Top Law Schools

Need advice...

Prof. is former defense attorney. He LOVES to pick apart the statute and attack the elements. It seems no memorization, or at least very little, is required of the elements... not even MPC.

Hopefully this question doesn't seem too elementary, as I am well aware law school is full of ambiguity; however, I am looking for experiences or approaches that others have had with a class like this.

Is crim law generally much more analytical by nature than other 1L courses?

Thanks in advance

Sounds like the way crim usually is. There's always a statute - hypothetical or actual - involved in any fact pattern / essay.

I wouldn't call it more analytical per se...

Maybe it's just the way the class it conducted. It's more of cross-examination than socratic method. Students feel more like a witness on the stand, IMO. Anyways, class just feels like an outlier... different from the others.

For me the class for Crim Law felt very different than my other classes but the exam felt very similar. You're still going to have some strange series of events thrown at you and asked to apply the laws you've studied over the semester to them. Crim Law has more statutes, and Torts/Contracts are almost entirely common law, so they're a bit different in what kind of law you're relying on for the most part, but you're ultimately facing the same challenges on the final that you are in any of your other classes.

Crim Law [strike]class w/ emphasis on statute interpretation[/strike]