Pass/Fail: Evidence or Crim Pro? Forum

[colerain]

I will take one of these two classes pass/fail.

Looking for opinions on whichever is less complicated doctrinally.

Evidence is a multiple choice exam. Crim pro is a typical issue spotter with several hypohteticals.

Thanks.

[BVest]

I haven't taken evidence, but Crim Pro (which I wanted to P/F, but our profs can opt out of P/F and mine did) was my lowest grade so far (at least since transferring to a higher curve).

[jarofsoup]

Some people have issues with Evidence. Probably P/F evidence. These are not the hardest courses in law school btw.

[bjsesq]

Ime, evidence was not as heavily case law based as crim pro. Basically, if you could get the gist or relevance, character evidence, hearsay, and best evidence, you could bs your way through it ok. YMMV, but there it is.

[Avian]

Are you better at issue spotting and regurgitating rules or logical reasoning type questions? There's nothing especially tricky in Crim Pro, just more of the same case law and issue spotting you've done in other classes. Evidence is somewhat like CivPro except it's really all about the rules, there are only a couple areas where case law comes in at all (e.g., expert witnesses). The material in evidence is pretty easy conceptually (even hearsay), the tough part is keeping all the rules in mind when looking at fact patterns.

[hiima3L]

Evidence was significantly harder IMO.

[ash0117]

Evidence was significantly more difficult for me, but I really think it depends on your personal strengths.

[Stevoman]

I found Evidence to be easy, but so many people unnecessarily struggle with it, so the curve is easier to beat.

Crim pro has a beastly curve because its an easy topic and most people enjoy it. I would P/F crim pro.

[XxSpyKEx]

I wouldn't pass/fail evidence. Evidence is one of those things you really need to learn. It's one of the few topics that are much more difficult to learn for the bar across just a couple days of studying (which is about how much time you get per topic). But even more importantly, if you wind up doing something in litigation, you really need to know the rules of evidence. Even at the local levels, the rules are typically pretty consistent with the FRE, so it's really helpful to know the rules of evidence inside and out. I honestly don't think you can be a competent attorney practicing in litigation without knowing the rules of evidence (and I say this as an attorney who's been practicing for 3.5 years). Taking the class pass/fail will probably mean that you're going to show up to class like 5 times, write some bullshit on your exam about how you captured a unicorn, and pass. Crim pro doesn't really matter as much, unless you're planning on doing criminal (but even then, crim pro stuff is stuff you can research, and is not stuff you just need to know off the top of your head). I dunno, my evidence prof was crazy and did a closed book evidence exam, where we were pretty much forced to memorize all the rules of evidence, and, as much as I hated it then, I still remember most of this stuff and find it pretty helpful in practicing. Just my 2 cents.