Top Law Schools

So here's my situation - I'm a 2L with a full-time criminal defense offer in hand. If I accept it I'll have space in my schedule 3L year for either evidence or crim-pro, but probably not both. Any good reasons for choosing one over the other?

Take both. They are both necessary. But Crim Pro will probably edge out Evidence, slightly.

How do you have a full-time offer in criminal defense as a 2L without either of these classes? What else are you taking as a 3L that is so much more important? I would expect the common question to be "do I take advanced crim pro or advanced evidence AFTER taking crim pro, evidence and trial practice?"

Yeah I agree, I can't think of any more relevant courses than those two so if you are going in to criminal defense full time, I would recommend making time in your schedule for both.

That being said, if you have to take one over the other, I'd go CrimPro. It's a more "Common Law" subject so there's not a really strong definitive source for understanding the law easily. Evidence is rule-based so you can teach yourself somewhat easier than CrimPro.

Evidence is what will help you get the defendant off during trial.

Crim Pro is what will you help you never need to go to trial.

LawIdiot86 wrote:How do you have a full-time offer in criminal defense as a 2L without either of these classes? What else are you taking as a 3L that is so much more important? I would expect the common question to be "do I take advanced crim pro or advanced evidence AFTER taking crim pro, evidence and trial practice?"

Well, the professors at my LS teach the subjects in a highly theoretical (even by law school standards) way. They have also never practiced criminal law ... ever. Therefore I doubt I'll get much utility out of either course but I'm willing to try one.

I should also mention that I've already taken criminal law.

How do you not have time in your schedule? You can't fit two courses into 8 or 10 class spots?

I'd take crim pro because evidence is easy as fuck, and you'll learn it for the bar anyway.

Desert Fox wrote:How do you not have time in your schedule?

Given the faculty who teach these subjects (one of whom I've taken a class from), I doubt that its going to have value to me as a practitioner that is proportionate to the time requirement. I feel no need to take a class just to put it on my transcript. Next semester will be mostly externship/clinics which I regard as more important than any additional classes I could take as well as the final required course I need for graduation. Therefore, I'll probably only choose one since they tend to meet at the same time in the spring. Not that I see how any of this is material.

Anonymous User wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:How do you not have time in your schedule?

Given the faculty who teach these subjects (one of whom I've taken a class from), I doubt that its going to have value to me as a practitioner that is proportionate to the time requirement. I feel no need to take a class just to put it on my transcript. Next semester will be mostly externship/clinics which I regard as more important than any additional classes I could take as well as the final required course I need for graduation. Therefore, I'll probably only choose one since they tend to meet at the same time in the spring. Not that I see how any of this is material.

Well it's material because people are telling you that you should make time. But like I said, evidence is easy and bar bri will teach you it.

Desert Fox wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:How do you not have time in your schedule?

Given the faculty who teach these subjects (one of whom I've taken a class from), I doubt that its going to have value to me as a practitioner that is proportionate to the time requirement. I feel no need to take a class just to put it on my transcript. Next semester will be mostly externship/clinics which I regard as more important than any additional classes I could take as well as the final required course I need for graduation. Therefore, I'll probably only choose one since they tend to meet at the same time in the spring. Not that I see how any of this is material.

Well it's material because people are telling you that you should make time. But like I said, evidence is easy and bar bri will teach you it.

I feel if they knew the faculty members who teach the classes as I do they would be more hesitant to give that advice. But thanks, I was already leaning towards crim pro both because the professor is slightly more qualified and because I've seen that those sorts of issues come up more in the field and require more pre-existing knowledge to solve than evidence issues.

To support what is being said in this thread, I would say both are valuable classes if the professors are good, but crim pro is prob more valuable.

Posted in other thread, will copy here.

Crim Pro >>>>>>>>>> Evidence.

Reason: The different rules and procedures of evidence vary wildly from court to court. Many jurisdictions/courts don't even come close to using the Federal Rules of Evidence. Others adopt part, and modify it.

But the rules of Criminal Procedure are, for the most part, Constitutional and thus binding in every jurisdiction as at least a floor.

Why are you so hung up on the professors? Be a grown up and teach the classes to yourself. Out of all the classes you'll take in law school, these are probably the most relevant to what you'll be doing.

ETA: I mean doctrinal classes, not clinics or skill classes.

Always Credited wrote:Posted in other thread, will copy here.

Crim Pro >>>>>>>>>> Evidence.

Reason: The different rules and procedures of evidence vary wildly from court to court. Many jurisdictions/courts don't even come close to using the Federal Rules of Evidence. Others adopt part, and modify it.

But the rules of Criminal Procedure are, for the most part, Constitutional and thus binding in every jurisdiction as at least a floor.

Thank you. I'll check if my state uses the FRE. If it doesn't, this is an extremely easy decision.

Anonymous User wrote:

Always Credited wrote:Posted in other thread, will copy here.

Crim Pro >>>>>>>>>> Evidence.

Reason: The different rules and procedures of evidence vary wildly from court to court. Many jurisdictions/courts don't even come close to using the Federal Rules of Evidence. Others adopt part, and modify it.

But the rules of Criminal Procedure are, for the most part, Constitutional and thus binding in every jurisdiction as at least a floor.

Thank you. I'll check if my state uses the FRE. If it doesn't, this is an extremely easy decision.

Only reason to take Evidence is if you go to a school that teaches the local rules/procedures of evidence specifically, rather than the FRE. In that case its worth your time to take both.

Not sure which is more unbelievable: that this guy already has a full-time criminal defense offer as a 2L, or that he thinks he can fill out a 3L schedule with classes that are more interesting/useful than either of these.

Actually, the most unbelievable is that he said "if I accept [the offer]."

Only reason to take Evidence is if you go to a school that teaches the local rules/procedures of evidence specifically, rather than the FRE. In that case its worth your time to take both.

I don't but I did check and my state has incorporated at least some of the FRE.

seatown12 wrote:Not sure which is more unbelievable: that this guy already has a full-time criminal defense offer as a 2L, or that he thinks he can fill out a 3L schedule with classes that are more interesting/useful than either of these.

Actually, the most unbelievable is that he said "if I accept [the offer]."

Waiting on another offer, salary and specifics of this offer have yet to be negotiated, etc. I hope you're a K-JD ....

Ok I'll be the only person to suggest evidence over crim pro. IMO, there's great value to learning concepts like hearsay, hearsay exceptions, expert testimony rules, etc. Even if most jurisdictions don't follow FRE to the letter, they all almost certainly have hearsay rules and exceptions that you'll have to learn, and its MUCH easier to learn it if you have the background concepts down--far more so than crim pro, I think.

But srsly do both.

Edit for clarity.

Desert Fox wrote:How do you not have time in your schedule? You can't fit two courses into 8 or 10 class spots?

I'd take crim pro because evidence is easy as fuck, and you'll learn it for the bar anyway.

How much time did your professor spend on Hearsay. I wouldn't call hearsay rules "easy as fuck."

You need to man up and take both, period. Everyone has professors they don't like.

leobowski wrote:You need to man up and take both, period. Everyone has professors they don't like.

There is a difference between not liking a professor and doubting that a professor will be informative. Would you be inclined to take a course on astrophysics from a maitre' d?

Anonymous User wrote:
There is a difference between not liking a professor and doubting that a professor will be informative. Would you be inclined to take a course on astrophysics from a maitre' d?

Great analogy. Really, you sure showed me there. If the professor is so bad, teach yourself the material from an E&E.

Anonymous User wrote:Waiting on another offer, salary and specifics of this offer have yet to be negotiated, etc. I hope you're a K-JD ....

The only way this thread makes any sense is if you are talking about a summer offer and you're just terrible at communicating (which seems increasingly likely).

Great analogy. Really, you sure showed me there. If the professor is so bad, teach yourself the material from an E&E.

Well, I was hoping I could learn evidence in barbri which seems to be the case based on whats been said in this thread. No point in studying the E&E if its going to be so state specific.

seatown12 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Waiting on another offer, salary and specifics of this offer have yet to be negotiated, etc. I hope you're a K-JD ....

The only way this thread makes any sense is if you are talking about a summer offer and you're just terrible at communicating (which seems increasingly likely).

No, full time.

Anonymous User wrote: Well, I was hoping I could learn evidence in barbri which seems to be the case based on whats been said in this thread. No point in studying the E&E if its going to be so state specific.

Evidence isn't really state-specific. IIRC 40+ states have based their rules around the FRE. If you learn the FRE, you will have a good grasp at the basics and then it will be easier to pick up the minor state-specific variations. It was a really valuable class for me, but your experience may vary.