BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Ludacrispat26
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:33 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Ludacrispat26 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:49 pm

We get scrap paper for the essays, right? New York here.

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:58 pm

Is there a difference between a judge instructing a jury that a defendant has to prove adequate provocation (murder) by a preponderance of the evidence OR that defendant must show by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the killing was committed in sudden provocation?

I thought if the burden was placed on the defendant it was violation of Due Process but Emanual has an answer choice where the latter is permitted. Is the latter distinguishable from the former in that it only requires producing evidence to rebut? Anyone have any ideas?

kykiske
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kykiske » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:01 pm

Does anyone else feel like there are certain essay questions that they can bs easier?

For instance, take a torts question.

"Yeah, you know there's like this one negligent dude. And he was being all negligent when he hit this guy. Pretty sure his negligence caused the other guy's injuries (see Cardozo)."

kyle010723
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:03 pm

Good Guy Gaud wrote:Is there a difference between a judge instructing a jury that a defendant has to prove adequate provocation (murder) by a preponderance of the evidence OR that defendant must show by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the killing was committed in sudden provocation?

I thought if the burden was placed on the defendant it was violation of Due Process but Emanual has an answer choice where the latter is permitted. Is the latter distinguishable from the former in that it only requires producing evidence to rebut? Anyone have any ideas?


If it is an element of the offense, the burden CANNOT be on the defendant, i.e. reasonable doubt. If it is an affirmative defense, then Defendant must prove by a preponderance of evidence.

I.e. for Murder:
Defendant cannot be asked to prove he had no intent, that is the prosecutor's burden.
But Defendant must prove an affirmative defense such as Self-Defense by a preponderance of evidence

Edited to take out insanity, baddd example... and the bar is driving me insane.
Last edited by kyle010723 on Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:04 pm

kyle010723 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:Is there a difference between a judge instructing a jury that a defendant has to prove adequate provocation (murder) by a preponderance of the evidence OR that defendant must show by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the killing was committed in sudden provocation?

I thought if the burden was placed on the defendant it was violation of Due Process but Emanual has an answer choice where the latter is permitted. Is the latter distinguishable from the former in that it only requires producing evidence to rebut? Anyone have any ideas?


If it is an element of the offense, the burden CANNOT be on the defendant, i.e. reasonable doubt. If it is an affirmative defense, then Defendant must prove by a preponderance of evidence.

I.e. for Murder:
Defendant cannot be asked to prove he had no intent, that is the prosecutor's burden.
But Defendant MUST prove Self-Defense or Insanity by a preponderance of evidence


Gotcha. I thought insanity was clear and convincing?

kyle010723
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:05 pm

Good Guy Gaud wrote:
kyle010723 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:Is there a difference between a judge instructing a jury that a defendant has to prove adequate provocation (murder) by a preponderance of the evidence OR that defendant must show by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the killing was committed in sudden provocation?

I thought if the burden was placed on the defendant it was violation of Due Process but Emanual has an answer choice where the latter is permitted. Is the latter distinguishable from the former in that it only requires producing evidence to rebut? Anyone have any ideas?


If it is an element of the offense, the burden CANNOT be on the defendant, i.e. reasonable doubt. If it is an affirmative defense, then Defendant must prove by a preponderance of evidence.

I.e. for Murder:
Defendant cannot be asked to prove he had no intent, that is the prosecutor's burden.
But Defendant MUST prove Self-Defense or Insanity by a preponderance of evidence


Gotcha. I thought insanity was clear and convincing?


Oh, maybe. I just know the difference is an element of offense vs. affirmative defense. Maybe insanity is different.

Kage3212
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:34 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Kage3212 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:07 pm

kyle010723 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:Is there a difference between a judge instructing a jury that a defendant has to prove adequate provocation (murder) by a preponderance of the evidence OR that defendant must show by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the killing was committed in sudden provocation?

I thought if the burden was placed on the defendant it was violation of Due Process but Emanual has an answer choice where the latter is permitted. Is the latter distinguishable from the former in that it only requires producing evidence to rebut? Anyone have any ideas?


If it is an element of the offense, the burden CANNOT be on the defendant, i.e. reasonable doubt. If it is an affirmative defense, then Defendant must prove by a preponderance of evidence.

I.e. for Murder:
Defendant cannot be asked to prove he had no intent, that is the prosecutor's burden.
But Defendant MUST prove Self-Defense or Insanity by a preponderance of evidence


The answer here is about the burden on D is correct. But the last party about the D "MUST" prove the defense is not entirely correct. This is because some jx may not even recognize insanity as a defense. So you cant really say that the D MUST prove that by a preponderance, or any other standard really. The court is allowed to (and the legislature is permitted) to allow that defense in the jx, but there is no obligation that they are absolutely required to do so.

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:08 pm

Fuck it. What you've told me is enough.

I think I'm going to take tomorrow afternoon/evening off completely before I rage before the exam. This is getting taxing.

kyle010723
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:08 pm

Kage3212 wrote:
kyle010723 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:Is there a difference between a judge instructing a jury that a defendant has to prove adequate provocation (murder) by a preponderance of the evidence OR that defendant must show by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the killing was committed in sudden provocation?

I thought if the burden was placed on the defendant it was violation of Due Process but Emanual has an answer choice where the latter is permitted. Is the latter distinguishable from the former in that it only requires producing evidence to rebut? Anyone have any ideas?


If it is an element of the offense, the burden CANNOT be on the defendant, i.e. reasonable doubt. If it is an affirmative defense, then Defendant must prove by a preponderance of evidence.

I.e. for Murder:
Defendant cannot be asked to prove he had no intent, that is the prosecutor's burden.
But Defendant MUST prove Self-Defense or Insanity by a preponderance of evidence


The answer here is about the burden on D is correct. But the last party about the D "MUST" prove the defense is not entirely correct. This is because some jx may not even recognize insanity as a defense. So you cant really say that the D MUST prove that by a preponderance, or any other standard really. The court is allowed to (and the legislature is permitted) to allow that defense in the jx, but there is no obligation that they are absolutely required to do so.


Yea, insanity was a bad example. Sorry.

kyle010723
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:10 pm

Good Guy Gaud wrote:Fuck it. What you've told me is enough.

I think I'm going to take tomorrow afternoon/evening off completely before I rage before the exam. This is getting taxing.


Did a mixed set this morning. Trying to "learn" commercial paper/secured transaction right now but nothing is sticking :?

kykiske
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kykiske » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:11 pm

kyle010723 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:Fuck it. What you've told me is enough.

I think I'm going to take tomorrow afternoon/evening off completely before I rage before the exam. This is getting taxing.


Did a mixed set this morning. Trying to "learn" commercial paper/secured transaction right now but nothing is sticking :?


PMSI's are kewl. Something about attachment. You should probs perfect your security interest. Thx.

User avatar
LSL
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:58 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby LSL » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:12 pm

Something that has kind of been confusing me: I know voluntary intoxication negates the specific intent element of SI crimes and for crimes like murder it takes muder down to involuntary manslaughter.

But...what does a crime down-grade to if it's some specific intent crime like robbery? I can't imagine someone gets to say, "LOL, sorry I robbed you. But I was drunk though, so it's all good and I'm off the hook." I am just blanking/not able to figure out what it would be instead (sorry, might be obvious). Does it become battery maybe?

kyle010723
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:14 pm

kykiske wrote:
kyle010723 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:Fuck it. What you've told me is enough.

I think I'm going to take tomorrow afternoon/evening off completely before I rage before the exam. This is getting taxing.


Did a mixed set this morning. Trying to "learn" commercial paper/secured transaction right now but nothing is sticking :?


PMSI's are kewl. Something about attachment. You should probs perfect your security interest. Thx.


Something about personal use v. commercial use and different ways to perfect or to attach or something...

Just ask me how to perfect the interest on a batmobile and we're fine...

kyle010723
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:17 pm

LSL wrote:Something that has kind of been confusing me: I know voluntary intoxication negates the specific intent element of SI crimes and for crimes like murder it takes muder down to involuntary manslaughter.

But...what does a crime down-grade to if it's some specific intent crime like robbery? I can't imagine someone gets to say, "LOL, sorry I robbed you. But I was drunk though, so it's all good and I'm off the hook." I am just blanking/not able to figure out what it would be instead (sorry, might be obvious). Does it become battery maybe?


If a defendant has no specific intent, then he is not guilty right? Murder and homicide are different because there are different levels of manslaughter and degrees.

User avatar
charlesxavier
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:51 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby charlesxavier » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:17 pm

LSL wrote:Something that has kind of been confusing me: I know voluntary intoxication negates the specific intent element of SI crimes and for crimes like murder it takes muder down to involuntary manslaughter.

But...what does a crime down-grade to if it's some specific intent crime like robbery? I can't imagine someone gets to say, "LOL, sorry I robbed you. But I was drunk though, so it's all good and I'm off the hook." I am just blanking/not able to figure out what it would be instead (sorry, might be obvious). Does it become battery maybe?


I'm guessing that it would involve your state's criminal code. For example, Ohio has assault, negligent assault, aggravated assault, felonious assault. I'm thinking with robbery it might knock down the degree of the felony.
Last edited by charlesxavier on Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

xChiTowNx
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:16 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby xChiTowNx » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:21 pm

I've hit the point that I stumbled upon some decent quizlet outlines. I may have done some Mr.Robot-level internet sleuthing to figure out if the user passed my state's bar (they did) 8)

errmsg
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:00 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby errmsg » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:23 pm

For those of you who have done the MBE Sample Test Questions, can someone please explain the answers to Questions 1, 3 and 18? I don't want to spoil the questions for those of you that haven't tried them yet so I'll limit the details.
[+] Spoiler
These were the questions about the dad scared of the crackhead son, residency requirement for public education, and the K modification question.


Thanks.

User avatar
LSL
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:58 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby LSL » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:24 pm

Ahhh okay thanks both of you. Yeah, I think most of the questions I come across that test on it come in the form of, "If (drunk at time of the crime) D is tried for robbery, will they be convicted" and the answer is just "No, because they did not have the requisite intent for robbery." Unless the "liquid courage" thing applies. Which is cool enough, but yeah the various state code levels of negligence, other crimes etc. for crimes besides murder makes sense. Probably not tested on the MBE, but good to know just in case.
Last edited by LSL on Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rickgrimes69
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby rickgrimes69 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:26 pm

LSL wrote:Something that has kind of been confusing me: I know voluntary intoxication negates the specific intent element of SI crimes and for crimes like murder it takes muder down to involuntary manslaughter.

But...what does a crime down-grade to if it's some specific intent crime like robbery? I can't imagine someone gets to say, "LOL, sorry I robbed you. But I was drunk though, so it's all good and I'm off the hook." I am just blanking/not able to figure out what it would be instead (sorry, might be obvious). Does it become battery maybe?


I think the problem is that practically speaking, it would be impossible to convince a jury you unintentionally robbed someone, whereas it's totally possible to unintentionally kill someone.

User avatar
LSL
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:58 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby LSL » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:37 pm

Maybe, but (unless I'm categorizing it) I can think of enough situations where someone could conceivably get drunk, want money, have a gun, and things get dumb pretty quick. Not to pick on the homeless, but maybe for example, a homeless guy with a alcohol abuse problem robs someone with a gun and wouldn't have sober? But yeah, I think this makes sense why murder is much more tested as it's cleaner to envision/seems more universal in law
Last edited by LSL on Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kyle010723
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:39 pm

errmsg wrote:For those of you who have done the MBE Sample Test Questions, can someone please explain the answers to Questions 1, 3 and 18? I don't want to spoil the questions for those of you that haven't tried them yet so I'll limit the details.
[+] Spoiler
These were the questions about the dad scared of the crackhead son, residency requirement for public education, and the K modification question.


Thanks.


[+] Spoiler
1. There was enough evidence to support a self-defense claim. See the fact in the question. I guess I didn't think any other option came close

3. Treated out of state and in-state differently, thus violated the equal protection clause. This was very similar to Refresher Q98

18. Because that is the view of the Second Restatement. See Mixed Set 3 Question 12

kyle010723
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:43 pm

rickgrimes69 wrote:
LSL wrote:Something that has kind of been confusing me: I know voluntary intoxication negates the specific intent element of SI crimes and for crimes like murder it takes muder down to involuntary manslaughter.

But...what does a crime down-grade to if it's some specific intent crime like robbery? I can't imagine someone gets to say, "LOL, sorry I robbed you. But I was drunk though, so it's all good and I'm off the hook." I am just blanking/not able to figure out what it would be instead (sorry, might be obvious). Does it become battery maybe?


I think the problem is that practically speaking, it would be impossible to convince a jury you unintentionally robbed someone, whereas it's totally possible to unintentionally kill someone.


Just remember Guzman's Nine Stages of Drunkenness. Voluntary intoxication is a defense to negate specific intent, but you must be at stage 8 or 9 for that defense to be even viable...

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15455
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:43 pm

LSL wrote:Maybe, but (unless I'm categorizing it) I can think of enough situations where someone could conceivably get drunk, want money, have a gun, and things get dumb pretty quick. Not to pick on the homeless, but maybe for example, a homeless guy with a alcohol abuse problem robs someone with a gun and wouldn't have sober? But yeah, I think this makes sense why murder is much more tested as it's cleaner to envision/seems more universal in law

yeah I think in most states they'll nail you with something, but I guess in 1600's England the robber might have gotten away with it so its important we understand how that works lol

User avatar
LSL
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:58 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby LSL » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:47 pm

:lol: Both good points to remember, thanks guys. And yeah re: 1600's England, I can't remember who said, "Just do burglary during the day, bro." But I laughed so hard at that.

cdelgado
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:01 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby cdelgado » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:49 pm

Those sample civ pro questions from NCBE were tough.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests