BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam Forum

[tfer2222]

Studying for NY. How far along are people on the memorization front? A little scared after the NY 1/2 day simulated.

I have been trying to memorize all along in addition to understanding things conceptually. I memorize slow and there's no way I'd be able to cram all of that information into two weeks before the exam.

I'm kind of the same. I've made outlines/flashcards for everything so far, so I have a vague memorization of things as of now, but nothing really solid yet.

[BaiAilian2013]

Can someone good with wills explain this to me? On one page of the handout, the hypo has the creation of a trust fail because legal title must be fully conveyed and the guy didn't yet own the property he was trying to place in trust. But then on another, he says you can have an unfunded revocable trust and pour over assets at death.

Well, pour-over trusts are very young compared to trust law in general. I don't know how Barbri presents them, but I think of them as sort of a modern exception to the old, traditional rule that property was one of the indispensable requirements of a trust. There is case law from the development of the pour-over trust where the objection is that it can't possibly be valid because there's nothing in it.

[Joe Quincy]

Can someone good with wills explain this to me? On one page of the handout, the hypo has the creation of a trust fail because legal title must be fully conveyed and the guy didn't yet own the property he was trying to place in trust. But then on another, he says you can have an unfunded revocable trust and pour over assets at death.

Well, pour-over trusts are very young compared to trust law in general. I don't know how Barbri presents them, but I think of them as sort of a modern exception to the old, traditional rule that property was one of the indispensable requirements of a trust. There is case law from the development of the pour-over trust where the objection is that it can't possibly be valid because there's nothing in it.

Thanks!

[daphne]

Struggling with free speech.......
Let me type more about Q12. The city ordinance provided that any advertiser could rent the space, provided that the activity or product advertised was legal and had "nothing to do with religion or politics" because the city sought to "avoid controversy."
It seems the content/place distinction cannot explain the answer because this is wholly about the content of the advertisement.. Actually that's why I choose intermediate scrutiny but got it wrong.

The bottom line on this one is that there is a SCOTUS case on point. I don't have it in front of me, and the Barbri questions are bad about mentioning that (as opposed to the Multistate Edge questions, which usually do; weird, since Barbri owns MSE). The basic idea is that if the government is renting out space for commercial advertising, that's most definitely not a public forum, and the government has quite a bit of freedom on what categories of advertising it will accept/reject. This isn't much different in principle from other content-based time/place/manner regulations.

This helps, Thanks.

[daphne]

P.S. I just got half NY questions right and I felt strong time pressure...

[daphne]

Does NY require physical manifestation for negligent infliction of emotional distress?
It is said that "in the danger zone" is also OK, so I'm confused after doing the NYMC Torts

[BaiAilian2013]

Does NY require physical manifestation for negligent infliction of emotional distress?
It is said that "in the danger zone" is also OK, so I'm confused after doing the NYMC Torts

I think it depends on the type of situation. For the "near miss" you do, and you also have to be in the zone of danger (obvi). For the "bystander" case, I don't think the lecture said you needed subsequent physical manifestations, but later I read in an answer explanation that you do. Then, just for NY, you also need to be in the zone of danger for the bystander case, even though that doesn't really make sense given what the tort is about.

[rnf1292]

If we are trying to prioritize between finishing up all MPQ1 questions or moving on to MPQ2, any ideas what we should focus on more??

i.e. will I be doomed if I don't do set 6's?? They take forever and seem absurdly hard. Not sure how much of a benefit they are especially after having already seen difficult questions in Set 5.

[daphne]

Does NY require physical manifestation for negligent infliction of emotional distress?
It is said that "in the danger zone" is also OK, so I'm confused after doing the NYMC Torts

I think it depends on the type of situation. For the "near miss" you do, and you also have to be in the zone of danger (obvi). For the "bystander" case, I don't think the lecture said you needed subsequent physical manifestations, but later I read in an answer explanation that you do. Then, just for NY, you also need to be in the zone of danger for the bystander case, even though that doesn't really make sense given what the tort is about.

I got three NYMC questions regarding negligent infliction of emotional distress wrong so I want to make sure that I understand it correctly now.
I think the lecture said the requirement for bystanders is "in the danger zone" but the answer suggested physical manifestation is a must. So anyway physical manifestation is a must in all negligent infliction of emotional distress in NY? (except for miscarriage by malpractice)

[daphne]

If we are trying to prioritize between finishing up all MPQ1 questions or moving on to MPQ2, any ideas what we should focus on more??

i.e. will I be doomed if I don't do set 6's?? They take forever and seem absurdly hard. Not sure how much of a benefit they are especially after having already seen difficult questions in Set 5.

I think they said MPQ2 is not a must.

[BaiAilian2013]

Does NY require physical manifestation for negligent infliction of emotional distress?
It is said that "in the danger zone" is also OK, so I'm confused after doing the NYMC Torts

I think it depends on the type of situation. For the "near miss" you do, and you also have to be in the zone of danger (obvi). For the "bystander" case, I don't think the lecture said you needed subsequent physical manifestations, but later I read in an answer explanation that you do. Then, just for NY, you also need to be in the zone of danger for the bystander case, even though that doesn't really make sense given what the tort is about.

I got three NYMC questions regarding negligent infliction of emotional distress wrong so I want to make sure that I understand it correctly now.
I think the lecture said the requirement for bystanders is "in the danger zone" but the answer suggested physical manifestation is a must. So anyway physical manifestation is a must in all negligent infliction of emotional distress in NY? (except for miscarriage by malpractice)

Sounds like it to me (except the funeral parlor / lab mixup cases also, aka business relationship). And then danger zone is required a) always for the near miss cases, and b) only in NY for the bystander cases.

[englawyer]

P.S. I just got half NY questions right and I felt strong time pressure...

me too. although 50% is just fine for NYMC if you do well on MBE (140+) and average on NY essays so not too concerned.

[kaiser]

Can't believe how poorly I did on the NYMC torts. K's I did really well, and figured torts would be good also, but I bombed it. Def need to brush up on those NY distinctions.

[ace_of_spades]

Is anyone else looking to buy additional practice MBE questions? If so, which product have you purchased or are considering purchasing?

[daphne]

Any one did the MBE Drills for criminal law?
Q7
The defendant took the jewelery, which he believed to be stolen but actually already lost its "stolen" status (police got the owner's permission). The answer said it is an attempted receipt of stolen property.
But is this a legal impossibility as a defense? (Like the lecture example, you cannot steal your own property even you think it is others. no attempt crime)

[nevdash]

Any one did the MBE Drills for criminal law?
Q7
The defendant took the jewelery, which he believed to be stolen but actually already lost its "stolen" status (police got the owner's permission). The answer said it is an attempted receipt of stolen property.
But is this a legal impossibility as a defense? (Like the lecture example, you cannot steal your own property even you think it is others. no attempt crime)

That's strange, I always thought that you could theoretically commit attempted larceny even if the property turns out to be your own. Are you sure you're not thinking of honest (but not necessarily reasonable) mistake about ownership serving as a complete defense to larceny?

[MBZags]

Is anyone else looking to buy additional practice MBE questions? If so, which product have you purchased or are considering purchasing?

Same thing happened to me. Torts killed me, but Ks was fine.

[Joe Quincy]

Any one did the MBE Drills for criminal law?
Q7
The defendant took the jewelery, which he believed to be stolen but actually already lost its "stolen" status (police got the owner's permission). The answer said it is an attempted receipt of stolen property.
But is this a legal impossibility as a defense? (Like the lecture example, you cannot steal your own property even you think it is others. no attempt crime)

That's strange, I always thought that you could theoretically commit attempted larceny even if the property turns out to be your own. Are you sure you're not thinking of honest (but not necessarily reasonable) mistake about ownership serving as a complete defense to larceny?

I think what they are getting at is, once the police recover stolen property you cannot be guilty of receipt of stolen property as a result of getting it from them (or their agent) in a sting. It has been recovered once its in their control and is no longer "stolen" as required for the offense.

So you can only be guilty of attempted receipt. Legal impossibility only applies when the offense attempted isn't actually a crime because the conduct isn't prohibited. Not that some element of the offense fails. E.g. you erroneously think walking on the sidewalk is illegal, but its not.

[englawyer]

for R-5 (essay), the model answer mentions accomplice liability, but not conspiracy. is the right strategy just to always mention both as alternatives? or is there some reason conspiracy clearly does not apply, but accomplice does?

thx

[1L1284]

Anyone had an idea how many of the 6 California bar essays are on MBE topics versus California specific topics? Thanks!

[Joe Quincy]

for R-5 (essay), the model answer mentions accomplice liability, but not conspiracy. is the right strategy just to always mention both as alternatives? or is there some reason conspiracy clearly does not apply, but accomplice does?

thx

They are very different so not really alternatives. Conspiracy is a separate offense and requires an agreement to commit a crime. Accomplice liability makes the actor liable for the accomplished or attempted crime itself. Often someone who is an accomplice will also be guilty of conspiracy, but not always.

So if the prompt asked about prosecution for murder, for example, you'd only primarily discuss accomplice liability. Conspiracy should be discussed if they ask about Conspiracy to commit murder (or more broadly, what crimes can they be charged with, etc).

You can always throw it in though if in doubt. But be clear you understand the difference.

[nevdash]

for R-5 (essay), the model answer mentions accomplice liability, but not conspiracy. is the right strategy just to always mention both as alternatives? or is there some reason conspiracy clearly does not apply, but accomplice does?

thx

I don't know which question that is, but as a general rule, you should always discuss accomplice liability when there's a conspiracy, but being an accomplice will not always lead to conspiracy. They're entirely separate concepts; complicity involves facilitating, aiding, or encouraging the commission of the crime while conspiracy involves an agreement to commit a crime. Practically, though, agreeing to commit a crime will always involve one co-conspirator facilitating, aiding, or encouraging the commission of the crime. But facilitating, aiding, or encouraging a crime will less often involve an express agreement to commit the crime together.

[nevdash]

for R-5 (essay), the model answer mentions accomplice liability, but not conspiracy. is the right strategy just to always mention both as alternatives? or is there some reason conspiracy clearly does not apply, but accomplice does?

thx

They are very different so not really alternatives. Conspiracy is a separate offense and requires an agreement to commit a crime. Accomplice liability makes the actor liable for the accomplished or attempted crime itself. Often someone who is an accomplice will also be guilty of conspiracy, but not always.

So if the prompt asked about prosecution for murder, for example, you'd only primarily discuss accomplice liability. Conspiracy should be discussed if they ask about Conspiracy to commit murder (or more broadly, what crimes can they be charged with, etc).

You can always throw it in though if in doubt. But be clear you understand the difference.

Both attach vicarious liability for a principal actor's crimes, though. So if you're discussing vicarious liability, they are alternatives.

E.g. A and B agree to murder X, A drives them both to X's house where A smashes open the front door and B kills X. If you're looking for the ways in which A could be guilty of murder, co-conspirator liability and accomplice liability are both alternative ways of reaching the same result: liability for murder.

[goodolgil]

NY people, is there any real point to doing BarBri's made up essays? They've given us like 100 actual essays (the ones that like Essay R--xx), which seems like enough to practice from.

[daphne]

for R-5 (essay), the model answer mentions accomplice liability, but not conspiracy. is the right strategy just to always mention both as alternatives? or is there some reason conspiracy clearly does not apply, but accomplice does?

thx

They are very different so not really alternatives. Conspiracy is a separate offense and requires an agreement to commit a crime. Accomplice liability makes the actor liable for the accomplished or attempted crime itself. Often someone who is an accomplice will also be guilty of conspiracy, but not always.

So if the prompt asked about prosecution for murder, for example, you'd only primarily discuss accomplice liability. Conspiracy should be discussed if they ask about Conspiracy to commit murder (or more broadly, what crimes can they be charged with, etc).

You can always throw it in though if in doubt. But be clear you understand the difference.

Both attach vicarious liability for a principal actor's crimes, though. So if you're discussing vicarious liability, they are alternatives.

E.g. A and B agree to murder X, A drives them both to X's house where A smashes open the front door and B kills X. If you're looking for the ways in which A could be guilty of murder, co-conspirator liability and accomplice liability are both alternative ways of reaching the same result: liability for murder.

I think for NY essay you are more likely need to talk about accomplice liability because NY does not have vicarious liability for co-conspirator