BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[kyle010723]

well that did not go well. I'm usually in the 60s but today I've been tanking- 48%. I can't tell if I need a break or need to go nuts studying because it's my only chance at passing.

Like I've said, at this point of your study, if you can't focus, just take the day off. You've learned everything you can.

[Kage3212]

For those of you using Critical Pass flashcards ---

How much of these cards are you really committing to memory?? There's some subjects (like Con Law, Crim, Ks) that I'm able to memorize the majority of, but on like, Civ Pro, for example, this shit is WAY too detailed for me to be able to remember.

Just curious if I'm like an idiot or something for likely not knowing on Tuesday/Wednesday that an appointment of a receiver is an interlocutory order reviewable as a matter of right, etc.

I have the cards. I know what you are saying about civ pro. Honestly, I am almost sure that I could not recite from memory every aspect of even one set. I know most of what is going on, but memorizing everything on each of those cards is not possible. Maybe photographic memory people can achieve this feat, but not this guy.

[RaleighStClair]

For those of you using Critical Pass flashcards ---

How much of these cards are you really committing to memory?? There's some subjects (like Con Law, Crim, Ks) that I'm able to memorize the majority of, but on like, Civ Pro, for example, this shit is WAY too detailed for me to be able to remember.

Just curious if I'm like an idiot or something for likely not knowing on Tuesday/Wednesday that an appointment of a receiver is an interlocutory order reviewable as a matter of right, etc.

I have the cards. I know what you are saying about civ pro. Honestly, I am almost sure that I could not recite from memory every aspect of even one set. I know most of what is going on, but memorizing everything on each of those cards is not possible. Maybe photographic memory people can achieve this feat, but not this guy.

For sure. I do think they've been extremely helpful though.

[rhs100]

Anyone have NY Essay predictions? (unless we are not allowed to talk about it here)

I wish so bad that I knew. Right now I'm hoping that the universe will just throw me a bone and throw the shit that I memorized from the smart bar prep outlines. Literally random ass concepts here and there. It's such a mess haha.

You should be fine then!

Really? Is it that reliable?

Also, I hope Barbri's order of the subjects for review (those left for the weekend) was hopefully indicative of some sorta undisclosed prediction they have in mind!

[gretchenweiners]

For those of you using Critical Pass flashcards ---

How much of these cards are you really committing to memory?? There's some subjects (like Con Law, Crim, Ks) that I'm able to memorize the majority of, but on like, Civ Pro, for example, this shit is WAY too detailed for me to be able to remember.

Just curious if I'm like an idiot or something for likely not knowing on Tuesday/Wednesday that an appointment of a receiver is an interlocutory order reviewable as a matter of right, etc.

I have the cards. I know what you are saying about civ pro. Honestly, I am almost sure that I could not recite from memory every aspect of even one set. I know most of what is going on, but memorizing everything on each of those cards is not possible. Maybe photographic memory people can achieve this feat, but not this guy.

For sure. I do think they've been extremely helpful though.

Same. Helpful--especially the organization, but too much for me to commit completely to memory

[smokeylarue]

Quick CivPro quesiton.... Prior consistent statement to rebut charge of lying....this can be used as both impeachment and substantive proof. It can be used as substantive proof, even if not under oath right?

[RaleighStClair]

Quick CivPro quesiton.... Prior consistent statement to rebut charge of lying....this can be used as both impeachment and substantive proof. It can be used as substantive proof, even if not under oath right?

If it was made before an alleged bribe or motive for bias, or before the inconsistent statement, then it can be used as substantive proof or to bolster credibility after an attack.

I think.

[rickgrimes69]

Anyone have NY Essay predictions? (unless we are not allowed to talk about it here)

I wish so bad that I knew. Right now I'm hoping that the universe will just throw me a bone and throw the shit that I memorized from the smart bar prep outlines. Literally random ass concepts here and there. It's such a mess haha.

You should be fine then!

Really? Is it that reliable?

Also, I hope Barbri's order of the subjects for review (those left for the weekend) was hopefully indicative of some sorta undisclosed prediction they have in mind!

Ok total shot in the dark, but here's what I predict

Definitely a Wills question because there's always a wills question, maybe mixed with Domestic Relations or Property

Definitely Admin because it's new and they haven't done it yet, I could see them mixing this with Corporations or NY Practice

Some combination of a Crim law / Crim pro / Evidence question

Contracts will be in there somewhere for sure

Torts will probably show up to the party as well

[Kage3212]

What is the extent to what you can search with regard to a search incident to a lawful arrest? I know you can search the person "and those things within his wingspan/around him."

But if the guy is cuffed sitting on a floor, and there is a box right next to him which could arguably hold a gun, can you search that box while he is cuffed?

[RaleighStClair]

What is the extent to what you can search with regard to a search incident to a lawful arrest? I know you can search the person "and those things within his wingspan/around him."

But if the guy is cuffed sitting on a floor, and there is a box right next to him which could arguably hold a gun, can you search that box while he is cuffed?

I don't think it would come under a Search Incident to Lawful Arrest, but it might come in under the plain view exception. Officer would need: 1) to be legitimately on the premieses; 2) the contraband (the supposed gun in the box) is immediately apparent; and 3) the officer has probable cause to believe that the gun was in there and relates to a crime.

Interested to hear others' opinions on this.

[Redamon1]

What is the extent to what you can search with regard to a search incident to a lawful arrest? I know you can search the person "and those things within his wingspan/around him."

But if the guy is cuffed sitting on a floor, and there is a box right next to him which could arguably hold a gun, can you search that box while he is cuffed?

I don't think it would come under a Search Incident to Lawful Arrest, but it might come in under the plain view exception. Officer would need: 1) to be legitimately on the premieses; 2) the contraband (the supposed gun in the box) is immediately apparent; and 3) the officer has probable cause to believe that the gun was in there and relates to a crime.

Interested to hear others' opinions on this.

Well, I thought the wingspan element was construed fairly liberally, i.e. areas into which the suspect may reach to obtain weapons or destroy evidence. So if the box is right by the suspect, even in handcuffs, I would have guessed it was fair game. This from someone who didn't take CrimPro.

[RaleighStClair]

What is the extent to what you can search with regard to a search incident to a lawful arrest? I know you can search the person "and those things within his wingspan/around him."

But if the guy is cuffed sitting on a floor, and there is a box right next to him which could arguably hold a gun, can you search that box while he is cuffed?

I don't think it would come under a Search Incident to Lawful Arrest, but it might come in under the plain view exception. Officer would need: 1) to be legitimately on the premieses; 2) the contraband (the supposed gun in the box) is immediately apparent; and 3) the officer has probable cause to believe that the gun was in there and relates to a crime.

Interested to hear others' opinions on this.

Well, I thought the wingspan element was construed fairly liberally, i.e. areas into which the suspect may reach to obtain weapons or destroy evidence. So if the box is right by the suspect, even in handcuffs, I would have guessed it was fair game. This from someone who didn't take CrimPro.

Haha, I'm going to be a prosecutor...my community should be concerned with how bad I am at fourth amendment issues.

I think you're right that the cops have leeway there. Definitely something to argue back and forth on an essay. But on a multiple choice question, it'd be a pretty tough call.

[brotherdarkness]

What is the extent to what you can search with regard to a search incident to a lawful arrest? I know you can search the person "and those things within his wingspan/around him."

But if the guy is cuffed sitting on a floor, and there is a box right next to him which could arguably hold a gun, can you search that box while he is cuffed?

I don't think it would come under a Search Incident to Lawful Arrest, but it might come in under the plain view exception. Officer would need: 1) to be legitimately on the premieses; 2) the contraband (the supposed gun in the box) is immediately apparent; and 3) the officer has probable cause to believe that the gun was in there and relates to a crime.

Interested to hear others' opinions on this.

I don't think it'd come in under the plain view exception in this hypothetical because the box "could arguably hold a gun." I'm assuming that the box is not clear, meaning that the officer cannot see that there is in fact a gun inside the box. For the plain view exception, the evidence must be in plain view as is -- i.e., the officer cannot remove the lid and go "oh now it's in plain view!"

I'm having a harder time with the search incident to lawful arrest, though. That search is designed to prevent harm to officers or destruction of evidence. If the suspect is cuffed, I could see arguing that there is neither a risk of harm to officers nor a risk of the suspect destroying the evidence. However, that seems to always be the case with a search incident to a lawful arrest -- the police are searching after a lawful arrest, so the suspect is, presumably, always going to be cuffed. As such, it seems like searching the box would be proper, assuming it's within reach of the suspect.

[musicfor18]

What is the extent to what you can search with regard to a search incident to a lawful arrest? I know you can search the person "and those things within his wingspan/around him."

But if the guy is cuffed sitting on a floor, and there is a box right next to him which could arguably hold a gun, can you search that box while he is cuffed?

Unless you've arrested him outside a car or in his home, the rule is simply that the police can search anything within the arrestee's reach, and they don't need any kind of justification. It's an automatic right to search. If he can reach it, you can search it.

[kyle010723]

How do you guys still have the mental capacity to deal with such complex issue at this hour... my brain shut down hours ago.

[brotherdarkness]

How do you guys still have the mental capacity to deal with such complex issue at this hour... my brain shut down hours ago.

West Coast time. Plus, not like I can think about much else right now.

[RaleighStClair]

How do you guys still have the mental capacity to deal with such complex issue at this hour... my brain shut down hours ago.

West Coast time. Plus, not like I can think about much else right now.

Same here.

And yeah, good point. I've always struggled with the idea behind the SILA; all outlines say that it has to be for officer safety and/or prevention of the destruction of evidence, but the evidence always seems to be admissible.

[3|ink]

Looking at my lecture notes in professional responsibility for the first time. My lecturer said that you are required to disclose confidential information if you believe your client is going to commit a crime. Just lol

[jamescastle]

If I could sleep I would be dreaming about what I will be doing this time next week.

[Kage3212]

If I could sleep I would be dreaming about what I will be doing this time next week.

I'll be in South Beach this time next week, with a drink in each hand at this time.

[DesperadoOfColumbia]

What is the extent to what you can search with regard to a search incident to a lawful arrest? I know you can search the person "and those things within his wingspan/around him."

But if the guy is cuffed sitting on a floor, and there is a box right next to him which could arguably hold a gun, can you search that box while he is cuffed?

Like on a sidewalk/lawn or inside a car or where is this box? Gant (which deals with inside the vehicle, with said box in say, the passenger compartment) says that you can search without a warrant if the arrestee can access the box during the search or there could be evidence of the crime for which the arrest is being made.

If you're talking about some dude sitting on the curb and there happens to be a box next to him and who knows if it's his and it's locked then I don't think there's an exception for that. Merely a box wouldn't qualify for plain view. It's a fucking box.

IRL the cops will just pry open a locked box anyway and claim it's plain view even if it's not within the wingspan during an inventory search, lol.

[charlesxavier]

"When I took BarBri for the Georgia Bar in 1989, they had a criminal law lecturer who gave me the most valuable advice I ever had for bar preparation. He said that there are three levels of knowledge. In the first level, you have a superficial sense of a topic but not an in-depth knowledge.
That in-depth knowledge is what law professors have and then only about one subject. They can distinguish the fine points and they know why they were decided a particular way. Level 3 knowledge is unattainable for the number of subjects on the Bar Exam. So that leaves Level 2 knowledge. In Level 2, you know just enough to be dangerous. You know there are fine points but you can’t distinguish them so you get confused. And the readers of the exam probably won’t appreciate those fine points even if you spot them since they’re lawyers not law professors. So, contrary to popular opinion, according to the criminal law lecturer and my own experience, your goal is Level 1 superficial knowledge of every subject."

[jwe-houston]

What is the difference between the ban on double jeopardy and the doctrine of lesser included offenses? If a crime is a lesser included offense, isn't it automatically barred by the double jeopardy prohibition? My understanding is that two crimes are the same unless each one requires proof an additional element that the other does not require. By definition, a lesser included offense requires no element additional to the higher crime. What am I missing?

I guess this goes to that Lvl 2 knowledge they just posted. There is a subtle difference. An acquittal of (for example) murder carries with it an implied acquittal of the lesser charges - manslaughter, depraved heart. Double jeopardy covers situations where there was not an acquittal.

[zta_themis]

"When I took BarBri for the Georgia Bar in 1989, they had a criminal law lecturer who gave me the most valuable advice I ever had for bar preparation. He said that there are three levels of knowledge. In the first level, you have a superficial sense of a topic but not an in-depth knowledge.
That in-depth knowledge is what law professors have and then only about one subject. They can distinguish the fine points and they know why they were decided a particular way. Level 3 knowledge is unattainable for the number of subjects on the Bar Exam. So that leaves Level 2 knowledge. In Level 2, you know just enough to be dangerous. You know there are fine points but you can’t distinguish them so you get confused. And the readers of the exam probably won’t appreciate those fine points even if you spot them since they’re lawyers not law professors. So, contrary to popular opinion, according to the criminal law lecturer and my own experience, your goal is Level 1 superficial knowledge of every subject."

this gave me the warm fuzzies

[murray18]

"When I took BarBri for the Georgia Bar in 1989, they had a criminal law lecturer who gave me the most valuable advice I ever had for bar preparation. He said that there are three levels of knowledge. In the first level, you have a superficial sense of a topic but not an in-depth knowledge.
That in-depth knowledge is what law professors have and then only about one subject. They can distinguish the fine points and they know why they were decided a particular way. Level 3 knowledge is unattainable for the number of subjects on the Bar Exam. So that leaves Level 2 knowledge. In Level 2, you know just enough to be dangerous. You know there are fine points but you can’t distinguish them so you get confused. And the readers of the exam probably won’t appreciate those fine points even if you spot them since they’re lawyers not law professors. So, contrary to popular opinion, according to the criminal law lecturer and my own experience, your goal is Level 1 superficial knowledge of every subject."

I sure hope this turns out to be true. I'm looking at you, biz orgs/wills.