Top Law Schools

Aberzombie1892 wrote:Unless your professor uses page/word limits, write a lot.

DaydreamBeliever wrote:^ LOL

Aberzombie1892 wrote:Unless your professor uses page/word limits, write a lot.

I was weary about writing too much. Under the impression that sometimes writing too much means you aren't being clear and concise with your answer, but can you be more specific as to what parts I should write a lot in, etc?

Ty Webb wrote:If you're smart enough and write well enough, you can differentiate yourself by being "concise."

Chances are that you're not. Providing more analysis is a pretty consistent way to help out lazy law professors who are looking for simple ways to differentiate among 65 similarly written tests.

Aberzombie1892 wrote:Unless your professor uses page/word limits, write a lot.

BruceWayne wrote:And after having seen the exams that got the highest grades in various classes I took last semester it seems that professors really like to see their own viewpoints coming back at them in your exam.

Cupidity wrote:Raise and dismiss losing arguments, the right answer is only worth one point. For example, in a contracts issue spotter:

B answer
"A will recover in restitution on the basis of promisory estoppel."

A answer
"A will argue that the contract is binding, B will sucessfully counter that it is void under the statute against frauds. A will respond by saying that he has a claim under promissory estoppel Rest.S.90 and will sue for expectation damages. B will claim that it was unreasonable for A to detrimentally rely on his promise, but given the facts, it is likely a court will find A's reliance reasonable. (Cite to similar case) B will likely defeat A's claim for expectation damages because they are too difficult to ascertain. (Cite to Kearsarge or something) A cannot claim reliance damages because on the facts there are none. Therefore, A will seek restitution of the amount paid and will likely recover.

DaydreamBeliever wrote:

Cupidity wrote:Raise and dismiss losing arguments, the right answer is only worth one point. For example, in a contracts issue spotter:

B answer
"A will recover in restitution on the basis of promisory estoppel."

A answer
"A will argue that the contract is binding, B will sucessfully counter that it is void under the statute against frauds. A will respond by saying that he has a claim under promissory estoppel Rest.S.90 and will sue for expectation damages. B will claim that it was unreasonable for A to detrimentally rely on his promise, but given the facts, it is likely a court will find A's reliance reasonable. (Cite to similar case) B will likely defeat A's claim for expectation damages because they are too difficult to ascertain. (Cite to Kearsarge or something) A cannot claim reliance damages because on the facts there are none. Therefore, A will seek restitution of the amount paid and will likely recover.

Very thorough. Thank you for taking the time to do this.


Basically, instead of deciding in my head what will and won't work. Jot everything down. Raise a reasonable argument then dismiss it and explain why. Thank you for that.

Any advice as to how I would effectively argue this in criminal law?

MrPapagiorgio wrote:

BruceWayne wrote:And after having seen the exams that got the highest grades in various classes I took last semester it seems that professors really like to see their own viewpoints coming back at them in your exam.

Isn't this TCR for nearly every instructor at every level of education? I mean, common sense would explain that a professor is less likely to tear apart an argument he agrees with than one he disagrees with based on the simple fact that he will be looking to spot weak points in that argument he disagrees with and will counter those with his vast command of his favored viewpoint.

DaydreamBeliever wrote:Very thorough. Thank you for taking the time to do this.


Basically, instead of deciding in my head what will and won't work. Jot everything down. Raise a reasonable argument then dismiss it and explain why. Thank you for that.

Any advice as to how I would effectively argue this in criminal law?

DaydreamBeliever wrote:Basically, instead of deciding in my head what will and won't work. Jot everything down. Raise a reasonable argument then dismiss it and explain why. Thank you for that.

DaydreamBeliever wrote:Any advice as to how I would effectively argue this in criminal law?

Sample Criminal Law Answer wrote:In order to convict Gaeta of aggravated tomfoolery, the Capricorn City prosecutor must show that Gaeta commit all the mens rea and actus reus elements of the crime. There is no need to analyze the mens rea if they cannot show he commit the physical act, so that will be analyzed first.

Aggravated tomfoolery, under the Capricorn City Penal Code, is defined as "a person who willfully engages in embarrassing, humiliating, or otherwise self-mocking conduct in a public place". The court in People v. Adama established that the statute is intended to cover "conduct which might be deemed acceptable while inebriated but considered unacceptable or humiliating when sober".

The prosecutor will likely argue that Gaeta's loud off-key singing of "Livin' La Vida Loca" to his unrequited love interest was the type of conduct that a reasonable person would have been embarrassed to commit while sober, although Gaeta will respond by arguing that he subjectively is not embarrassed by his off-key singing. However, the court in Adama applied an objective standard and said that the totality of the circumstances were to be considered. The prosecutor will likely argue that any reasonable person would be embarrassed by not only such off-key singing but performing it in a crowded venue full of his coworkers and supervisors, and the court here is likely to accept the prosecutor's argument instead of Gaeta's. Regarding the conduct occurring in a public place, Gaeta will likely concede that the city hall cafeteria during a crowded lunch is sufficiently "public". Therefore, the prosecutor will likely be able to show all the actus reus elements of the crime occurred.

The prosecutor's ability to satisfy the mens rea requirement will depend on how the court defines "willfully". If Capricorn is a state that has adopted the Model Penal Code, then "willfully" is defined as "knowledge", meaning that the defendant possesses an awareness of the nature of the conduct. Gaeta's comments to diners at the city hall cafeteria to join in, and the witnesses who saw him tell police he was "just getting started" as he was dragged off, support the prosecutor's argument that Gaeta was aware of the conduct he was engaged in at the time he was committing it. Gaeta may argue that he was not aware that his off-key singing was so bad as to be criminal, but the MPC definition of knowledge or wilfullnes does not require that the defendant knows that his conduct violates the criminal law, only that he knows that he is committing the conduct in question. Thus, in an MPC state the prosecutor would be able to show Gaeta possessed the requisite wilfullness to find him guilty of aggravated tomfoolery.

If Capricorn is a common-law jurisdiction, then the meaning of "willful" depends on case law in the state. Since there are no Capricorn cases explicitly defining the scope of "willful", the parties will likely cite the following cases in other states that have defined "wilfull" in those states' similar aggravated tomfoolery statutes...

random5483 wrote:I am only a 1L, but after taking Fall exams, I feel qualified to comment.


1. Organize your paper. Use solid headings and make it easy to read. Professor's grade many paper's and the easier time they have understanding what you say, the better.
2. Remember to analyze. Try to argue both sides of a position. In crim, make sure you state alternate rules (majority, minority, MPC, state, anything else your professor gave you. Don't forget to discuss defenses. Also, in Crim don't forget to look for conspiracy/attempt/solicitation/accomplice liability.
3. The more you write the better (usually).
4. Look at prior model exams. What is your professor looking for? Use the model answers to structure your possible answers, but most model answers have flaws, so try to write even better answers.




Crim Specific Advice: I took crim last semester and I was 1 point shy of booking the class. My crim professor focused a lot on rules, so my analysis for crim was a lot shorter than for some of my other classes. However, I brought up every variant/rule that applied and analyzed for it. Raise as many issues as you can, apply the majority rule to come up with your conclusion, but discuss what would happen under the other rules.

DaydreamBeliever wrote:Thank you everyone. I sincerely appreciate it.

My professor is using the Moskovitz book and so has an imaginary jurisdiction known as the Moskovitz jurisdiction where we make our arguments based on what was argued in the book.

She only expects us to look to MPC to establish mens rea for specific/general intent crimes. She is a bit aloof but I'm sure a lot of professors are.

Thank you.

random5483 wrote:

DaydreamBeliever wrote:Thank you everyone. I sincerely appreciate it.

My professor is using the Moskovitz book and so has an imaginary jurisdiction known as the Moskovitz jurisdiction where we make our arguments based on what was argued in the book.

She only expects us to look to MPC to establish mens rea for specific/general intent crimes. She is a bit aloof but I'm sure a lot of professors are.

Thank you.

Not sure what you mean by just MPC to establish mens rea. Mens rea is just the state of mind, and the MPC has its own definitions for intent (ex. purposely or knowingly), recklessness, etc. However, the elements of a crime are not all tied to the mens rea. Are you certain your professor only wants you to know the MPC elements for each crime? Most crim law professors I know/have heard of require you to remember multiple versions of the rules.


Basically, be sure that your professor truly only wants you to analyze the MPC rules. Because, when she said mens rea from the MPC, she very likely meant the purposely/knowingly/recklessly/negligently standard used by the MPC.

DaydreamBeliever wrote:

random5483 wrote:

DaydreamBeliever wrote:Thank you everyone. I sincerely appreciate it.

My professor is using the Moskovitz book and so has an imaginary jurisdiction known as the Moskovitz jurisdiction where we make our arguments based on what was argued in the book.

She only expects us to look to MPC to establish mens rea for specific/general intent crimes. She is a bit aloof but I'm sure a lot of professors are.

Thank you.

Not sure what you mean by just MPC to establish mens rea. Mens rea is just the state of mind, and the MPC has its own definitions for intent (ex. purposely or knowingly), recklessness, etc. However, the elements of a crime are not all tied to the mens rea. Are you certain your professor only wants you to know the MPC elements for each crime? Most crim law professors I know/have heard of require you to remember multiple versions of the rules.


Basically, be sure that your professor truly only wants you to analyze the MPC rules. Because, when she said mens rea from the MPC, she very likely meant the purposely/knowingly/recklessly/negligently standard used by the MPC.

Strange woman.

Basically said use MPC to prove mens rea IE
prove specific intent crimes by showing that df purposely or knowingly committed the offense and prove general intent crimes by showing defendant recklessly or negligently committed the offense. She said, the ability to prove a higher MPC mens rea automatically proves a lower mens reas.

Example

Trespassory
Taking
Carrying Away
Personal Property
Of Another
W/ Intent to Permanently Deprive

This is the common law definition of larceny and the only thing we are required to know for her exam. However, she expects us to show the mens rea (intent to permanently deprive) by using the facts to show Df acted purposely or knowingly in regards to the outcome.

random5483 wrote:

DaydreamBeliever wrote:

random5483 wrote:

DaydreamBeliever wrote:Thank you everyone. I sincerely appreciate it.

My professor is using the Moskovitz book and so has an imaginary jurisdiction known as the Moskovitz jurisdiction where we make our arguments based on what was argued in the book.

She only expects us to look to MPC to establish mens rea for specific/general intent crimes. She is a bit aloof but I'm sure a lot of professors are.

Thank you.

Not sure what you mean by just MPC to establish mens rea. Mens rea is just the state of mind, and the MPC has its own definitions for intent (ex. purposely or knowingly), recklessness, etc. However, the elements of a crime are not all tied to the mens rea. Are you certain your professor only wants you to know the MPC elements for each crime? Most crim law professors I know/have heard of require you to remember multiple versions of the rules.


Basically, be sure that your professor truly only wants you to analyze the MPC rules. Because, when she said mens rea from the MPC, she very likely meant the purposely/knowingly/recklessly/negligently standard used by the MPC.

Strange woman.

Basically said use MPC to prove mens rea IE
prove specific intent crimes by showing that df purposely or knowingly committed the offense and prove general intent crimes by showing defendant recklessly or negligently committed the offense. She said, the ability to prove a higher MPC mens rea automatically proves a lower mens reas.

Example

Trespassory
Taking
Carrying Away
Personal Property
Of Another
W/ Intent to Permanently Deprive

This is the common law definition of larceny and the only thing we are required to know for her exam. However, she expects us to show the mens rea (intent to permanently deprive) by using the facts to show Df acted purposely or knowingly in regards to the outcome.

First off, establishing purposely is sufficient to show any mental state below it. No one contests that. However.....

By rule variants I am taking about how each element is interpreted.
Ex.
1. What is a carrying away element? At common law slight movement was enough, but the item had to be moved. However, the majority and MPC rules do not require the object to be moved.
2. Personal Property? Common law did not allow for larceny of real property. Modern Majority/MPC allow for non-movables such as realty to fall under larceny.
3. Intent to Permanently Deprive? Continuing trespass doctrine? Claim of right? Common law allowed claim of right as a defense to this element. Modern majority rejects claim of right defense when force, violence or weapons used. Modern minority allows defense if no force used. How about sale back to owner, reward for personal property, or return for refund situations?
4. How about larceny variations? Embezzlement, larceny by trick, and false pretenses?


The above is just a rough list of things to consider. Crim law was from last semester. But my point is usually crim profs want you to analyze various rules (majority, minority, and MPC at a minimum). Maybe your prof is different. But just don't confuse MPC mens rea requirements to mean that you only need to analyze one set of rules for a given crime.