Top Law Schools

Do you present issues that you know have no chance of surviving on an exam? For example, in crim, for mistake of law/fact to be an available defense it must negate the mens rea. If somebody's mistake *doesnt* negate the mens rea, wouldn't any competent attorney know that? In legal writing we were told to only say things that a competent attorney would--so if, for example, something is not an available defense, we shouldn't mention it.

However with exams, I feel like it may be different. Because you are showing the professor you see all possible issues, but that you also understand why some of these things won't work in the long run.

Thoughts?

If it doesn't negate mens rea, say that it doesn't and why.

"A would be charged with xxx. He will not be able to claim a defense of mistake of law or fact because xxxx does not negate the mens rea."

You can't really go wrong by pretending that your professor doesn't understand anything about the law. Of course, I could be wrong.

...

ask your profs.

my profs have different standards and they were all glad to tell me what they wanted. one prof just wants us to state briefly why they're not material, another prof said she won't count points off but that it's a waste of our time on exams, and my last prof wants us touch on as many issues as possible.

my prof gave points on the midterm for saying things werent torts.

"cops running the thief off of the road was not assault or false imprisonment." PLUS 4!

Write about anything that's colorable.

ToTransferOrNot wrote:Write about anything that's colorable.

That's the approach I'm taking. Any issues that are reasonably raised are getting attention from me.