Barbri Question!!- Evidence

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
User avatar
cnk1220

Silver
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

Barbri Question!!- Evidence

Postby cnk1220 » Sun Feb 12, 2017 6:09 pm

EDIT: solved.
Last edited by cnk1220 on Mon Feb 13, 2017 12:29 pm, edited 5 times in total.

happyhour1122

Silver
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:08 pm

Re: Barbri Question!!

Postby happyhour1122 » Sun Feb 12, 2017 6:19 pm

It was made under oath.
Employee under oath testified that he did not perform.

This full day exam is BS
I gave up reviewing.
Who ever made these questions got some twisted mind.

User avatar
cnk1220

Silver
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: Barbri Question!!

Postby cnk1220 » Sun Feb 12, 2017 6:26 pm

happyhour1122 wrote:It was made under oath.
Employee under oath testified that he did not perform.

This full day exam is BS
I gave up reviewing.
Who ever made these questions got some twisted mind.



But the evidentiary effect of a prior inconsistent statement is when it was made under oath at a PRIOR proceeding--also I thought that refers to what you're impeaching the person like that's the "prior statement" not the one that you currently say.

The letter is being used to impeach what the guy just said right? The letter is hearsay but it comes in to impeach what he's testifying to at the current trial under 803(3) but it can only be used for impeachment purposes because the contents of the letter were not made under oath.

Am I confused/is the question oddly worded or am I just lost? :?

happyhour1122

Silver
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:08 pm

Re: Barbri Question!!

Postby happyhour1122 » Sun Feb 12, 2017 6:58 pm

No, i know exactly what you mean and I had the same question in my head.
By the answer seem to consider the fact that 1)statement was made under oath 2)the witness is still there. (meaning they can be cross examined) I really don't know why this question has to be this twisted. I tried to understand from the answer explanation and it seems like that where its going.
I wouldn't take this review for full exam too seriously.
I'm a retaker and the real mbe is nothing like this-

Jmazz88

New
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:34 am

Re: Barbri Question!!

Postby Jmazz88 » Sun Feb 12, 2017 7:11 pm

Sorry to go off topic, but is this one of the optional tests that they have available in the MPQ book?

User avatar
cnk1220

Silver
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: Barbri Question!!

Postby cnk1220 » Sun Feb 12, 2017 7:13 pm

Jmazz88 wrote:Sorry to go off topic, but is this one of the optional tests that they have available in the MPQ book?



Yes, the full day 200Q in the back. If you have any clue as to why barbri says "B" let me know.
Last edited by cnk1220 on Sun Feb 12, 2017 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jmazz88

New
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:34 am

Re: Barbri Question!!

Postby Jmazz88 » Sun Feb 12, 2017 8:12 pm

Debating on taking it at some point next week, but I may pass. I had the 3 hour MEE scheduled for today, but I instead watched the rest of the refresher videos and went through all of my wrong answers. Going to go through some old MEE's tonight, but probably will not legitimately write one out.

I have the Emanuel's book, so I might just start doing those along with the rest of the scheduled MBE stuff from Barbri next week. Although they seem pretty similar (style-wise), I do want to familiarize myself with actual MBE questions, as opposed to just Barbri.

I've done about 1200 questions so far, but I want to try and do 50 each day (excluding the last assigned MPQ-4) up until the Sunday before the exam.

YalteseFalcon

New
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: Barbri Question!!

Postby YalteseFalcon » Sun Feb 12, 2017 9:07 pm

I had not done the full day, but I took a look at this question.

It looks to me like it only comes in substantively because of the "declarant's then-existing state of mind" exception. This lets out-of-court statements come in to prove truth of the matter asserted when they indicate that declarant intent, showing that he planned to do something. Remember the whole, "W tells his mother, 'I will go to my friend's party later,'" allowing admissibility of that statement to come in for its truth (circumstantially) that W went to the friend's party.

The letter in Q8 is NOT coming in as former testimony under oath--which, as you said, would allow admissibility for impeachment and substantive evidence. It is coming in under that other exception. So, if the letter were different--if it did not express employee's present state of mind to do the electrical work--it would not be admissible for its substance (unless it fell within another exception). E.g., if it said in the past tense, "I DID electrical work on the home," it would not be admissible substantively, because the exception no longer applies.

This is batshit question. I never would have spotted that correct answer.

User avatar
cnk1220

Silver
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: Barbri Question!!

Postby cnk1220 » Sun Feb 12, 2017 9:48 pm

YalteseFalcon wrote:I had not done the full day, but I took a look at this question.

It looks to me like it only comes in substantively because of the "declarant's then-existing state of mind" exception. This lets out-of-court statements come in to prove truth of the matter asserted when they indicate that declarant intent, showing that he planned to do something. Remember the whole, "W tells his mother, 'I will go to my friend's party later,'" allowing admissibility of that statement to come in for its truth (circumstantially) that W went to the friend's party.

The letter in Q8 is NOT coming in as former testimony under oath--which, as you said, would allow admissibility for impeachment and substantive evidence. It is coming in under that other exception. So, if the letter were different--if it did not express employee's present state of mind to do the electrical work--it would not be admissible for its substance (unless it fell within another exception). E.g., if it said in the past tense, "I DID electrical work on the home," it would not be admissible substantively, because the exception no longer applies.

This is batshit question. I never would have spotted that correct answer.




MINDBLOWN. So the entire reason the letter was admissible is nothing to do with impeachment really, the whole reason it comes in is what he says about what's in the letter...so a hearsay exception brought it in and you're essentially impeaching the witness's 1st statement that he didn't perform any work at the D's house at the same time naturally.
Thanks for your help!!



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dabigchina and 22 guests