How confident do you feel? Forum

[yankeeman86]

17yr comits murder sentenced at 18?!? Cruel and unusual?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons

[yankeeman86]

17yr comits murder sentenced at 18?!? Cruel and unusual?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons

illegal pretextual stop or probable cause?

[mikefichera]

17yr comits murder sentenced at 18?!? Cruel and unusual?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons

illegal pretextual stop or probable cause?

pretextual stops are fine, i said probable cuase to search. figuring if they had PC they wouldn't need a warrant.

[Rap Genius]

No, because (wrong answer)
No, because (wrong answer)
No, because (wrong answer)
Yes, because (but not the answer I was looking for)

[Rap Genius]

17yr comits murder sentenced at 18?!? Cruel and unusual?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons

illegal pretextual stop or probable cause?

pretextual stops are fine, i said probable cuase to search. figuring if they had PC they wouldn't need a warrant.

no arrest warrant, with detention for a day, does either violate the constitution?

[ArtistOfManliness]

No, because (wrong answer)
No, because (wrong answer)
No, because (wrong answer)
Yes, because (but not the answer I was looking for)

+24 (or so?)

[CalBar3Day]

Hearing for injunction and merits at same time? What? WHATTTT?!

[reasonableperson]

MEE UBE Corporations Question - Were we suppose to argue for the SH or against them. I initially started pro SH, but then saw that we were supposed to be writing from the corporation counsel's prospective, which made me figure we were to defend the corporation's actions. I quickly reversed my opinion on all counts.

Wasn't till after the exam that I realized that corporation counsel could have been pro-SH, especially in light of the serious charges. Did some reading and it seems to be the justified. Don't know, seems like going pro SH was much easier to write about, especially with the "highly reputable newspaper article, etc."

[ArtistOfManliness]

Does Article II not matter anymore? Is this what Trump's America looks like?

[yankeeman86]

MEE UBE Corporations Question - Were we suppose to argue for the SH or against them. I initially started pro SH, but then saw that we were supposed to be writing from the corporation counsel's prospective, which made me figure we were to defend the corporation's actions. I quickly reversed my opinion on all counts.

Wasn't till after the exam that I realized that corporation counsel could have been pro-SH, especially in light of the serious charges. Did some reading and it seems to be the justified. Don't know, seems like going pro SH was much easier to write about, especially with the "highly reputable newspaper article, etc."

you did better than most

[yankeeman86]

Hearing for injunction and merits at same time? What? WHATTTT?!

can you elaborate?

[yankeeman86]

important issue or complied with statutory appeal requirements?

[yankeeman86]

17yr comits murder sentenced at 18?!? Cruel and unusual?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons

illegal pretextual stop or probable cause?

pretextual stops are fine, i said probable cuase to search. figuring if they had PC they wouldn't need a warrant.

no arrest warrant, with detention for a day, does either violate the constitution?

LOL, no clue.

same as before initial court appearance with judge, undercover did not elicit a statement from them?

[Rap Genius]

17yr comits murder sentenced at 18?!? Cruel and unusual?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons

illegal pretextual stop or probable cause?

pretextual stops are fine, i said probable cuase to search. figuring if they had PC they wouldn't need a warrant.

no arrest warrant, with detention for a day, does either violate the constitution?

LOL, no clue.

same as before initial court appearance with judge, undercover did not elicit a statement from them?

If I follow you correctly, after formal proceeding, 6th amendment attaches... but I don't think that stops the jail house snitch if he's just... there...

[i'm not a lawyer]

[mikefichera]

same as before initial court appearance with judge, undercover did not elicit a statement from them?[/quote]

If I follow you correctly, after formal proceeding, 6th amendment attaches... but I don't think that stops the jail house snitch if he's just... there...

[i'm not a lawyer][/quote]


correct, the police did not do anything to elicit the response.

[happyhour1122]

17yr comits murder sentenced at 18?!? Cruel and unusual?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons

illegal pretextual stop or probable cause?

pretextual stops are fine, i said probable cuase to search. figuring if they had PC they wouldn't need a warrant.

no arrest warrant, with detention for a day, does either violate the constitution?

LOL, no clue.

same as before initial court appearance with judge, undercover did not elicit a statement from them?

Didn't initiate!

[Impishee]

So many questions testing a familiar area of law...

...only to ask you about some bizarre nuance that you've never heard of

This. Jesus.

[NonTradHealthLaw]

Disclaimer, I've been lawyering transactionally for 3 years and my trial experience is limited to 1983 pro bono cases and clerking; however, this was the epitome of a procedural shit show. A trillion subtle exceptions that, in practice, you know only through one unicorn client.

[reasonableperson]

Disclaimer, I've been lawyering transactionally for 3 years and my trial experience is limited to 1983 pro bono cases and clerking; however, this was the epitome of a procedural shit show. A trillion subtle exceptions that, in practice, you know only through one unicorn client.

This. Why can't they test us on the usual law and exceptions and just raise the bar more, rather than making everyone feel like crap.

[mikefichera]

Disclaimer, I've been lawyering transactionally for 3 years and my trial experience is limited to 1983 pro bono cases and clerking; however, this was the epitome of a procedural shit show. A trillion subtle exceptions that, in practice, you know only through one unicorn client.

yeah, i have a theory that they have been trying to artificially limit the flow of new attorneys, i just refuse to believe that after 2009 all the people trying to become lawyers are some how less intelligent than in years past. the passage rates in some of these states are just mind blowing. the ABA says we are just dumb. but i'll tell you what, i review some of those old bar exam essays...and they are a joke. my MEE had 2 out of 6 traditional topics. (contracts and real property) the rest were corporations, family law, wills/trust, and agency. these are not "common law" subjects, how they can even test on these without basing it on a specific jurisdictions law kinda boggles my mind.

also, making 25 questions as no longer counting makes each question that does count much more important...now i don't know about you but it's a struggle for me to complete the 100 questions in the allotted time, and this is just going to make it even more difficult for people to pass this exam.

[yankeeman86]

Disclaimer, I've been lawyering transactionally for 3 years and my trial experience is limited to 1983 pro bono cases and clerking; however, this was the epitome of a procedural shit show. A trillion subtle exceptions that, in practice, you know only through one unicorn client.

yeah, i have a theory that they have been trying to artificially limit the flow of new attorneys, i just refuse to believe that after 2009 all the people trying to become lawyers are some how less intelligent than in years past. the passage rates in some of these states are just mind blowing. the ABA says we are just dumb. but i'll tell you what, i review some of those old bar exam essays...and they are a joke. my MEE had 2 out of 6 traditional topics. (contracts and real property) the rest were corporations, family law, wills/trust, and agency. these are not "common law" subjects, how they can even test on these without basing it on a specific jurisdictions law kinda boggles my mind.

also, making 25 questions as no longer counting makes each question that does count much more important...now i don't know about you but it's a struggle for me to complete the 100 questions in the allotted time, and this is just going to make it even more difficult for people to pass this exam.

The 25 experimental questions are also part of their grand scheme to reduce the passage rate. They are obviously designed to bog you down and disrupt your flow and focus. But having 25, instead of 10 allows them to be master manipulators of the scoring scale. I think the "experimental" questions can be included as a graded question. They are not deemed "experimental" before the admin of the exam. The NCBE describes them as pretest questions....WTF does that mean?

I believe the experimentals naturally come from a group of questions that are new and super difficult. Assuming each experimental has a correct answer (valid/existing rule covered under the 7 MBE subjects), depending on how the guinea pigs react, they will COUNT/GRADE the experimentals that are least correctly answered and then take the most correctly answered non-experimental questions and put them into the bucket of 25 ungraded questions.

I'd like to think that many of the difficult questions that you came across earlier today will count towards your final MBE graded score and that a good number of the easy questions you came across will be disregarded and become "experimental".

[nelue]

same as before initial court appearance with judge, undercover did not elicit a statement from them?

If I follow you correctly, after formal proceeding, 6th amendment attaches... but I don't think that stops the jail house snitch if he's just... there...

[i'm not a lawyer][/quote]


correct, the police did not do anything to elicit the response.[/quote]

If indicted however 6th attaches too ... sooo lawyer must be present right?

[cnk1220]

Disclaimer, I've been lawyering transactionally for 3 years and my trial experience is limited to 1983 pro bono cases and clerking; however, this was the epitome of a procedural shit show. A trillion subtle exceptions that, in practice, you know only through one unicorn client.

yeah, i have a theory that they have been trying to artificially limit the flow of new attorneys, i just refuse to believe that after 2009 all the people trying to become lawyers are some how less intelligent than in years past. the passage rates in some of these states are just mind blowing. the ABA says we are just dumb. but i'll tell you what, i review some of those old bar exam essays...and they are a joke. my MEE had 2 out of 6 traditional topics. (contracts and real property) the rest were corporations, family law, wills/trust, and agency. these are not "common law" subjects, how they can even test on these without basing it on a specific jurisdictions law kinda boggles my mind.

also, making 25 questions as no longer counting makes each question that does count much more important...now i don't know about you but it's a struggle for me to complete the 100 questions in the allotted time, and this is just going to make it even more difficult for people to pass this exam.

The 25 experimental questions are also part of their grand scheme to reduce the passage rate. They are obviously designed to bog you down and disrupt your flow and focus. But having 25, instead of 10 allows them to be master manipulators of the scoring scale. I think the "experimental" questions can be included as a graded question. They are not deemed "experimental" before the admin of the exam. The NCBE describes them as pretest questions....WTF does that mean?

I believe the experimentals naturally come from a group of questions that are new and super difficult. Assuming each experimental has a correct answer (valid/existing rule covered under the 7 MBE subjects), depending on how the guinea pigs react, they will COUNT/GRADE the experimentals that are least correctly answered and then take the most correctly answered non-experimental questions and put them into the bucket of 25 ungraded questions.

I'd like to think that many of the difficult questions that you came across earlier today will count towards your final MBE graded score and that a good number of the easy questions you came across will be disregarded and become "experimental".

I thought the experimental ones were supposed to be the more "difficult/nuanced/obscure" questions, not the easy ones? Also I thought they were already determined prior to the exam-- and I've also heard if a lot of people get a Q wrong they sometimes throw it out...

[happyhour1122]

same as before initial court appearance with judge, undercover did not elicit a statement from them?

If I follow you correctly, after formal proceeding, 6th amendment attaches... but I don't think that stops the jail house snitch if he's just... there...

[i'm not a lawyer]

correct, the police did not do anything to elicit the response.[/quote]

If indicted however 6th attaches too ... sooo lawyer must be present right?[/quote]


whether its 5th or 6th, no initiate!
(i hope...)

[mikefichera]

same as before initial court appearance with judge, undercover did not elicit a statement from them?

If I follow you correctly, after formal proceeding, 6th amendment attaches... but I don't think that stops the jail house snitch if he's just... there...

[i'm not a lawyer]

correct, the police did not do anything to elicit the response.[/quote]

If indicted however 6th attaches too ... sooo lawyer must be present right?[/quote]

no. after 6th amendment attaches lawyer must be present at all important (forgot the word they use) parts of the proceedings. that does not mean that the defendants conversation to someone else where he could be overheard are protected under miranda.