Pre-Write Answers for Evidence? Forum

[sun1925]

Has anyone ever pre-written answers for evidence? If so, do you recommend it? I did this for CivPro and found it helpful but since Evidence is so fact-intensive, I don't know if it would be worth it. Thanks in advance!

[whatsyourdeal]

I did this for my contracts class, where it was open note and open book. That was my best grade in 1L. I think it could work for evidence.

For contracts, I typed up in my notes pre-written answers for every possible issue so that I could just plug in to my examsoft after issue spotting. The format was something like: X fact raises Y issue. Rule for Y issue. Analysis for Y issue. Conclusion.

For instance, consideration:

"______ raises the issue of whether there is an agreement with consideration. Consideration is a bargained for exchange of values and/or detriments manifested by a promise, an act, forbearance or the creation/destruction/modification of a legal relation. ______(Fact). [Fact] is a bargained for exchange of a promise/act/forbearance/(creation/destruction/modification of a legal relation) for a promise/act/forbearance/(creation/destruction/modification of a legal relation). Therefore, this is an agreement with consideration because _______ is a bargained for exchange of a promise/act/forbearance/(creation/destruction/modification of a legal relation) for a promise/act/forbearance/(creation/destruction/modification of a legal relation).

This cut down my test time immensely.

I personally could not have done it with evidence because I don't think I was comfortable enough with the material to do it - you're right in that it is more nuanced - but I think it's possible.

[psu2016]

This is exactly what I did, and I got the Cali being done an hour early. It's the same argument you're going to make every single time: Does it meet the definition of relevant?? P1 will say yes, P2 will say no. If it meets the definition of relevancy, does its prejudice outweigh its probative? P1 will say yes, P2 will say no. If the prejudice doesn't outweigh the probative value, is it hearsay? etc, etc.

I would highly recommend this. I re-wrote my answer will all the available materials (esp. FRE comments) and I knew (85% of the time) the arguments that both sides were going to make at each stage of the ping pong match and all I had to do was throw in the facts where I left little <> in my answer for them. It was the easiest exam ever because you know one side is ALWAYS going to want to keep it out, and the other side is ALWAYS going to want to keep it in. You just need to spend the time thinking about how the back and forth is going to go to make sure you maximize your points at each stage.

[sun1925]

This is exactly what I did, and I got the Cali being done an hour early. It's the same argument you're going to make every single time: Does it meet the definition of relevant?? P1 will say yes, P2 will say no. If it meets the definition of relevancy, does its prejudice outweigh its probative? P1 will say yes, P2 will say no. If the prejudice doesn't outweigh the probative value, is it hearsay? etc, etc.

I would highly recommend this. I re-wrote my answer will all the available materials (esp. FRE comments) and I knew (85% of the time) the arguments that both sides were going to make at each stage of the ping pong match and all I had to do was throw in the facts where I left little <> in my answer for them. It was the easiest exam ever because you know one side is ALWAYS going to want to keep it out, and the other side is ALWAYS going to want to keep it in. You just need to spend the time thinking about how the back and forth is going to go to make sure you maximize your points at each stage.

This is super helpful, thanks! Can I ask; did you pre-write for all topics? i.e. hearsay, character, impeachment, expert witnesses, etc.? I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around where and how to start this.

[psu2016]

This is exactly what I did, and I got the Cali being done an hour early. It's the same argument you're going to make every single time: Does it meet the definition of relevant?? P1 will say yes, P2 will say no. If it meets the definition of relevancy, does its prejudice outweigh its probative? P1 will say yes, P2 will say no. If the prejudice doesn't outweigh the probative value, is it hearsay? etc, etc.

I would highly recommend this. I re-wrote my answer will all the available materials (esp. FRE comments) and I knew (85% of the time) the arguments that both sides were going to make at each stage of the ping pong match and all I had to do was throw in the facts where I left little <> in my answer for them. It was the easiest exam ever because you know one side is ALWAYS going to want to keep it out, and the other side is ALWAYS going to want to keep it in. You just need to spend the time thinking about how the back and forth is going to go to make sure you maximize your points at each stage.

This is super helpful, thanks! Can I ask; did you pre-write for all topics? i.e. hearsay, character, impeachment, expert witnesses, etc.? I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around where and how to start this.

Yes, I did. I just sat down and said, okay, where do you start? It ended up going something like this (except with the arguments filled in for both sides).

Is the witness competent/authentic/best evidence/other preliminary evidence issue I am currently forgetting?

(Actually, I just wrote at the top of my exam, "All witnesses are presumed competent pursuant to FRE 601 unless otherwise discussed) as a CYA, and a reminder to myself to address the problem when I saw a child witness/etc.

Assuming yes, does the evidence meet the definition of relevant?

Assuming yes, does the prejudice outweigh the probative?

Assuming no, does it meet the definition of hearsay (i.e. offered for truth)

Assuming yes, do one of the exceptions apply?

Assuming yes, is there a confrontation clause issue?

That's the general framework through hearsay - The point is to know exactly where you're going with your answer at every step so you don't forget things. It's really not a difficult exam when you sit there (I would work through Siegel's essays) and just *think* about how the issues actually play out and what each side is going to argue. You need to impose structure on this or you're going to get lost and forget things.

It ends up looking like this:

P1 does not want <evidence> to come in. P2 does want the evidence to come in. [I write this to myself as an obvious reference point because I have ridiculous ADHD and it's basically my 'thesis statement']

FRE 601 defines competence. P1 will say the witness is not competent because <facts using definition of competence to support an argument>. P2 will say <>.

Assuming witness is competent, P1 will argue that the evidence does not meet the definition of relevancy under because the evidence does not go to a fact at issue. P2 will argue it does meet the definition because <fact from hypo> is at issue.

Etc., etc. I need to get back to studying, but this is the back and forth/skeleton answer you want to you use your resources you can have now to create. I think of it like a ping pong match where you just need to know how the arguments each side makes work together.

[muskies970]

Not trying to be a stick in the mud, but genuinely curious, is it unethical/against school rules to pre-write exam answers like this?

[EzraFitz]

It's essentially universal that you can't copy and paste, but I've never had any teacher/administrator/rule say you can't copy something word for word.

[BVest]

That depends on your school and prof. Largely, however, it's not significantly different from an attack page along the lines of "How to analyze Personal Jurisdiction" that includes a list of rules at the top and then has a flow chart for you to follow.

I pre-wrote rule statements for a few classes, but I didn't end up using them. Preparing them helped -- along with doing PTs -- in that it had me thinking through a generic rule statement. Having done them, I found it easier in the exam to just type the rule statement up without having to refer to my written version of it.

I didn't bother with a fill-in-the-blank analysis section (my canned answers tended to end with "In the present case . . . "). They did include a list of potentially relevant cases with quick note as to what might be relevant, so that I could quickly pick which cases I wanted to use or distinguish.

e.g. here is what I had for Specific PJ. Note for any 1Ls working studying Civ Pro currently: I cannot vouch for it all being good law now... that was 2012 and was at least pre-Walden (and pre-Daimler for that matter, but Daimler was General PJ).

Specific Jurisdiction:

For courts to apply specific jurisdiction to a case, the defendant must purposely avail themselves of the forum state to the extent that the cause of action arises out of or relates to the defendant’s contacts with the state. Different jurisdictions apply different tests for personal jurisdiction, some using the but-for test (but for the D’s contacts with the forum state, the cause of action would not have arisen) and some using the stricter evidence test (that the D’s contacts with the forum state represent substantial evidence to be used in the cause of action).

In this case, like in . . .

[For Contracts / Purposeful Contacts]
McGee (Contract): Life insurance -- TX Insurer -- Court in CA had PJ
BK (Contract): MI Franchisee -- Court in FL had PJ

[For Aiming Intentional Tort]
Calder Enquirer (Libel): FL Writer & Editor -- Court in CA had PJ
Bo Jackson (Libel): Online newspaper in CA -- Court in IL did NOT have PJ
Keeton (Hustler) – Ct in NH had PJ

[Internet]
ZIPPO scale:
Pure commerce/interactive
Middle ground
Pure passive

[For Stream of Commerce / Product Cases]
WW Volkswagen (Product): Tri-state (NY area) car distributor -- Court in OK did NOT have PJ
Asahi (Product): Asian tire valve mfr -- Court in CA did NOT have PJ
Nicastro (Product): British Metal Shredder – Court in NJ did not have PJ

STEP 2 Fairness Factors
* P’s interest in forum
* Burden on D
* Forum state’s interest in protecting its people

Factors were used to find no PJ in Asahi – special weight to burden on international defendant
---Asahi did not seek to serve the market (O’connor)
---Fairness factors -- foreign jurisdiction (Brennan)

BK says strong showing of fairness could bolster weaker contacts, and that D with sufficient contacts would need to make “compelling case” that factors make jurisdiction unreasonable

There is a larger debate about whether two steps are separate (WWVW) or whether overall test is fairness (McGee). In this case . . .

[psu2016]

Not trying to be a stick in the mud, but genuinely curious, is it unethical/against school rules to pre-write exam answers like this?

That never even crossed my mind as something would be unethical to do. If it's closed book, you obviously cannot bring them with you, but if it's an open book/note, I cannot fathom how this would be unethical. Where do you draw the line between "note" and "pre-written answer". I have used this method in all my open-notes classes, and in my closed ones, like evidence, I have drilled until I know my "answer" rote and just walk in there and do it. That, to me, is efficient use of one's studying time and not even remotely unethical.

[ballouttacontrol]

jfc how long do you guys take to prepare for a 2l/3l class this is why I never got good grades in law school fuck that