Good Guy Gaud wrote:
old_soul wrote:Has anyone watched the Refresher videos? Worth it or not?
--For those who haven't, I just finished watching Guzman's videos, and I wish I had done them earlier. I watched Evidence a couple of weeks ago and reviewed that, and as I was analyzing my Refresher, I realized that I missed like only 2 qs in Evidence; now going back to go over his Con law and Crim/Pro. His little insurance policy summaries are soo worth it.
Are the insurance policy summaries something you would write down or just something to memorize?
I have the videos and am planning to watch them over the weekend. Do you think I should watch them sooner?
I'd memorize them, they are quick and dirty. And what another posted -- the tips are not what I am talking about. I'm talking about the summaries; he actually gives you a quick "summary" of the relevant law in a very digestible format for the main topics. His stuff has an underlying focus on exactly where most people make mistakes and what types of qs are found. At least I found the Evidence stuff on Character and Impeachment helpful.
Here's a sample of my notes (forgive any typos or sentence fragments):
Character Evidence – Criminal -- 5 main rules to Rmr
1) Prosecutor cannot introduce any evidence of the D’s bad character if the purpose of that evidence is to show that he probably acted in conformity with his bad character and committed the crime charged. No evidence of bad rep, no evidence of prior crime or bad acts if purpose is to show that he probably acted the same way again.
2) D is allowed to present evidence of relevant good character traits to try to establish that he acted in conformity with his good character and did not commit the crime, however, law limits the type of evidence to just reputation and opinion (prior acts/specific NOT allowed). (watch out for bolstering evidence answer choice – that’s a sucker pick when you know you can bring in evidence for a legitimate purpose, see q 103 in Sim.)
3) If D presents evidence of GOOD character to show she probably did NOT commit the crime, she has opened the door to character, and the prosecutor can now show evidence of BAD character, to show that she really is the sort of person to commit the crime, but ONLY through reputation or opinion; only gets to do this if number 2 is used.
4) While evidence of prior crimes or prior bad acts are never admissible to show they acted in conformity; but allowed to show MIMIC (motive; identity; absence of mistake; intent; common scheme). Just rmr it could however be kept out under Rule 403, probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by prejudice to D.
5) If D testifies, he automatically places his character trait for truthfulness at issue.