2017 February California Bar Exam

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
osuna911

New
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:56 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby osuna911 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:51 am

Rocky64 wrote:Guys, it's as simple as this.. the call of the question was whether or not she can use the defense of entrapment. And the answer is no. She had the criminal intent before the officer tried to induce her. Nothing is related to conspiracy or solicitation.


But even if she had the prior intent, Ivan and Debbie didn't have the mutual assent to enter into agreement? And no common purpose to infer the intent to agree since Ivan acted contra by calling the cops?

asdf123456

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:45 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby asdf123456 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:52 am

Hypothetically, if I forgot the second element of the entrapment defense and missed the unreliability of the informant, what's the best I could have gotten? Assuming I stated all the other rules well and had ok-level analysis? Missing those 2 things, do you think 55 is still possible?

Got'eem

New
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:50 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Got'eem » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:52 am

armenianBEAUTY wrote:For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply




there was conspiracy . .. . .. i thought it was solicitation?[/quote]


Solicitation merges into conspiracy?[/quote]


........ missed that hahaha damn[/quote]

I'm lost. Only talked about solicitation, and only to discuss the probably cause to arrest after I invalidated the warrant. Entrapment issue I just discussed the elements of entrapment....? The call specifically said "solicitation to commit murder" ...[/quote]


Warrant was valid under the Good Faith Exception... officer relied on what he thought was a proper warrant


Damn! I thought the call only said what her chances were for the defense of entrapment....[/quote]


Nope! You forgot about the exception to the exception. :) The good faith reliance exception is NOT available whenever the warrant is so lacking in prob cause that a reasonable officer would not rely on it (it was based solely on one informant). Also, not available whenever law enforcement has misrepresented/lied in the affidavit seeking the warrant. First exception to the exception likely applies. Second one definitely does.[/quote]










Would fruit from a poisonous a tree doctrine apply since the informant was known to be unreliable by the officer?

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:55 am

cal_pushed wrote:
RickSanchez wrote:The question specifically called for entrapment. The crime just happened to be solicitation of murder.


Entrapment defense to that which she had been arrested and charged... solicitation for murder.


The question asked "Would her defense of entrapment work against the charge of solicitation for murder?" or something like that. You were to discuss whether the defense of entrapment would stick or not. If we are talking about whether she was predisposed to solicit for murder, we are talking about the same thing.

User avatar
elijah54594

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:53 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby elijah54594 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:58 am

armenianBEAUTY wrote:For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply




there was conspiracy . .. . .. i thought it was solicitation?[/quote]


Solicitation merges into conspiracy?[/quote]


........ missed that hahaha damn[/quote]

I'm lost. Only talked about solicitation, and only to discuss the probably cause to arrest after I invalidated the warrant. Entrapment issue I just discussed the elements of entrapment....? The call specifically said "solicitation to commit murder" ...[/quote]


Warrant was valid under the Good Faith Exception... officer relied on what he thought was a proper warrant


Damn! I thought the call only said what her chances were for the defense of entrapment....[/quote]


Nope! You forgot about the exception to the exception. :) The good faith reliance exception is NOT available whenever the warrant is so lacking in prob cause that a reasonable officer would not rely on it (it was based solely on one informant). Also, not available whenever law enforcement has misrepresented/lied in the affidavit seeking the warrant. First exception to the exception likely applies. Second one definitely does.[/quote]

Yea, inception NOPE here. The bad faith warrant was given to another officer without any evidence that he knew it was tainted. Of course a court MAY find that it was still enough to bar the warrant from validity, but the discussion of good faith did apply here. It's not so much getting what a judge would rule correct as it is discussing the issue intelligently.

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:00 am

Got'eem wrote:
armenianBEAUTY wrote:For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply




there was conspiracy . .. . .. i thought it was solicitation?


Solicitation merges into conspiracy?


........ missed that hahaha damn

I'm lost. Only talked about solicitation, and only to discuss the probably cause to arrest after I invalidated the warrant. Entrapment issue I just discussed the elements of entrapment....? The call specifically said "solicitation to commit murder" ...



Warrant was valid under the Good Faith Exception... officer relied on what he thought was a proper warrant


Damn! I thought the call only said what her chances were for the defense of entrapment....


Nope! You forgot about the exception to the exception. :) The good faith reliance exception is NOT available whenever the warrant is so lacking in prob cause that a reasonable officer would not rely on it (it was based solely on one informant). Also, not available whenever law enforcement has misrepresented/lied in the affidavit seeking the warrant. First exception to the exception likely applies. Second one definitely does.[/quote]










Would fruit from a poisonous a tree doctrine apply since the informant was known to be unreliable by the officer?[/quote]

But the arrest was not made using the arrest warrant necessarily. Bob tried to talk Debbie into committing the murder, and at some point it could be argued he had enough probable cause to arrest her, or at least enough facts to have reasonable suspicion needed to detain her for stop and frisk (had solicited for murder, she could have a weapon on her). The arrest warrant was invalid because the affidavit was false, but Bob didn't necessarily rely on the warrant to arrest her. If he had, then it would be a fruit of the poisonous tree, but then you would argue the 3 ways in which it could be admitted. The point is you just had to address all these.

User avatar
elijah54594

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:53 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby elijah54594 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:02 am

elijah54594 wrote:
armenianBEAUTY wrote:For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply




there was conspiracy . .. . .. i thought it was solicitation?



Solicitation merges into conspiracy?[/quote]


........ missed that hahaha damn[/quote]

I'm lost. Only talked about solicitation, and only to discuss the probably cause to arrest after I invalidated the warrant. Entrapment issue I just discussed the elements of entrapment....? The call specifically said "solicitation to commit murder" ...[/quote]


Warrant was valid under the Good Faith Exception... officer relied on what he thought was a proper warrant


Damn! I thought the call only said what her chances were for the defense of entrapment....[/quote]


Nope! You forgot about the exception to the exception. :) The good faith reliance exception is NOT available whenever the warrant is so lacking in prob cause that a reasonable officer would not rely on it (it was based solely on one informant). Also, not available whenever law enforcement has misrepresented/lied in the affidavit seeking the warrant. First exception to the exception likely applies. Second one definitely does.[/quote]

Yea, inception NOPE here. The bad faith warrant was given to another officer without any evidence that he knew it was tainted. Of course a court MAY find that it was still enough to bar the warrant from validity, but the discussion of good faith did apply here. It's not so much getting what a judge would rule correct as it is discussing the issue intelligently.[/quote]

Oh, and did anyone else hit the "inevitible discovery" exception to the exclusion of the statement? A lab would have tested the coke (and I said still likely would) regardless of the statement. I had already discussed the fact that the statement was not incited by a custodial interview and that the officer's statement was more a colloquial exclamation than a statement likely to incite a response.

armenianBEAUTY

New
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:26 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby armenianBEAUTY » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:02 am

Got'eem wrote:
armenianBEAUTY wrote:For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply




there was conspiracy . .. . .. i thought it was solicitation?



Solicitation merges into conspiracy?[/quote]


........ missed that hahaha damn[/quote]

I'm lost. Only talked about solicitation, and only to discuss the probably cause to arrest after I invalidated the warrant. Entrapment issue I just discussed the elements of entrapment....? The call specifically said "solicitation to commit murder" ...[/quote]


Warrant was valid under the Good Faith Exception... officer relied on what he thought was a proper warrant


Damn! I thought the call only said what her chances were for the defense of entrapment....[/quote]


Nope! You forgot about the exception to the exception. :) The good faith reliance exception is NOT available whenever the warrant is so lacking in prob cause that a reasonable officer would not rely on it (it was based solely on one informant). Also, not available whenever law enforcement has misrepresented/lied in the affidavit seeking the warrant. First exception to the exception likely applies. Second one definitely does.[/quote]










Would fruit from a poisonous a tree doctrine apply since the informant was known to be unreliable by the officer?[/quote]


I'm being quoted as if I typed something I really did not. I think you accidentally cut at the wrong place or something and now it looks like I typed what someone else did.

Anyway, no. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine applies whenever law enforcement uses one piece of illegally obtained EVIDENCE to acquire another, new piece of evidence. The new evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree and not admissible bc of this doctrine. However, although I see you train of thought, it would not be available here bc Ivan is just an unreliable informant-- not illegally acquired evidence.

Got'eem

New
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:50 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Got'eem » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:02 am

Would fruit from a poisonous a tree doctrine apply since the informant was known to be unreliable by the officer?

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:03 am

asdf123456 wrote:Hypothetically, if I forgot the second element of the entrapment defense and missed the unreliability of the informant, what's the best I could have gotten? Assuming I stated all the other rules well and had ok-level analysis? Missing those 2 things, do you think 55 is still possible?


55 is definitely possible. If you did other searches + did a great job on Miranda, maybe even 60

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:04 am

Got'eem wrote:Would fruit from a poisonous a tree doctrine apply since the informant was known to be unreliable by the officer?


Yes, if the arrest was made solely based on the arrest warrant.

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:06 am

RickSanchez wrote:
Got'eem wrote:Would fruit from a poisonous a tree doctrine apply since the informant was known to be unreliable by the officer?


Yes, if the arrest was made solely based on the arrest warrant.


Oh I guess the poisonous tree only works when the bad evidence led to another evidence. I think it's an important distinction but not really going to hurt you if you mentioned it.

cal_pushed

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:33 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby cal_pushed » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:07 am

What issues did people discuss for PR. Feel like I forced some. I went:

Attorney agreements
Contingency fees
Confidence
Competence
Diligence
Conflict
Concurrent conflict
Representation despite
Permissive withdrawal
Mandatory withdrawal

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:09 am

cal_pushed wrote:What issues did people discuss for PR. Feel like I forced some. I went:

Attorney agreements
Contingency fees
Confidence
Competence
Diligence
Conflict
Concurrent conflict
Representation despite
Permissive withdrawal
Mandatory withdrawal


But the question told us they entered into a valid retainer agreement. No need to discuss that and the fees.

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:10 am

RickSanchez wrote:
cal_pushed wrote:What issues did people discuss for PR. Feel like I forced some. I went:

Attorney agreements
Contingency fees
Confidence
Competence
Diligence
Conflict
Concurrent conflict
Representation despite
Permissive withdrawal
Mandatory withdrawal


But the question told us they entered into a valid retainer agreement. No need to discuss that and the fees.


But I think the list is good, but did you mention the duty to preserve evidence and duty of competence with regards to the clothing?

cal_pushed

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:33 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby cal_pushed » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:12 am

RickSanchez wrote:
cal_pushed wrote:What issues did people discuss for PR. Feel like I forced some. I went:

Attorney agreements
Contingency fees
Confidence
Competence
Diligence
Conflict
Concurrent conflict
Representation despite
Permissive withdrawal
Mandatory withdrawal


But the question told us they entered into a valid retainer agreement. No need to discuss that and the fees.


That's what I was thinking. But tried to parce it. Said retainer may not equate to a contingency agreement discussing costs/ bla. No real facts so just gave the rule pretty much.

Did duty of care of the evidence under competence.

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:15 am

cal_pushed wrote:
RickSanchez wrote:
cal_pushed wrote:What issues did people discuss for PR. Feel like I forced some. I went:

Attorney agreements
Contingency fees
Confidence
Competence
Diligence
Conflict
Concurrent conflict
Representation despite
Permissive withdrawal
Mandatory withdrawal


But the question told us they entered into a valid retainer agreement. No need to discuss that and the fees.


That's what I was thinking. But tried to parce it. Said retainer may not equate to a contingency agreement discussing costs/ bla. No real facts so just gave the rule pretty much.

Did duty of care of the evidence under competence.


Looks like you did a really good job. Bravo!

osuna911

New
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:56 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby osuna911 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:16 am

How did you guys organize PTB??? What did you say the likely outcome of the Immunity?

Mostly likely City was acting as a traditional government function rather than propriety market participant /completely lacked authority to contract because of the strict construction of the City Charter and Also no substantial performance applied

Also for the second call I literally filled in facts for the quantum meruit elements....

And for the Damages it was super brief and made up a bunch of jibberish :|

sittin_pretty

New
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:27 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby sittin_pretty » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:17 am

cal_pushed wrote:
RickSanchez wrote:
cal_pushed wrote:What issues did people discuss for PR. Feel like I forced some. I went:

Attorney agreements
Contingency fees
Confidence
Competence
Diligence
Conflict
Concurrent conflict
Representation despite
Permissive withdrawal
Mandatory withdrawal


But the question told us they entered into a valid retainer agreement. No need to discuss that and the fees.


That's what I was thinking. But tried to parce it. Said retainer may not equate to a contingency agreement discussing costs/ bla. No real facts so just gave the rule pretty much.

Did duty of care of the evidence under competence.


Duty to safeguard property. Clothes were commingled and evidence destroyed because of failure to safeguard property.

cal_pushed

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:33 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby cal_pushed » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:20 am

osuna911 wrote:How did you guys organize PTB??? What did you say the likely outcome of the Immunity?

Mostly likely City was acting as a traditional government function rather than propriety market participant /completely lacked authority to contract because of the strict construction of the City Charter and Also no substantial performance applied

Also for the second call I literally filled in facts for the quantum meruit elements....

And for the Damages it was super brief and made up a bunch of jibberish :|


Section one immunity

Government or proprietary function (concluded proprietary)

Ultra virus (concluded no, but hedged saying close)

Section two

Just the elements. Went through them. Said likely valid claim.

Section three damages

Brief.

Conclusion - suggested they negotiate and attempt to make use of the work to seek other grants. Bla.

User avatar
rcharter1978

Gold
Posts: 4275
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby rcharter1978 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:20 am

How much do bar predictors make? Because I have correctly guessed at least 3 topics. I mean that has to make me more accurate than some right?

Also, can I wear a cape?

osuna911

New
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:56 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby osuna911 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:21 am

RickSanchez wrote:
RickSanchez wrote:
cal_pushed wrote:What issues did people discuss for PR. Feel like I forced some. I went:

Attorney agreements
Contingency fees
Confidence
Competence
Diligence
Conflict
Concurrent conflict
Representation despite
Permissive withdrawal
Mandatory withdrawal


But the question told us they entered into a valid retainer agreement. No need to discuss that and the fees.


But I think the list is good, but did you mention the duty to preserve evidence and duty of competence with regards to the clothing?




I said the breach of DOC so recklessly would rise to "intentional" level in CA
DOL not to bring frivolous lawsuits/ bring with PC
DOC owed to Client to investigate whether Ex Fiancé was lying about the prior lawsuits instead of taking her answer at face value

osuna911

New
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:56 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby osuna911 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:23 am

cal_pushed wrote:
osuna911 wrote:How did you guys organize PTB??? What did you say the likely outcome of the Immunity?

Mostly likely City was acting as a traditional government function rather than propriety market participant /completely lacked authority to contract because of the strict construction of the City Charter and Also no substantial performance applied

Also for the second call I literally filled in facts for the quantum meruit elements....

And for the Damages it was super brief and made up a bunch of jibberish :|


Section one immunity

Government or proprietary function (concluded proprietary)

Ultra virus (concluded no, but hedged saying close)

Section two

Just the elements. Went through them. Said likely valid claim.

Section three damages

Brief.

Conclusion - suggested they negotiate and attempt to make use of the work to seek other grants. Bla.




OH Fuccccckkk did the Boss ask for a "suggestion"??? I completely missed it

sittin_pretty

New
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:27 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby sittin_pretty » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:25 am

osuna911 wrote:
cal_pushed wrote:
osuna911 wrote:How did you guys organize PTB??? What did you say the likely outcome of the Immunity?

Mostly likely City was acting as a traditional government function rather than propriety market participant /completely lacked authority to contract because of the strict construction of the City Charter and Also no substantial performance applied

Also for the second call I literally filled in facts for the quantum meruit elements....

And for the Damages it was super brief and made up a bunch of jibberish :|


Section one immunity

Government or proprietary function (concluded proprietary)

Ultra virus (concluded no, but hedged saying close)

Section two

Just the elements. Went through them. Said likely valid claim.

Section three damages

Brief.

Conclusion - suggested they negotiate and attempt to make use of the work to seek other grants. Bla.




OH Fuccccckkk did the Boss ask for a "suggestion"??? I completely missed it


No, he didn't. Just wanted to know the law and how court might rule.

cal_pushed

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:33 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby cal_pushed » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:26 am

osuna911 wrote:
cal_pushed wrote:
osuna911 wrote:How did you guys organize PTB??? What did you say the likely outcome of the Immunity?

Mostly likely City was acting as a traditional government function rather than propriety market participant /completely lacked authority to contract because of the strict construction of the City Charter and Also no substantial performance applied

Also for the second call I literally filled in facts for the quantum meruit elements....

And for the Damages it was super brief and made up a bunch of jibberish :|


Section one immunity

Government or proprietary function (concluded proprietary)

Ultra virus (concluded no, but hedged saying close)

Section two

Just the elements. Went through them. Said likely valid claim.

Section three damages

Brief.

Conclusion - suggested they negotiate and attempt to make use of the work to seek other grants. Bla.




OH Fuccccckkk did the Boss ask for a "suggestion"??? I completely missed it


Nooo. I just didn't no how to conclude after having said the city was fucked basically lol. Think you could go other way with it and then not need a softer conclusion.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: leeyatong and 39 guests