Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2014 Exam Forum

[puttycake]

If I get a CivPro essay (especially a CA civ pro one) I'm gonna fail the bar...

You are not alone, Apple Tree I feel that way too! Oh well, guess we still have several weeks for a miracle to set in! There's just too much stuff to re-learn. Almost ready to gamble and toss a subject or two!

I feel exactly the same way!

Yeah, Civ Pro is just huge.

I thought Pushaw's CA Civ Pro lectures were pretty good, though. And short. I might love him.

[lawyerwannabe]

Themis brethren: Is there any consensus on the MBE questions regarding difficulty relative to the questions we will encounter on the Bar?

Just curious because Themis says the goal is 50% . . .

[hous]

Crap, does anyone have the Florida corporation Chapter 1 lecture notes? Apparently I didn't save that one.

[whirledpeas86]

I had my Themis advisor check in call today and the dude said that if I had followed the study schedule exactly, I would be at around 47%. The national average is around 33% and I'm at 38%, so I'm feeling pretty good about my pace. Also, I mentioned that I got a 5/17 on my first property practice test and the advisor dude literally laughed out loud. So, I may be a failure at property, but at least I'm so bad it's funny?

What jrx are you in? PA? NY?

I'm taking the PA bar.

[Genuine4ps]

Themis brethren: Is there any consensus on the MBE questions regarding difficulty relative to the questions we will encounter on the Bar?

Just curious because Themis says the goal is 50% . . .

The 50% goal is where you should be right now. You definitely don't want to be only getting 50% correct on the actual exam. That would be below the 1%ile. See second to last chart: https://www.ilbaradmissions.org/Percent ... lentCharts

On a related note, I was pumped by DesertFox's post described how we only need to score in the 60th percentile for auto pass. That's great, BUT the 60th percentile requires 81% of the questions correct! That's a damn good score.

[sparty99]

I'm at 13% course completed. The course videos are a time sink. Why can't they just give you the outline. And the Torts guy from Michigan, Sherman, was HORRIBLE.

You are way behind. I'm at 24% and feel like I'm way behind. You may want to completely skip reading the full outlines.

They will give you short summary outlines for each subject. For me, they are giving out outlines at a scheduled pace. Not all at once.

i'm behind because I started on June 1st and work part-time. I'm already thinking I might just take the Feb. retake. I noticed there are 20 property videos. Do you mean stop reading the hand outs and just do the summary outlines? I don't even bother with the long outlines that you can't print off.

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

Just got THE call... as others have. I'm behind - should be at 47% (for CA). So... 1) No more facebook, 2) No more looking at Amazon to see if things in my cart have gone down in price, and 3) no more excuses to run errands "forcing" me to leave the house.

All in all, I'm kind of glad they checked in. Snapped me into shape! They said my test scores are on par with everyone else but it's time to switch gears... more time doing practice exams, less time reading outlines.... Good advice!

[Genuine4ps]

I'm at 13% course completed. The course videos are a time sink. Why can't they just give you the outline. And the Torts guy from Michigan, Sherman, was HORRIBLE.

You are way behind. I'm at 24% and feel like I'm way behind. You may want to completely skip reading the full outlines.

They will give you short summary outlines for each subject. For me, they are giving out outlines at a scheduled pace. Not all at once.

i'm behind because I started on June 1st and work part-time. I'm already thinking I might just take the Feb. retake. I noticed there are 20 property videos. Do you mean stop reading the hand outs and just do the summary outlines? I don't even bother with the long outlines that you can't print off.

That's a little to drastic, IMO. What state are you in? I heard a professor--a guy who ranks bar difficulty by state--say that you could almost accidentally pass the bar in some states.

I certainly would not give up.

[sparty99]

I'm at 13% course completed. The course videos are a time sink. Why can't they just give you the outline. And the Torts guy from Michigan, Sherman, was HORRIBLE.

You are way behind. I'm at 24% and feel like I'm way behind. You may want to completely skip reading the full outlines.

They will give you short summary outlines for each subject. For me, they are giving out outlines at a scheduled pace. Not all at once.

i'm behind because I started on June 1st and work part-time. I'm already thinking I might just take the Feb. retake. I noticed there are 20 property videos. Do you mean stop reading the hand outs and just do the summary outlines? I don't even bother with the long outlines that you can't print off.

That's a little to drastic, IMO. What state are you in? I heard a professor--a guy who ranks bar difficulty by state--say that you could almost accidentally pass the bar in some states.

I certainly would not give up.

CA

[Genuine4ps]

CA

I still would take the bar. Just work your ass off. You're going to have to put in more time than everyone else, but I certainly wouldn't put it off until February.

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

CA

I still would take the bar. Just work your ass off. You're going to have to put in more time than everyone else, but I certainly wouldn't put it off until February.

I'm behind and taking it in CA. Definitely take it! We've paid for it! Can't imagine throwing all that money out the door. At the very least it will be great practice! And it's not like there's only a couple weeks left... there's over a month! (ok, admittedly I just scared myself looking at the calendar...yikes!!)

[puttycake]

CA

It's scarier to take it in CA than elsewhere, but it's doable. Remember, you don't need to get to 100%. Most of us won't get to 100%.

If you have the money, and I know that a lot of us just don't, but if you do and you're super worried about the essays, take a look at the BarEssays site. I think it will make you less scared about what you need to know to get a passing score on the essays. I started EARLY and I was panicked about the essays, but I'm better now because I read a ton of samples.

The lectures do take a lot of time, but I think you have to find a way to get exposed to all of the ideas, either because you listen to the lectures or read the long outlines or something. There's no fast way to do it, but it's achievable.

[puttycake]

Can someone good in evidence help me understand when prior acts can be used in a trial? I keep trying to understand and keep getting confused.

[Gotti]

Jesus CHRIST civ pro lectures are painful. Also, the way Jeffries says defendAAAAAnt bugs the shit out of me, and he says that word every 2 seconds.

[Tanicius]

Can someone good in evidence help me understand when prior acts can be used in a trial? I keep trying to understand and keep getting confused.

Depends if you need to know CA or MBE law. The Truth in Evidence rule for California is just about the dumbest and most unnecessarily complex thing ever.

[Genuine4ps]

Jesus CHRIST civ pro lectures are painful. Also, the way Jeffries says defendAAAAAnt bugs the shit out of me, and he says that word every 2 seconds.

This. Why the hell do law professor feel the need to pronounce it like that?

[puttycake]

Can someone good in evidence help me understand when prior acts can be used in a trial? I keep trying to understand and keep getting confused.

Depends if you need to know CA or MBE law. The Truth in Evidence rule for California is just about the dumbest and most unnecessarily complex thing ever.

Just federal law. I can't understand it.

The lecture handout says, about a victim's character:

"Form: Defendant can use opinion or reputation evidence."

Then it says the prosecution can offer good character evidence on the victim.

Then it says "Methods of Proving: Reputation, witness opinion, or prior specific acts"

And it refers to FRE 405(a)

But FRE 405(a) only mentions prior specific acts on cross.

And 405(b) mentions prior specific acts when it's an essential element. So, if the defendant was using self-defense as a defense, would the prior specific acts be usable to discredit the victim? Can the prosecution bring in a witness and on direct have them talk about prior specific acts to make the victim look good? The mention of "Form" and then "Methods of Proving" has me baffled.

[Apple Tree]

Can someone good in evidence help me understand when prior acts can be used in a trial? I keep trying to understand and keep getting confused.

I just studied Evidence and will take a crack. It helps me to think of them in groups. This explanation only goes to FRE. Let me know if you need CA's too.

First, depends on what you are using the prior acts for. If you are using prior dishonest misconduct to impeach, then you can only use it on cross on a witness or another W whose character this W just testified about. You also can't use extrinsic evidence if the W denies this conduct.

Second, if you are using the prior act to prove MIMIC (motive, intent, lack of mistake, identity, common plan/scheme), then it's okay.

Finally, if you are using the prior act prove propensity, then it's generally not okay, but then again this can be divided into three groups (at least for me).

A. The Rape Shield (I know the lecture/outline usually puts this the last but I see it as an exception to the general rules so I like to think of it first). In criminal cases, prior conducts can be used to prove sourse of semen/injury and consensual sex between D and the V. In civil cases, V's specific sexual acts are admissible if probative value >>> unfair prejudice to V.

B. Other Civil cases: Specific acts are okay: (1) if character is essential element in the case; and (2) to show prior sexual assault/child molestation by D.

C. Other Criminal cases:
1. Prosecution can introduce D's prior sexual assault/child molestation (same as civil).
2. For other character trait (both D's and V's) NO specific are allowed on direct by either party.
3. On cross prosecution can inquire D's character witness about D's prior acts if D has opened the door to his character trait but can't can't use extrinsic evidence if the W denies.

I think that's it...

[Apple Tree]

Can someone good in evidence help me understand when prior acts can be used in a trial? I keep trying to understand and keep getting confused.

Depends if you need to know CA or MBE law. The Truth in Evidence rule for California is just about the dumbest and most unnecessarily complex thing ever.

Just federal law. I can't understand it.

The lecture handout says, about a victim's character:

"Form: Defendant can use opinion or reputation evidence."

Then it says the prosecution can offer good character evidence on the victim.

Then it says "Methods of Proving: Reputation, witness opinion, or prior specific acts"

And it refers to FRE 405(a)

But FRE 405(a) only mentions prior specific acts on cross.

And 405(b) mentions prior specific acts when it's an essential element. So, if the defendant was using self-defense as a defense, would the prior specific acts be usable to discredit the victim? Can the prosecution bring in a witness and on direct have them talk about prior specific acts to make the victim look good? The mention of "Form" and then "Methods of Proving" has me baffled.

Not on direct. Claiming self defense is like an attack on the V's character trait so the prosecutor can prove V's peacefulness, but only through opinion/reputation.

Based on this website the prosecution's casein-chief where character is an element of the charge is a case where the charge is being a felon in possession of a firearm http://www.law.harvard.edu/publications ... tmch3b.htm

I remember tripping up there too, but I just ignored the Evidence outlines. The lectures and handouts together were confusing to me. The lecturer was pretty bad in terms of having his law down.

[MinEMorris]

Checking in at 25%. (CA.) Don't look back, bros--I'll catch up with you later.

[puttycake]

Not on direct. Claiming self defense is like an attack on the V's character trait so the prosecutor can prove V's peacefulness, but only through opinion/reputation.

Based on this website the prosecution's casein-chief where character is an element of the charge is a case where the charge is being a felon in possession of a firearm http://www.law.harvard.edu/publications ... tmch3b.htm

I remember tripping up there too, but I just ignored the Evidence outlines. The lectures and handouts together were confusing to me. The lecturer was pretty bad in terms of having his law down.

So, if I am trying to use self-defense as a defense to how I whacked Joe Bob, I still can't use Joe Bob's attack on Linda Lou on direct to show that he's violent?

[Apple Tree]

Not on direct. Claiming self defense is like an attack on the V's character trait so the prosecutor can prove V's peacefulness, but only through opinion/reputation.

Based on this website the prosecution's casein-chief where character is an element of the charge is a case where the charge is being a felon in possession of a firearm http://www.law.harvard.edu/publications ... tmch3b.htm

I remember tripping up there too, but I just ignored the Evidence outlines. The lectures and handouts together were confusing to me. The lecturer was pretty bad in terms of having his law down.

So, if I am trying to use self-defense as a defense to how I whacked Joe Bob, I still can't use Joe Bob's attack on Linda Lou on direct to show that he's violent?

I think that's correct. For criminal cases neither party can use prior acts on direct (except the prior sexual assault/child molestation). I remember they especially emphasized this point for D trying to prove V's bad character trait.

[puttycake]

I think that's correct. For criminal cases neither party can use prior acts on direct (except the prior sexual assault/child molestation). I remember they especially emphasized this point for D trying to prove V's bad character trait.

Okay, thank you. I'm a little less lost. Still lost! But less lost!

[Tanicius]

Not on direct. Claiming self defense is like an attack on the V's character trait so the prosecutor can prove V's peacefulness, but only through opinion/reputation.

Based on this website the prosecution's casein-chief where character is an element of the charge is a case where the charge is being a felon in possession of a firearm http://www.law.harvard.edu/publications ... tmch3b.htm

I remember tripping up there too, but I just ignored the Evidence outlines. The lectures and handouts together were confusing to me. The lecturer was pretty bad in terms of having his law down.

So, if I am trying to use self-defense as a defense to how I whacked Joe Bob, I still can't use Joe Bob's attack on Linda Lou on direct to show that he's violent?

You could, actually, because you wouldn't necesssarily be using it for propensity evidence in that case. Self-defense is a reasonableness question, and how reasonable your actions are in part depends on the knowledge you had the time. If it's relevant to prove your own innocent self-defense motive in hitting Joe Bob that you heard he recently got in a fight and wrecked that other person, then you're not using it for propensity and are instead using it to prove your own motive/intent/knowledge, so it's fine under 404.

It's like hearsay in that regard -- you're not actually offering it for its truth in that example. You're asking to jury to find true your belief about a person's propensity for violence, which is different than asking the jury to find true the objective fact that he really has a propensity for violence.

Think of this way. If the specific prior act you're offering is relevant to the case even if it turns out to be completely false, then you're probably offering it for reasons other than propensity and should be okay. In your example, it doesn't actually matter if Joe Bob really ever got in a fight with anyone; all that matters is your belief that he did. But let's modify the example so that it's more like most of the self-defense hypos the rule deals with. Those are cases where the defendant didn't even know that the person had a propensity to be violent, and instead the defense attorney is offering that at-the-time unknown evidence to the jury, so that they can conclude that the victim truly is a violent person. Understand the distinction?

[Apple Tree]

Not on direct. Claiming self defense is like an attack on the V's character trait so the prosecutor can prove V's peacefulness, but only through opinion/reputation.

Based on this website the prosecution's casein-chief where character is an element of the charge is a case where the charge is being a felon in possession of a firearm http://www.law.harvard.edu/publications ... tmch3b.htm

I remember tripping up there too, but I just ignored the Evidence outlines. The lectures and handouts together were confusing to me. The lecturer was pretty bad in terms of having his law down.

So, if I am trying to use self-defense as a defense to how I whacked Joe Bob, I still can't use Joe Bob's attack on Linda Lou on direct to show that he's violent?

You could, actually, because you wouldn't necesssarily be using it for propensity evidence in that case. Self-defense is a reasonableness question, and how reasonable your actions are in part depends on the knowledge you had the time. If it's relevant to prove your own innocent self-defense motive in hitting Joe Bob that you heard he recently got in a fight and wrecked that other person, then you're not using it for propensity and are instead using it to prove your own motive/intent/knowledge, so it's fine under 404.

It's like hearsay in that regard -- you're not actually offering it for its truth in that example. You're asking to jury to find true your belief about a person's propensity for violence, which is different than asking the jury to find true the objective fact that he really has a propensity for violence.

Think of this way. If the specific prior act you're offering is relevant to the case even if it turns out to be completely false, then you're probably offering it for reasons other than propensity and should be okay. In your example, it doesn't actually matter if Joe Bob really ever got in a fight with anyone; all that matters is your belief that he did. But let's modify the example so that it's more like most of the self-defense hypos the rule deals with. Those are cases where the defendant didn't even know that the person had a propensity to be violent, and instead the defense attorney is offering that at-the-time unknown evidence to the jury, so that they can conclude that the victim truly is a violent person. Understand the distinction?

Yeah but he said that he wanted to use the prior act to prove that Bob was violent, so he was using it to prove propensity, not something else like the defendant's belief.