2015 February California Bar Exam

[redblueyellow]

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.

Gotcha, thanks!

[s1m4]

What defense is voluntary intoxication in a criminal murder case?

My understanding is that it drops murder from 1st degree to 2nd degree under MPC, but is no defense under common law because arguably getting drunk and killing someone is still depraved heart murder.

Thoughts?

[mhub172]

Does anyone know the last time they actually tested CA Civ Pro essay?

[TheLegalOne]

Does anyone mind sharing what their study strategy will be for the final 10 days? I am freaking out because I can't seem to retain enough BLL. Themis' directed study has us writing 2-3 daily essays until 2/22. I feel my time would be better served on deliberate memorization of BLL, daily MBEs and review/outline of essays. I have completed over 70 essays (but my timing still sucks because it takes me too long to recall BLL) and 9 PTs (I attended a PT workshop) but I don't want to neglect additional essay writing if there's benefit in writing them through 2/22. Thoughts? What's your plan?

[a male human]

I would test myself in real situations...so essays. In fact, that is what I did for the last 12 days. Full essays or handwritten outlines of issues AND rules. This is the last stretch. You probably have an OK background of all the rules, but now you need to know the critical ones. The critical ones are ones likely to appear again, in other words, ones that have appeared in the past. So if you test yourself on a rule based on an old essay and don't know, work on that.

Mere familiarity of the rules is not enough. You need to be able to recall. Frequent recall will also solidify whatever you are trying to recall.

Prioritize the later-released ones. If you already did all available essays, do them again.

The same idea applies to reinforcing your issues by exposing yourself to frequently tested ones. Of course, it's likely that some previously untested issues will surface from hell, but that happens every bar. Rely on your background knowledge to get you through that.

Don't forget MBEs and PTs.

Lastly, do not try to predict subjects; ideally, be prepared for the tested subjects.

Well, what about CA civ pro? That's always been a hot potato. Do what you can. Know the hot issues like anti-SLAPP and major differences (demurrer, small/unlimited/limited jurisdiction, venue...I had worked out a preliminary list of differences elsewhere in the July 2013 or Feb 2014 topic if you can find it). If it appears for the first time, everyone's has the same starting point. This is actually to your advantage because no one else will know what's going on either. I missed the A- mark in 1L because our new civ pro professor didn't have any past finals up.

[TheLegalOne]

^^ Thanks A Human Male. I guess I have to, reluctantly, agree that it makes better sense to memorize the rules in the context they're likely to be tested in rather than from an outline. I'm just stressed that I have not memorized them yet after so many timed, closed-book practices. On the other hand, I also have The MagicSheets, so quickly quizzing myself for retention can still be achieved efficiently and allow time for essays, MBEs and PT set-ups. Thanks for the tips.

[redblueyellow]

Well, what about CA civ pro? That's always been a hot potato. Do what you can. Know the hot issues like anti-SLAPP and major differences (demurrer, small/unlimited/limited jurisdiction, venue...I had worked out a preliminary list of differences elsewhere in the July 2013 or Feb 2014 topic if you can find it). If it appears for the first time, everyone's has the same starting point. This is actually to your advantage because no one else will know what's going on either. I missed the A- mark in 1L because our new civ pro professor didn't have any past finals up.

https://imgflip.com/i/hngng

[sportwarrior]

Ugh. I had two things I needed to focus on for this. 1) Essay writing, and 2) Civ Pro. I've now wasted way too much time failing to learn civ pro and haven't practiced nearly enough essay writing. I feel like I know nothing about civ pro after jurisdiction and venue. I just can't retain the specifics I need to get the stupid MBE questions right. Granted, we have no idea what to really expect, and a lot of the test prep questions are really tough (I'm using Adaptibar) but I just can't shake the feeling Civ Pro is gonna sink me. I'm trying to remind myself that I'm good enough at the other MBE subjects to mitigate, and that my PT scores should buoy my awful essay scores, but it's just not working. I feel like I've already failed, which is... well, you know, a good way to guarantee failure.

For those of you getting throttled by Civ Pro, how are you coping with it?

[redblueyellow]

I feel like I know nothing about civ pro after jurisdiction and venue.
For those of you getting throttled by Civ Pro, how are you coping with it?

Try to memorize deadlines for pleadings.

MSJ isn't terrible to learn
Motion to dismiss (12b6, 12c) also isn't that bad
Res Judicata/Issue Preclusion is somewhat annoying to keep straight
Interpleader/Impleader/Intervention = good luck

Can you post a sample Adaptibar question that you got wrong/is frustrating?

I only have access to Kaplan's sample questions and they're either rule heavy (similar to other subjects) or they tend to heavily rely on the precise sub-element to answer correctly (not common to the other subjects). It becomes a game of "oh yea, I can answer this question because I have a reasonable belief that this is the only answer that makes sense" vs "well, it's either A or B depending if the deadline is 14 days or 21" or my favorite "well, it's B according to the rule proper, but it might also be C if that's a valid sub rule/element and I just can't remember if it is or not."

[s1m4]

Girlfriend expecting me to take her out tonight... would rather study...

[cndounda1985]

Ok, can someone explain Anti-SLAPP motion to strike? I'm so confused

[melvinIII]

Yayyyyyyy I got a 70 on a timed practice essay. I am now finished studying. Come get some, bar exam.

[sportwarrior]

I feel like I know nothing about civ pro after jurisdiction and venue.
For those of you getting throttled by Civ Pro, how are you coping with it?

Try to memorize deadlines for pleadings.

MSJ isn't terrible to learn
Motion to dismiss (12b6, 12c) also isn't that bad
Res Judicata/Issue Preclusion is somewhat annoying to keep straight
Interpleader/Impleader/Intervention = good luck

Can you post a sample Adaptibar question that you got wrong/is frustrating?

I only have access to Kaplan's sample questions and they're either rule heavy (similar to other subjects) or they tend to heavily rely on the precise sub-element to answer correctly (not common to the other subjects). It becomes a game of "oh yea, I can answer this question because I have a reasonable belief that this is the only answer that makes sense" vs "well, it's either A or B depending if the deadline is 14 days or 21" or my favorite "well, it's B according to the rule proper, but it might also be C if that's a valid sub rule/element and I just can't remember if it is or not."

I feel like that's been the case with a lot of the Adaptibar Civ Pro questions. I'm using Barbri review materials from a previous attempt, and I regularly have to go back to the thickest outline to even have a prayer at finding an explanation or an answer. On several occasions I've had to go look up the FRCP themselves to find an answer. I feel like the questions turn on super precise knowledge that I simply do not have and am in no position to memorize before the bar. What's frustrating is I don't have a hard time understanding this stuff when it's in front of me, but take the book away and suddenly I can't even remember what JMOL stands for half the time. It makes me want to throw expensive things out of second story windows.

Oh, and it's worth nothing that about 75% of the questions have successful answer rates of anywhere between 15% and 35%. There are a few easier ones, and some that a good number seem to get, but for the most part, at least 7 out of every 10 Adaptibar users are getting these questions wrong.

[sportwarrior]

Ok, can someone explain Anti-SLAPP motion to strike? I'm so confused

The key is to just kind of understand what SLAPP lawsuits are. They're frivolous attempts to silence someone. The idea behind CA's anti-SLAPP motion is to give D a way to counteract the truly frivolous suits. A plaintiff hitting a D with a SLAPP suit is basically hoping the threat of litigation will shut them up. Instead of rolling over or pursuing costly litigation, D can hit back with an Anti SLAPP motion before filing an answer. If D can make a basic showing that P's cause of action arises from 1st Amendment protected speech or activity, then suddenly P now has to demonstrate his suit wasn't frivolous and that there was a good chance of prevailing on the merits of the case.

I think of it as D "slapping" away frivolous suits based on protected 1st amendment speech. If you see P suing for something D said, and what D said is protected, Anti-SLAPP time before even filing an answer.

Or something like that, I dunno. As someone whose Civ Pro MBE score would only be good if it were a batting average in baseball, I probably shouldn't be talking.

[gaagoots]

Ok, can someone explain Anti-SLAPP motion to strike? I'm so confused

I don't know about you, but when I read real pleadings it makes more sense to me than a boring outline. This was the one I talked about earlier regarding "Babs" and her hissy fit about her house being photographed from 2700 feet. Get to the argument portion and see how they break it down.

http://www.californiacoastline.org/stre ... delman.pdf

[cndounda1985]

Thanks for your responses, I actually just read the statute it made more sense then my outline. Thank you

[cndounda1985]

Ok, can someone explain Anti-SLAPP motion to strike? I'm so confused

I don't know about you, but when I read real pleadings it makes more sense to me than a boring outline. This was the one I talked about earlier regarding "Babs" and her hissy fit about her house being photographed from 2700 feet. Get to the argument portion and see how they break it down.

http://www.californiacoastline.org/stre ... delman.pdf

Thanks!

[cndounda1985]

Ok, can someone explain Anti-SLAPP motion to strike? I'm so confused

The key is to just kind of understand what SLAPP lawsuits are. They're frivolous attempts to silence someone. The idea behind CA's anti-SLAPP motion is to give D a way to counteract the truly frivolous suits. A plaintiff hitting a D with a SLAPP suit is basically hoping the threat of litigation will shut them up. Instead of rolling over or pursuing costly litigation, D can hit back with an Anti SLAPP motion before filing an answer. If D can make a basic showing that P's cause of action arises from 1st Amendment protected speech or activity, then suddenly P now has to demonstrate his suit wasn't frivolous and that there was a good chance of prevailing on the merits of the case.

I think of it as D "slapping" away frivolous suits based on protected 1st amendment speech. If you see P suing for something D said, and what D said is protected, Anti-SLAPP time before even filing an answer.


Or something like that, I dunno. As someone whose Civ Pro MBE score would only be good if it were a batting average in baseball, I probably shouldn't be talking.

Great, thank you for this. I'm working my way through CA Civ Pro #blankstare myself today.

[redblueyellow]

Ok, can someone explain Anti-SLAPP motion to strike? I'm so confused

I don't know about you, but when I read real pleadings it makes more sense to me than a boring outline. This was the one I talked about earlier regarding "Babs" and her hissy fit about her house being photographed from 2700 feet. Get to the argument portion and see how they break it down.

http://www.californiacoastline.org/stre ... delman.pdf

Thanks, dude! Now I know what anti-SLAPP is!

[YibanRen]

Questions: For MBE purposes, does the dwelling requirement for burglary allow commercial buildings? What about arson?

Battery is general intent, so voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistakes of fact are not defenses right?

What are the elements to rape? Do they matter for the MBE?

[morescotchplease]

Questions: For MBE purposes, does the dwelling requirement for burglary allow commercial buildings? What about arson?

Battery is general intent, so voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistakes of fact are not defenses right?

What are the elements to rape? Do they matter for the MBE?

you should generally presume common law definitions. They usually specify if a certain element has been modified in that jurisdiction in the question. When silent, I usually stick to common law.

As for voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake, it only negates specific intent, so you're right.

[redblueyellow]

Speaking of Unreasonable Mistake of Fact (and Law), does anyone give me a quick and dirty easy explanation of the two? For some reason, Kaplan is making it difficult to understand accurately.

[YibanRen]

Speaking of Unreasonable Mistake of Fact (and Law), does anyone give me a quick and dirty easy explanation of the two? For some reason, Kaplan is making it difficult to understand accurately.

Mistake of fact is when a mistake negates your intention to commit a crime. So, for example, I think that my friend's necklace is mine. I grab it and take it home. I commit an asporation, of property of another, by trespass. However, another element of larceny is I have the specific intent to deprive. Because I made a mistake of fact, believing that her necklace is mine, I did not form the specific intent necessary to commit a crime.

If I am committing a specific intent crime, the mistake does not need to be reasonable. For example, using the previous example, maybe I saw the letters "JARED" on the friend's necklace, and I believed, from this, that it really belonged to my uncle Jared living in Florida. While unreasonable/crazy, this mistake would enable me to have a full defense to the crime of larceny.

A reasonable mistake is required for general intent and malice crimes. If I picked up a girl that looked exactly like my sister on the side of the road, it might be a defense to kidnapping. However, if I am black, my sister is black, and the girl I mistook for my sister is white, then it would be an unreasonable mistake and I would have no defense.

Mistake of Law is not usually tested on the MBE (unless as a wrong answer). It means that you believed that the law did not apply to your action. But, it actually did apply (I thought selling Cuban cigars was legal). Mistake of law is not a defense generally, but there are some complicated exceptions involving the way information is presented to you that would be a waste of time to study for the bar.

There are two other topics, factual and legal impossibility that relate to attempt. Factual impossibility is almost never a defense. It means that you think you are going to commit crime X, but in reality it was impossible (I was trying to murder my friend by shooting a rocket launcher into his house, but he was actually in the Bahamas). This is not a defense. Legal impossibility may be a defense to attempt (Newman and I formed a conspiracy to sell illegal puerto rican cigars on the black market). We could not be charged, because Cuban cigars are illegal, puerto rican cigars are not. In this way, legal impossibility may be a defense to an inchoate crime

[redblueyellow]

Speaking of Unreasonable Mistake of Fact (and Law), does anyone give me a quick and dirty easy explanation of the two? For some reason, Kaplan is making it difficult to understand accurately.

Mistake of fact is when a mistake negates your intention to commit a crime. So, for example, I think that my friend's necklace is mine. I grab it and take it home. I commit an asporation, of property of another, by trespass. However, another element of larceny is I have the specific intent to deprive. Because I made a mistake of fact, believing that her necklace is mine, I did not form the specific intent necessary to commit a crime.

If I am committing a specific intent crime, the mistake does not need to be reasonable. For example, using the previous example, maybe I saw the letters "JARED" on the friend's necklace, and I believed, from this, that it really belonged to my uncle Jared living in Florida. While unreasonable/crazy, this mistake would enable me to have a full defense to the crime of larceny.

A reasonable mistake is required for general intent and malice crimes. If I picked up a girl that looked exactly like my sister on the side of the road, it might be a defense to kidnapping. However, if I am black, my sister is black, and the girl I mistook for my sister is white, then it would be an unreasonable mistake and I would have no defense.

Mistake of Law is not usually tested on the MBE (unless as a wrong answer). It means that you believed that the law did not apply to your action. But, it actually did apply (I thought selling Cuban cigars was legal). Mistake of law is not a defense generally, but there are some complicated exceptions involving the way information is presented to you that would be a waste of time to study for the bar.

There are two other topics, factual and legal impossibility that relate to attempt. Factual impossibility is almost never a defense. It means that you think you are going to commit crime X, but in reality it was impossible (I was trying to murder my friend by shooting a rocket launcher into his house, but he was actually in the Bahamas). This is not a defense. Legal impossibility may be a defense to attempt (Newman and I formed a conspiracy to sell illegal puerto rican cigars on the black market). We could not be charged, because Cuban cigars are illegal, puerto rican cigars are not. In this way, legal impossibility may be a defense to an inchoate crime

Perfect, thanks!!

[s1m4]

Is there any chance of trusts being on this exam?