California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread Forum

[Old Gregg]

My understanding is that specific instances of conduct are NEVER admissible

I was pretty sure that once the defendant opened the door to his character on direct, prosecution can offer Reputation, Opinion and Specific Acts evidence for the same trait, but maybe it's different for California?

[Tangerine Gleam]

Yeah, it's different (and confusing) in California. Apparently specific instances can only ever be used to prove the character of the victim, but never the defendant.

[Emma.]

My understanding is that specific instances of conduct are NEVER admissible

I was pretty sure that once the defendant opened the door to his character on direct, prosecution can offer Reputation, Opinion and Specific Acts evidence for the same trait, but maybe it's different for California?

Yeah, barbri says for CA specific instances are never allowed for D's character, even if D has opened the door with opinion or reputation evidence of her own character.

[Old Gregg]

My understanding is that specific instances of conduct are NEVER admissible

I was pretty sure that once the defendant opened the door to his character on direct, prosecution can offer Reputation, Opinion and Specific Acts evidence for the same trait, but maybe it's different for California?

Yeah, barbri says for CA specific instances are never allowed for D's character, even if D has opened the door with opinion or reputation evidence of her own character.

Got it. Thanks.

[Emma.]

Is there any dress code for the exam? I didn't find it among all the other random information here: http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals ... tLtr_R.pdf

[Old Gregg]

Dress in layers but don't wear a hoodie.

[Emma.]

Dress in layers but don't wear a hoodie.

No hoodie?

Where are the actual instructions?

[a male human]

I have it that for Ds character, only reputation is allowed, while all 3 are allowed for victims character.

Barbri outline says reputation or opinion, just not specific instances.

And sneakily, apparently in CA prosecutors can ask a defense witness whether they've heard of any instances of D's conduct that is inconsistent with the witness's testimony. They just can't actually bring up what the specific instances are.

So they can say "have your heard of D doing anything that might contradict your opinion?" but when witness testifies that D is honest, they can't say "have you heard he lied on his tax returns?"

Cross-examining about specific acts is always allowed, I thought.

[Emma.]

I have it that for Ds character, only reputation is allowed, while all 3 are allowed for victims character.

Barbri outline says reputation or opinion, just not specific instances.

And sneakily, apparently in CA prosecutors can ask a defense witness whether they've heard of any instances of D's conduct that is inconsistent with the witness's testimony. They just can't actually bring up what the specific instances are.

So they can say "have your heard of D doing anything that might contradict your opinion?" but when witness testifies that D is honest, they can't say "have you heard he lied on his tax returns?"

Cross-examining about specific acts is always allowed, I thought.

Not according to barbri (not that I fully trust barbri):

From the CMR CA Evidence Distinctions, E.7.b Evidence of the Defendant's Conduct in Criminal Cases:

"On cross, the Federal Rules permit opinion and reputation evidence and evidence concerning specific instances. California law permits proof of the defendant's character with opinion and reputation evidence only, whether on direct or cross."

[Tangerine Gleam]

Under the FRE, yes. But not in California (at least not for D's character).

[huckabees]

Dress in layers but don't wear a hoodie.

Is this official? I only have hoodies.

[Old Gregg]

Dress in layers but don't wear a hoodie.

Is this official? I only have hoodies.

The administrators can be very arbitrary. No need to give them an excuse.

[Old Gregg]

Just want to make sure my notes are right: The dying declaration hearsay exception is applicable in only civil and criminal homicide cases. Is that correct?

[Emma.]

Just want to make sure my notes are right: The dying declaration hearsay exception is applicable in only civil and criminal homicide cases. Is that correct?

Correct for FRE. Witness must be unavailable but need not have died.

For CEC is is all civil and criminal cases but witness must actually be dead.

[Old Gregg]

Thanks! I know this sounds strange, but I've actually given up on the CA evidence distinctions (except for prop 8 and some rando ones). To be able to properly dole those out will give you a chance at 80+, but I'm content with a 65 to solid 70 for all 6 essays .

[Emma.]

Thanks! I know this sounds strange, but I've actually given up on the CA evidence distinctions (except for prop 8 and some rando ones). To be able to properly dole those out will give you a chance at 80+, but I'm content with a 65 to solid 70 for all 6 essays .

If I could get 65 on all the essays I'll be crying tears of joy.

Random PR question. My notes say that a lawyer may enter into business transactions with client ONLY IF (i)Terms are Fair to client, (ii) Disclosed in understandable writing, (iii) Client has opportunity to consult with outside lawyer, and (iv) Client provides written consent (Written DISCLOSURE to client is sufficient in CA).

My question is the consent part. If you are entering into a business transaction with your client, isn't it always going to be consensual? If you are disclosing the terms of the deal to the client in an "understandable writing," isn't the actual contract you sign with the client to do the deal going to provide evidence of written consent?

[Old Gregg]

Don't know the answer to that, but my hunch is that you might be over-thinking. If you just argue it both ways that should be sufficient, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Emma.]

Don't know the answer to that, but my hunch is that you might be over-thinking. If you just argue it both ways that should be sufficient, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I guess disclosure issue could arise in situations like buying stock of client corp on an exchange, where they wouldn't know it was you buying it?

[vacations]

For those who took BarBri, did you guys power through all the essays given in the big orange book?

That was my goal this summer and I came close to most of the subjects but at this point....i'm just throwing my hands up and just spending the next two days doing MBEs and memorizing outlines. Anybody else on same boat?

[Foosters Galore]

For those who took BarBri, did you guys power through all the essays given in the big orange book?

That was my goal this summer and I came close to most of the subjects but at this point....i'm just throwing my hands up and just spending the next two days doing MBEs and memorizing outlines. Anybody else on same boat?

hell no. But i did outline (5-10 minutes each) a lot of them. I only wrote out a handful.

[calibred]

Wills gurus--

If I execute a formal will, can I modify it with a holographic codicil? Or does a codicil to a will require the same formalities as the modified will?

[Emma.]

Wills gurus--

If I execute a formal will, can I modify it with a holographic codicil? Or does a codicil to a will require the same formalities as the modified will?

IIRC you can modify with a codicil, but the codicil has to be a fully valid codicil. I.e. watch out for a modification through interlineation, which MIGHT be sufficient to be a valid holographic codicil but then all the material terms would have to be in handwriting. You'd also have to watch out that the codicil is dated or otherwise makes clear that it comes AFTER the attested will (probably would be fine if the holographic codicil made direct reference to the prior will).

[calibred]

Wills gurus--

If I execute a formal will, can I modify it with a holographic codicil? Or does a codicil to a will require the same formalities as the modified will?

IIRC you can modify with a codicil, but the codicil has to be a fully valid codicil. I.e. watch out for a modification through interlineation, which MIGHT be sufficient to be a valid holographic codicil but then all the material terms would have to be in handwriting. You'd also have to watch out that the codicil is dated or otherwise makes clear that it comes AFTER the attested will (probably would be fine if the holographic codicil made direct reference to the prior will).

Great, thanks!

[Old Gregg]

In an interlineation of a formal will, beneficiary whose devise is modified takes what was originally granted if modified amount ended up being higher. If lower, beneficiary takes nothing. DRR twist.

[Foosters Galore]

Property - Can someone explain the notion of transferring a mortgage without a note, or conversely, transferring a note without a mortgage. Convisor does a shitty job with this. Thanks in advance!