Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
whitecollar23

Bronze
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby whitecollar23 » Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:56 pm

styr wrote:
whitecollar23 wrote:Anyone remember if the long email thread was relevant beside for letting us know that she gave the LL notice and he was a jerk and did nothing?

I used the dates to establish a timeline. There was some other statutory provision about tenant self-help within a reasonable time, defining that as 30 days of giving notice to the landlord. It didn't specify what was reasonable for the landlord to do, or what would happen if the tenant took longer. Just BS the possibilities.


bleh, I just wrote that it was clearly more than 30 days, lol. Was too unfocused for the MPT to put down exact dates and quotes, lol.

whitecollar23

Bronze
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby whitecollar23 » Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:58 pm

mvp99 wrote:
styr wrote:
mvp99 wrote:( “[T]he district court is under no obligation to suppress evidence sua sponte.”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1182, 115 S.Ct. 1172, 130 L.Ed.2d 1125 (1995). I.e. it is not an error to not exclude evidence that should've been suppressed.

Sua sponte implies that no party objects, and the court excludes on its own motion. If a party objects, and evidence is admitted improperly over the objection, then it is an error, at least if it affects a substantial right. [citation needed]


If a defendant objects, what we need to know then is whether a general objection is enough to replace a motion to suppress.


A general objection is enough for an appeal when it's clear based on the context what it was for. It's in the FRE. Forget which one, but you could easily Google it.

BillCooper

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:54 am

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby BillCooper » Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:58 pm

whitecollar23 wrote:
BillCooper wrote:
Sam0406 wrote:I am still speechless how difficult the MEE was. I've been doing so well on the practice ones. Am I the only one who didn't know about crim pro mixed in with the evidence question until after? ... I just know it's going to hurt my score. Do you guys think the essays this year will be graded with more leniency? I mean under the circumstance with this unexpected questions, how much of the curve will be set to help us. Oh man... :roll:


You're not the only one that missed that evidence/crim pro, bro. I wanted to write that can't come in because of 5th Amendment and it would be plain error to state that he asked for a lawyer. But I depended on my prep and I was like "I've never seen a model answer that mixed up topics, other than Conflict."

Boy, how I wish I would have went with my gut.


Wouldn't be plain error given that he was re-mirandized in a different location a long time after.


I meant 6th Amendment right to counsel. The prosecutor can't say, "did you ask for a lawyer?" Or in his closing tell the jury "The first thing he did was demand a lawyer." It's plain error and grounds for a mistrial. So allowing that to come in in the written statement would have been a problem. Plus, it was irrelevant.

Why I didn't barf that up on test day I don't know.

BillCooper

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:54 am

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby BillCooper » Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:00 pm

whitecollar23 wrote:Anyone remember if the long email thread was relevant beside for letting us know that she gave the LL notice and he was a jerk and did nothing?


She repaired the door within the 30 day window he had for the court to consider his response per se unreasonable. But, under the circumstances, the court probably would view the totality of the circumstances and come to the conclusion that he is a slumlord.

whitecollar23

Bronze
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby whitecollar23 » Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:01 pm

BillCooper wrote:
whitecollar23 wrote:Anyone remember if the long email thread was relevant beside for letting us know that she gave the LL notice and he was a jerk and did nothing?


She repaired the door within the 30 day window he had for the court to consider his response per se unreasonable. But, under the circumstances, the court probably would view the totality of the circumstances and come to the conclusion that he is a slumlord.


Didn't she actually never repair the door? The money thing of the costs was an estimate from the repair guy. None of the things got fixed at the time of the MPT.

BillCooper

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:54 am

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby BillCooper » Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:04 pm

whitecollar23 wrote:
BillCooper wrote:
whitecollar23 wrote:Anyone remember if the long email thread was relevant beside for letting us know that she gave the LL notice and he was a jerk and did nothing?


She repaired the door within the 30 day window he had for the court to consider his response per se unreasonable. But, under the circumstances, the court probably would view the totality of the circumstances and come to the conclusion that he is a slumlord.


Didn't she actually never repair the door? The money thing of the costs was an estimate from the repair guy. None of the things got fixed at the time of the MPT.


Well, that's nice to know now. LOL.

Mygramlsat

New
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:30 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby Mygramlsat » Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:18 pm

How did you guys organize this? I did a terrible job as I listed it by rules (I.e. Breach of tematability) rather than by conditions. How fkd am I?

ellewoods123

Bronze
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby ellewoods123 » Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:47 pm

Mygramlsat wrote:How did you guys organize this? I did a terrible job as I listed it by rules (I.e. Breach of tematability) rather than by conditions. How fkd am I?



I wouldn't worry. I listed it by conditions but it did not flow at all. I could see your format making more sense

gtown1212

New
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:06 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby gtown1212 » Fri Jul 29, 2016 1:32 pm

for a measly half credit 5, what should we have had or MPTs? And say you did 2 of the 3 questions really well in an essay, where does that leave you scorewise? A 6? 7 if it was really good?

whitecollar23

Bronze
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby whitecollar23 » Fri Jul 29, 2016 1:34 pm

gtown1212 wrote:for a measly half credit 5, what should we have had or MPTs? And say you did 2 of the 3 questions really well in an essay, where does that leave you scorewise? A 6? 7 if it was really good?


If you took it in NY, it will be graded on a 1-6 scale.

gtown1212

New
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:06 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby gtown1212 » Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:59 pm

^^ pretty sure it's out of 10

whitecollar23

Bronze
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby whitecollar23 » Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:09 pm

gtown1212 wrote:^^ pretty sure it's out of 10


I know for a fact, with 100% certainty, that in NY it's graded out of 6. You're welcome to believe it's graded out of 10; it doesn't really make a difference. But I know, for certain, that's it's graded out of 6. You can message me if you want me to explain further.

ellewoods123

Bronze
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby ellewoods123 » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:06 pm

whitecollar23 wrote:
gtown1212 wrote:^^ pretty sure it's out of 10


I know for a fact, with 100% certainty, that in NY it's graded out of 6. You're welcome to believe it's graded out of 10; it doesn't really make a difference. But I know, for certain, that's it's graded out of 6. You can message me if you want me to explain further.


so is a 3 failing then? meaning if I truly think I failed the MPT/essays can I estimate on the seperac calculator that I got 3s or is that too generous? 1s and 2s a real thing even if you put something on the paper?

afarmerfromiowa

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:50 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby afarmerfromiowa » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:22 pm

udonisandtrinity wrote:
Sam0406 wrote:I am still speechless how difficult the MEE was. I've been doing so well on the practice ones. Am I the only one who didn't know about crim pro mixed in with the evidence question until after? ... I just know it's going to hurt my score. Do you guys think the essays this year will be graded with more leniency? I mean under the circumstance with this unexpected questions, how much of the curve will be set to help us. Oh man... :roll:


One sub question was crim pro. I think everything else was evidence. I think I got the issues but got slaughtered on market share liability in torts and SecTrans.


I thought the evidence issues were quite insubstantial and that it was almost all about Miranda. (Part was specifically about Maryland v. Shatzer.) I started out talking about party-opponent, non-assertive conduct (tears), and such, but after one statement after another by the defendant, I basically just went, "as I've said before, statements by a party-opponent are nonhearsay; now, as to the crim pro issues..."

afarmerfromiowa

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:50 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby afarmerfromiowa » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:25 pm

whitecollar23 wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
styr wrote:
mvp99 wrote:( “[T]he district court is under no obligation to suppress evidence sua sponte.”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1182, 115 S.Ct. 1172, 130 L.Ed.2d 1125 (1995). I.e. it is not an error to not exclude evidence that should've been suppressed.

Sua sponte implies that no party objects, and the court excludes on its own motion. If a party objects, and evidence is admitted improperly over the objection, then it is an error, at least if it affects a substantial right. [citation needed]


If a defendant objects, what we need to know then is whether a general objection is enough to replace a motion to suppress.


A general objection is enough for an appeal when it's clear based on the context what it was for. It's in the FRE. Forget which one, but you could easily Google it.


The question was about whether the trial court erred, not what a court should do with this on appeal. And I thought the whole premise of plain error review is that a trial court can err in failing to exclude evidence even absent objection. You might say that that's only the case where the error is substantial, but the first prong of plain error review is whether there's an error at all; prong two is substantiality. The answer to that can be yes even though there's no substantiality, so the test assumes the possibility of insubstantial, unobjected errors.

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1425
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby mvp99 » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:57 pm

:)
Last edited by mvp99 on Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

afarmerfromiowa

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:50 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby afarmerfromiowa » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:19 pm

mvp99 wrote:
I just think it's weird and tricky for them to want us to talk about crim pro based on general objections and admissibility questions when there is no duty imposed on the court to not admit that evidence (i.e. default admissible, court can't err unless there is a motion and the court errs in its ruling). In any case, on appeal, if that was even relevant, it might be ineffective counsel, etc. but I don't think it is even subject to plain error review because there is no duty and an untimely motion is treated as waived if done at trial. Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires motions to suppress to be filed prior to trial. Maybe that's what it was all about.


I don't think we know if the objections were general; we were just told there were objections. I thought they were merely being cagey about the basis for the objections because they didn't want to give away all the issue-spotting. There were definitely analyzable Miranda issues, e.g., the facts of Maryland v. Shatzer were more or less copied into the question, and I can't imagine we were supposed to say that the objections were just procedurally defective and not reach the merits.

I think you're just wrong about plain-error and no duty and waiver. First of all, if you fail to move to suppress, that's forfeiture, not waiver. Waived errors - intentionally abandoned/relinquished arguments that something was an error - aren't reviewable, but forfeited errors are. Forfeited errors are reviewable for plain error. (The first four pages of this handout at a seminar for public defenders are helpful here, and specifically address the situation where a pre-trial suppression motion is required: https://www.fd.org/docs/training-materi ... bottom.pdf). Evidentiary errors aren't immune from this treatment; Rule 103 talks about plain-error review of erroneous admissions which aren't objected to at trial. The no-duty language you or someone else quoted comes from a 1994 6th Cir case interpreting Fed. R. Crim. P. 12, but that court appears to have abandoned its former interpretation of Rule 12 on the ground that the rule has been amended to provide that the failure to file pre-trial motions isn't a waiver of the exclusion or relief that should have been sought in those motions, see http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinion ... 65p-06.pdf

User avatar
MCFC

Platinum
Posts: 9695
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:46 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby MCFC » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:41 pm

afarmerfromiowa wrote: e.g., the facts of Maryland v. Shatzer were more or less copied into the question

I'm not worried about it, but I'm sure my grader will get a good laugh out of the fact that I confidently asserted basically the exact opposite of the holding here.

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1425
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby mvp99 » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:47 pm

:)
Last edited by mvp99 on Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:34 pm, edited 3 times in total.

afarmerfromiowa

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:50 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby afarmerfromiowa » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:51 pm

mvp99 wrote:
Everything I've said before comes from cases, practitioners and their articles online. Can't backtrack now and search for it but it was all on the first page of each google search.


You may be looking at cases predating amendments to Rule 12. I mean, what about Rule 12(c)(3), which flatly says: "If a party does not meet the deadline for making a Rule 12(b)(3) motion, the motion is untimely. But a court may consider the defense, objection, or request if the party shows good cause." At the least, cause can excuse the failure to bring a timely suppression motion (and it's all reviewable on appeal for plain error even if you never object).

User avatar
Avian

Bronze
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby Avian » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:59 pm

I think you're way overthinking the call of the question. I don't remember what it said exactly, but basically there were proper objections made and the court ruled on each issue as stated. The question was if the court made the right decision, not whether it would be enough to win on appeal or some other standard.

afarmerfromiowa

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:50 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby afarmerfromiowa » Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:36 pm

Avian wrote:I think you're way overthinking the call of the question. I don't remember what it said exactly, but basically there were proper objections made and the court ruled on each issue as stated. The question was if the court made the right decision, not whether it would be enough to win on appeal or some other standard.


Well, it seems there may be a bit of a problem with objections that should have been raised in the form of pre-trial suppression motions, and weren't.. although it's unclear from the language of Rule 12 whether motions to exclude testimony under Miranda need to be made pre-trial, or just suppression motions as to non-testimonial evidence. I just said at the top of the question that everything had been objected to, and that even if it hadn't, that wouldn't relieve the trial court of a duty to exclude inadmissible evidence; it would just affect the standard of appellate review. There's probably a point to be had for noting that objections were made and noting the extent to which that matters, although I'm pretty uncertain about whether what I said about that was correct.

SLS_AMG

Bronze
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:18 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby SLS_AMG » Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:39 pm

Honestly, I feel like (and hope!) the nuances that people are discussing here are far beyond the minimum competency required to pass this exam. I doubt most exam takers even thought about most of this stuff.

Sam0406

New
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:13 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby Sam0406 » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:11 pm

SLS_AMG wrote:Honestly, I feel like (and hope!) the nuances that people are discussing here are far beyond the minimum competency required to pass this exam. I doubt most exam takers even thought about most of this stuff.


I can't believe I'm more freaked out and scared of failing because of the MEEs rather than the Mbes. I just can't believe how many incorrect things I may have written. I really hope they determine the essays this time were more difficult and somehow the curve helps us... is that even likely?

SLS_AMG

Bronze
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:18 pm

Re: Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE)

Postby SLS_AMG » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:23 pm

afarmerfromiowa wrote:
udonisandtrinity wrote:
Sam0406 wrote:I am still speechless how difficult the MEE was. I've been doing so well on the practice ones. Am I the only one who didn't know about crim pro mixed in with the evidence question until after? ... I just know it's going to hurt my score. Do you guys think the essays this year will be graded with more leniency? I mean under the circumstance with this unexpected questions, how much of the curve will be set to help us. Oh man... :roll:


One sub question was crim pro. I think everything else was evidence. I think I got the issues but got slaughtered on market share liability in torts and SecTrans.


I thought the evidence issues were quite insubstantial and that it was almost all about Miranda.


lol no.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ast52017, johngotti and 31 guests