is not listed in an applicable 1st degree murder statute."

Is my assumption correct that the "intent to kill" and general "felony murder" categories of common law murder are permanently 1st degree and would not require any analysis under 2nd degree murder? In other words, if I find either an intent to kill (factors listed above or if D used a deadly weapon) or a felony-murder (BARRK, statutorily enumerated), it automatically means it's 1st degree and merits absolutely no discussion under 2nd degree?

you wouldn't do a 1st degree murder analysis, as far as I know, unless the question specifically mentioned a 1st degree murder statute. Otherwise, the assumption on the bar is that it's a common law murder, so you wouldn't need to distinguish between the two. If there is intent to kill, or it was a felony murder, it would just be murder as opposed to the lesser voluntary, involuntary manslaughter charges.

morescotchplease wrote: you wouldn't do a 1st degree murder analysis, as far as I know, unless the question specifically mentioned a 1st degree murder statute. Otherwise, the assumption on the bar is that it's a common law murder, so you wouldn't need to distinguish between the two. If there is intent to kill, or it was a felony murder, it would just be murder as opposed to the lesser voluntary, involuntary manslaughter charges.

Thanks! However, does that hold if the call of an essay question is: Can D be charged with [first degree <-- can't recall if essays will specifically mention first degree] murder, or of any lesser charge?

I believe that if the call of question says 1st degree murder, you need to show that it was premeditated and with deliberation. Whereas common law murder just needs murder committed with malice a forethought and one of the 4 you mentioned.