Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[teeshtee]

Not sure what's scarier...the fact that many of you seem to think your essay graders are too harsh, or the fact that I greet all my essay scores as if mother teresa herself is giving me points for the garbage I submitted

[gr8scOtt!]

Another lol-tastic question...

[+] Spoiler

Defendant charged. Federal prosecutor arranged with D's wife to have her testify in exchange for leniency in her own case. At D's trial, pros calls wife, who was granted immunity, to testify. Which statement is correct in federal courts?

Correct answer: Wife can refuse to testify
I chose: the wife may be required to testify

Now any other time I would have said Nope, it's up to her whether she wants to testify, but she was granted immunity and I thought that if a witness was granted government immunity, she may be compelled to testify? So why isn't the second, incorrect answer actually correct?

[+] Spoiler

because of spousal immunity. Although r she was granted immunity to protect her from self-incrimination, the issue here is whether she can refuse to testify against her spouse. I hope that helps.

[+] Spoiler

^ That's where I went too. I'm guessing there's more to the question here. Confidential communications actually = D-spouse can prevent witness-spouse from testifying, and spousal privilege = witness-spouse can choose whether or not to testify, and D-spouse can't stop her if she chooses to testify so long as it's not about confidential spousal communications.

Yeah, it wasn't about a communication. She was supposed to testify that she saw him selling drugs or something. The prompt stated that she had already received her immunity, so its not like she could back out the deal and not testify. Or at least that's what I thought...

[MZaf]

Another lol-tastic question...

[+] Spoiler

Defendant charged. Federal prosecutor arranged with D's wife to have her testify in exchange for leniency in her own case. At D's trial, pros calls wife, who was granted immunity, to testify. Which statement is correct in federal courts?

Correct answer: Wife can refuse to testify
I chose: the wife may be required to testify

Now any other time I would have said Nope, it's up to her whether she wants to testify, but she was granted immunity and I thought that if a witness was granted government immunity, she may be compelled to testify? So why isn't the second, incorrect answer actually correct?

[+] Spoiler

because of spousal immunity. Although r she was granted immunity to protect her from self-incrimination, the issue here is whether she can refuse to testify against her spouse. I hope that helps.

[+] Spoiler

^ That's where I went too. I'm guessing there's more to the question here. Confidential communications actually = D-spouse can prevent witness-spouse from testifying, and spousal privilege = witness-spouse can choose whether or not to testify, and D-spouse can't stop her if she chooses to testify so long as it's not about confidential spousal communications.

Yeah, it wasn't about a communication. She was supposed to testify that she saw him selling drugs or something. The prompt stated that she had already received her immunity, so its not like she could back out the deal and not testify. Or at least that's what I thought...

regardless if the witness gets immunity for a crime she committed which would require them to testify. if any privilege is held regarding the subject matter of the testimony it is still protected.

a wife can never be required to testify against a husband- i.e the whole point of spousal immunity; that's why the wrong answer is wrong.
On the other hand, the wife can be forced not to testify (i.e. if the husband can assert spousal communication) or the woman MAY refuse to testify (i.e. she asserts spousal immunity).

[Ahyis]

I really hope that Themis is giving me a bunch of questions based on stuff I got wrong historically in these Mixed MBE sets... otherwise I'm in trouble.

[kjartan]

Not sure what's scarier...the fact that many of you seem to think your essay graders are too harsh, or the fact that I greet all my essay scores as if mother teresa herself is giving me points for the garbage I submitted

My essay grader's scoring is way too harsh. My graded CPT was based on Themis's model answer and she gave me a 60.

[zot1]

Another lol-tastic question...

[+] Spoiler

Defendant charged. Federal prosecutor arranged with D's wife to have her testify in exchange for leniency in her own case. At D's trial, pros calls wife, who was granted immunity, to testify. Which statement is correct in federal courts?

Correct answer: Wife can refuse to testify
I chose: the wife may be required to testify

Now any other time I would have said Nope, it's up to her whether she wants to testify, but she was granted immunity and I thought that if a witness was granted government immunity, she may be compelled to testify? So why isn't the second, incorrect answer actually correct?

[+] Spoiler

because of spousal immunity. Although r she was granted immunity to protect her from self-incrimination, the issue here is whether she can refuse to testify against her spouse. I hope that helps.

[+] Spoiler

^ That's where I went too. I'm guessing there's more to the question here. Confidential communications actually = D-spouse can prevent witness-spouse from testifying, and spousal privilege = witness-spouse can choose whether or not to testify, and D-spouse can't stop her if she chooses to testify so long as it's not about confidential spousal communications.

Yeah, it wasn't about a communication. She was supposed to testify that she saw him selling drugs or something. The prompt stated that she had already received her immunity, so its not like she could back out the deal and not testify. Or at least that's what I thought...

[+] Spoiler

Like Sd mentioned, there are two components to spousal immunity. If she saw it and happened within the marriage, she could still raise the immunity claim---this is my understanding, anyway.

[zot1]

Not sure what's scarier...the fact that many of you seem to think your essay graders are too harsh, or the fact that I greet all my essay scores as if mother teresa herself is giving me points for the garbage I submitted

Lol yeah, my grader is nothing like this.

[anon sequitur]

I really don't see the point of graded essays when you've got access to a model answer. I mean, if they had a track record for being really insightful about what you need to do more or less of, but it seems like maybe one in twenty do that.

[Pleasye]

I am pretty convinced that I am going to fail because my essays are never like the model answer. Like I usually get the big issues but I generally organize differently, my rule statements are not paragraphs long, and I prob don't use as many headings (especially for personal jurisdiction fml).

[paulshortys10]

I am pretty convinced that I am going to fail because my essays are never like the model answer. Like I usually get the big issues but I generally organize differently, my rule statements are not paragraphs long, and I prob don't use as many headings (especially for personal jurisdiction fml).

Although it's kinda late now, you should compare them to the baressays essays instead. The model answer was likely written with a shitload of time and with a book infront of them. The essays on baressays give you an idea on how you did compared to an actually graded essay.

[anon sequitur]

You can also find on some states answers from actual test-takers that got high scores, so you can see what perfect score typically looks like, rather than a "model" answer that's not really realistic at all in terms of length and depth.

[Raiden]

In CA, it seems like the essays are even bigger deal, consisting of ⅔ of the grade. I just hope that an actual 65 is really a whole lot more forgiving.

So I am thinking about skipping the community property, wills, and trusts lectures and just memorizing the final review outline. Is it just me, or are the lectures really just a waste on these topics when they are just essay based. We don't need to know all the fine minutia.

[paulshortys10]

You can also find on some states answers from actual test-takers that got high scores, so you can see what perfect score typically looks like, rather than a "model" answer that's not really realistic at all in terms of length and depth.

Yea.. to add to this, I've read some 65pt CA essays and some are complete trash. Really made me feel at ease to read some of the garbage that passed.

[anon sequitur]

Yea.. to add to this, I've read some 65pt CA essays and some are complete trash. Really made me feel at ease to read some of the garbage that passed.

That's awesome. Unfortunately for me VA only puts out 9/10 or 10/10 answers. I would kill to see some 6/10 answers.

[Pleasye]

You can also find on some states answers from actual test-takers that got high scores, so you can see what perfect score typically looks like, rather than a "model" answer that's not really realistic at all in terms of length and depth.

Yea.. to add to this, I've read some 65pt CA essays and some are complete trash. Really made me feel at ease to read some of the garbage that passed.

How much does a baressays account cost?

[zot1]

Simulated MBE Analysis Video: "You'll do well if you know the rule."

Useful.

[Pickled]

Simulated MBE Analysis Video: "You'll do well if you know the rule."

Useful.

"Try not to get distracted by wrong answers."

[zot1]

Simulated MBE Analysis Video: "You'll do well if you know the rule."

Useful.

"Try not to get distracted by wrong answers."

[zot1]

As I got through my Milestone #3 answers, I realize that some of my errors were due to not knowing the law (nothing I can do there to improve other than keep reviewing . . . ), some were due to not reading the question closely (have been working on this and have improved significantly), and some due to assumptions Themis makes in order to get the right answer. Do bar questions also assume so much?

[zot1]

Simulated MBE Analysis Video: "You'll do well if you know the rule."

Useful.

"Try not to get distracted by wrong answers."

"Make sure you do practice questions."

[Lawbro]

For those New Yorkers that did the latest graded essay, looks to me like Themis made a mistake (again).

[+] Spoiler

This was issue one in the essay. Whether or not a copy of a will can be admitted into probate. The model answer talks about rebuttable presumption of destruction with intent to revoke will, concludes that doesn't apply here, and then concludes "There is no indication that Theresa had any intent to revoke that will. Thus, given that a photocopy is available to clearly evidence the contents of the will and its proper execution, a court will admit the will photocopy to probate."

But in Themis' outline...

[+] Spoiler

A copy of a will, such as a photocopy, cannot be admitted to probate, although it may be used as proof of testamentary intent in the case of a lost or missing will.

[MZaf]

For those New Yorkers that did the latest graded essay, looks to me like Themis made a mistake (again).

[+] Spoiler

This was issue one in the essay. Whether or not a copy of a will can be admitted into probate. The model answer talks about rebuttable presumption of destruction with intent to revoke will, concludes that doesn't apply here, and then concludes "There is no indication that Theresa had any intent to revoke that will. Thus, given that a photocopy is available to clearly evidence the contents of the will and its proper execution, a court will admit the will photocopy to probate."

But in Themis' outline...

[+] Spoiler

A copy of a will, such as a photocopy, cannot be admitted to probate, although it may be used as proof of testamentary intent in the case of a lost or missing will.

The sample answer and rules for that issue are basically on point, but the phrasing of their issue sentence is wrong. The issue is really; whether a copy of a will that was destroyed can be proven by a photocopy of the will.... or "whether a copy of an original will can be used to probate a lost/destroyed will"....

worded like that- the answer makes more sense. you can never probate a photo copy of a will, which the themis outline is correct, but a copy of a will can be used to prove the contents of an original will that has been lost or destroyed. it is the destroyed will that will be admitted into probate and the copy would be just be used as evidence of what the will had said. But in order to have a will that was destroyed or lost probated, you would need to show the intent of the testator was not to revoke the will...

they always say the answers they provide aren't always the best answer or the absolute right answer but if your essay looks "basically like the same thing", then your fine

[sd5289]

Another lol-tastic question...

[+] Spoiler

Defendant charged. Federal prosecutor arranged with D's wife to have her testify in exchange for leniency in her own case. At D's trial, pros calls wife, who was granted immunity, to testify. Which statement is correct in federal courts?

Correct answer: Wife can refuse to testify
I chose: the wife may be required to testify

Now any other time I would have said Nope, it's up to her whether she wants to testify, but she was granted immunity and I thought that if a witness was granted government immunity, she may be compelled to testify? So why isn't the second, incorrect answer actually correct?

[+] Spoiler

because of spousal immunity. Although r she was granted immunity to protect her from self-incrimination, the issue here is whether she can refuse to testify against her spouse. I hope that helps.

[+] Spoiler

^ That's where I went too. I'm guessing there's more to the question here. Confidential communications actually = D-spouse can prevent witness-spouse from testifying, and spousal privilege = witness-spouse can choose whether or not to testify, and D-spouse can't stop her if she chooses to testify so long as it's not about confidential spousal communications.

Yeah, it wasn't about a communication. She was supposed to testify that she saw him selling drugs or something. The prompt stated that she had already received her immunity, so its not like she could back out the deal and not testify. Or at least that's what I thought...

Which is why I also mentioned spousal privilege. Just because one privilege might be "waived" or dealt with (here it sounds like 5th Am. privilege against self-incrimination was dealt with via the immunity), it's still possible for there to be other privileges (or public policy exclusions) at play, and it sounds like in this question spousal immunity was also at play.

To take another example, let's say in a civil negligence suit, D tells P in the midst of settlement negotiations that he didn't even see the stop sign that he rolled through before crashing into her car. That's a statement by a party opponent, BUT it also occurred in the midst of settlement negotiations and is not admissible even though it's not going to run into the hearsay problem.

[sd5289]

Simulated MBE Analysis Video: "You'll do well if you know the rule."

Useful.

Omg, I almost threw my laptop during these (had them on 2x as they forced me to go through the written explanations, which was helpful).

My favorite is definitely:

"This question was EASY if you had *just* memorized Rule 26(b)(2)(iii)(1)(k)(2,397)..."

Yeah, I hate you with the passion of a thousand burning suns.

[Lawbro]

The sample answer and rules for that issue are basically on point, but the phrasing of their issue sentence is wrong. The issue is really; whether a copy of a will that was destroyed can be proven by a photocopy of the will.... or "whether a copy of an original will can be used to probate a lost/destroyed will"....

worded like that- the answer makes more sense. you can never probate a photo copy of a will, which the themis outline is correct, but a copy of a will can be used to prove the contents of an original will that has been lost or destroyed. it is the destroyed will that will be admitted into probate and the copy would be just be used as evidence of what the will had said. But in order to have a will that was destroyed or lost probated, you would need to show the intent of the testator was not to revoke the will...

they always say the answers they provide aren't always the best answer or the absolute right answer but if your essay looks "basically like the same thing", then your fine

That makes sense I suppose. The model answer was pretty clear about admitting the photocopy into probate (as opposed to the destroyed will), but now I can see what they were getting at with the whole "rebuttable presumption" analysis