Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[Easy-E]

Wasn't an issue in this question, but because fuck that alligator question until the day I die:

A wild animal is an animal that is not by custom devoted to the service of humankind in the place where it is being kept. The possessor of a wild animal is strictly liable for harm done by that animal, in spite of any precautions the possessor has taken to confine the animal or prevent the harm, as long as the plaintiff did not knowingly do anything to bring about the injury and the harm arises from a dangerous propensity that is characteristic of such wild animals or of which the owner has reason to know.

Except if the animal is confined and it scares the shit out of someone, right? Goddamnit I am salty this morning.

[unidentifiable]

I'm starting to really, really suck on these MBE PQs (the 50 question sets). Not even hitting the goal, when I was doing really well before.

I keep second guessing myself and picking my second choice.

Its like I think question is trying to trick me. Before, in the specific subject questions, I went with my gut and the question WAS tricking me. Now, I think the question is tricking me, when it ISNT.

Wtf.

Hate this so much. I dont understand it.

[bsktbll28082]

The way Jeffries says defendant makes me want to reach through my computer screen and strangle him until the life slowly fades from his eyes.

YES

[Easy-E]

Torts PQs #5, dog breeders and defamation...

[+] Spoiler

Answer: "...the activist's statement at the library cannot reasonably be understood to refer to the corporation."

Explanation: When a defamatory statement is a made about a group, the group must be so small that the statement can reasonably be understood to refer to the plaintiff as a member of the group, unless there is other evidence that the language refers to that particular member.


From the question: "In a talk at the local library on her book, the activist states that the account is not based on any specific dog breeding facility within the state, of which there are over a hundred, but is typical of all of them."

Doesn't the fact she says "typical of ALL of them" qualify as evidence that she is referring to a particular member? All means ALL, no? Or does the fact that the members of the group are so numerous preclude any statement against the group being considered defamation?

[ndp1234]

The way Jeffries says defendant makes me want to reach through my computer screen and strangle him until the life slowly fades from his eyes.

If you speed him up past 2x you don't notice it anymore.

[Sheeit]

Wow, Con Law PQ Session 4 was brutal. Is the difficulty of the question determined by how hard it is or how many people get it wrong?

[Nebby]

I really hope the bar exam isn't just questions on incredibly obscure rules

[+] Spoiler

After a prominent senator is accused of accepting bribes from commercial gaming lobbyists in exchange for a promise to vote in favor of land-based casinos in a state, a Congressional committee is assigned to investigate the alleged misconduct. Within the course of the investigation, the committee seeks to question Senator X, a fellow senator from the same state as the accused senator. Senator X is subpoenaed to appear before the Congressional committee without the presence of counsel to testify on whether he ever saw the accused senator accept money from a gaming lobbyist. Senator X fails to appear before the Congressional committee and is immediately cited for contempt.

Is the citation of Senator X for contempt valid?
AYes, because Senator X did not appear before the committee despite receiving the subpoena.
BYes, because Congress has the right to investigate any matter within a legitimate legislative sphere.
CNo, because the committee exceeded its investigatory power.
DNo, because Senator X did not receive procedural due process.

Or on exceptions to exceptions

[+] Spoiler

A defendant was on trial for arson of an office building. During the trial, the police officers who initially arrested him began to suspect that the defendant was also responsible for a theft of several computers that took place in the office building on the same night as the arson. One evening during the arson trial, the police visited the defendant in jail, read him his Miranda rights, and began to question him about the theft. The defendant eventually confessed, and the police informed the prosecutor of his confession. The prosecutor later wants to charge the defendant with theft, using the statement that was obtained by the police in the jail. The defendant's attorney objects on the grounds that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were violated.

The court should:
AAllow the prosecutor to use the confession because the defendant was read his Miranda rights.
BAllow the prosecutor to use the confession because theft and arson each require proof of an additional element that the other does not.
CPrevent the prosecutor from using the confession because the arson and the theft took place during the same criminal transaction.
DPrevent the prosecutor from using the confession because the defendant was represented by counsel in connection with the arson case.

Otherwise fuck me

[Easy-E]

Question re "plain smell" from crim pro. Say an officer is legally present in a house, and they smell marijuana. Under "plain view/smell" they can seize the marijuana.

Okay, great. But they only smell it. What happens next? The occupant has to go get it? Presumably, they smell it and don't see it. What exactly can the officer seize?

[Eldon Tyrell]

Question re "plain smell" from crim pro. Say an officer is legally present in a house, and they smell marijuana. Under "plain view/smell" they can seize the marijuana.

Okay, great. But they only smell it. What happens next? The occupant has to go get it? Presumably, they smell it and don't see it. What exactly can the officer seize?

They can search wherever they might reasonably find it. They can search for it in the room theyre in, in any container that would resonay contain the weed. They couldn't search through wallets and computers. And they couldn't go down two or three stories and search the basement.

[Nebby]

RE: Offer/accpetance of common law contract

[+] Spoiler

Upon the completion of an interview, an attorney offered an assistant $3,000 each month to perform administrative tasks at his office; he emailed her an offer confirming these terms. She responded via email, stating that she accepted the offer but inquired as to whether she would have to work in the office or could work remotely, expressing that the option to work from home was essential to her. The parties had discussed in the interview that the assistant would likely work in the office but that the attorney would be open to her working remotely at some point. The emailed offer did not address this issue. The attorney did not respond that day but went out and bought the assistant a laptop conforming to her preferences and many office supplies that she had requested. The next day, the attorney emailed her to confirm that he might allow her to work remotely after she demonstrated success within an office environment. She emailed him back that she no longer wished to work with him because she preferred to work from home right away. The attorney threatened to sue her for breach of contract.


Under common-law principles, have the attorney and assistant entered into an enforceable contract?
AYes, because the assistant emailed him back to accept the offer.
BYes, because the attorney’s offer did not propose that the assistant could work from home.
C No, because the assistant suggested additional terms in her response.
DNo, because the assistant had a misunderstanding as to the terms of the contract.

DID SHE THO? OMG. It clearly says she accepted the offer. NEXT she inquires as to whether she can work from home or not. IT ISN'T LIKE she said, "I accept, on the condition that I can work from home."

i kant evn rn

[Easy-E]

Question re "plain smell" from crim pro. Say an officer is legally present in a house, and they smell marijuana. Under "plain view/smell" they can seize the marijuana.

Okay, great. But they only smell it. What happens next? The occupant has to go get it? Presumably, they smell it and don't see it. What exactly can the officer seize?

They can search wherever they might reasonably find it. They can search for it in the room theyre in, in any container that would resonay contain the weed. They couldn't search through wallets and computers. And they couldn't go down two or three stories and search the basement.

Hmm. If they don't know the amount, I don't see what limits their search. I'm guessing the officer isn't going to state "I smelled one pound of marijuana". A recently-extinguished roach could be pretty much anywhere. What if they smell weed on the first floor, go down to the basement and find 100 pounds?

[Easy-E]

RE: Offer/accpetance of common law contract

[+] Spoiler

Upon the completion of an interview, an attorney offered an assistant $3,000 each month to perform administrative tasks at his office; he emailed her an offer confirming these terms. She responded via email, stating that she accepted the offer but inquired as to whether she would have to work in the office or could work remotely, expressing that the option to work from home was essential to her. The parties had discussed in the interview that the assistant would likely work in the office but that the attorney would be open to her working remotely at some point. The emailed offer did not address this issue. The attorney did not respond that day but went out and bought the assistant a laptop conforming to her preferences and many office supplies that she had requested. The next day, the attorney emailed her to confirm that he might allow her to work remotely after she demonstrated success within an office environment. She emailed him back that she no longer wished to work with him because she preferred to work from home right away. The attorney threatened to sue her for breach of contract.


Under common-law principles, have the attorney and assistant entered into an enforceable contract?
AYes, because the assistant emailed him back to accept the offer.
BYes, because the attorney’s offer did not propose that the assistant could work from home.
C No, because the assistant suggested additional terms in her response.
DNo, because the assistant had a misunderstanding as to the terms of the contract.

DID SHE THO? OMG. It clearly says she accepted the offer. NEXT she inquires as to whether she can work from home or not. IT ISN'T LIKE she said, "I accept, on the condition that I can work from home."

i kant evn rn

I think I missed this one too, but for common law, it's mirror image. I think her asking about the terms wouldn't disqualify it as acceptance but "expressing that the option to work from home was essential to her" indicates her acceptance is actually contingent on working from home. I agree that the person in this scenario is a dingbat for saying "I ACCEPT BUT I ACTUALLY MAYBE DON'T".

[Eldon Tyrell]

Question re "plain smell" from crim pro. Say an officer is legally present in a house, and they smell marijuana. Under "plain view/smell" they can seize the marijuana.

Okay, great. But they only smell it. What happens next? The occupant has to go get it? Presumably, they smell it and don't see it. What exactly can the officer seize?

They can search wherever they might reasonably find it. They can search for it in the room theyre in, in any container that would resonay contain the weed. They couldn't search through wallets and computers. And they couldn't go down two or three stories and search the basement.

Hmm. If they don't know the amount, I don't see what limits their search. I'm guessing the officer isn't going to state "I smelled one pound of marijuana". A recently-extinguished roach could be pretty much anywhere. What if they smell weed on the first floor, go down to the basement and find 100 pounds?

Hmm, I also think you're insanely gunnery hypo won't be tested.

[Easy-E]

Question re "plain smell" from crim pro. Say an officer is legally present in a house, and they smell marijuana. Under "plain view/smell" they can seize the marijuana.

Okay, great. But they only smell it. What happens next? The occupant has to go get it? Presumably, they smell it and don't see it. What exactly can the officer seize?

They can search wherever they might reasonably find it. They can search for it in the room theyre in, in any container that would resonay contain the weed. They couldn't search through wallets and computers. And they couldn't go down two or three stories and search the basement.

Hmm. If they don't know the amount, I don't see what limits their search. I'm guessing the officer isn't going to state "I smelled one pound of marijuana". A recently-extinguished roach could be pretty much anywhere. What if they smell weed on the first floor, go down to the basement and find 100 pounds?

Hmm, I also think you're insanely gunnery hypo won't be tested.

Oh, I agree, this goes beyond the scope of the exam. Just applying the rule didn't make a ton of sense to me.

[Vantwins]

Wow, Con Law PQ Session 4 was brutal. Is the difficulty of the question determined by how hard it is or how many people get it wrong?

I don't know but Con Law PQ 4 is by far the worst I've ever done on a set of PQs.

[jenglish27]

I'm a few days behind, and Themis cooked up this wonderful schedule for me today:

Milestone MBE #2
Milestone Essay #2
MPT Practice (In re Linda Duram)
MPT Graded (Franklin Resale)
Read: Agency Outline
Read: Partnerships Outline
Watch: Agency Ch. 1-3 (1:00)

Yeah.....right.

[Easy-E]

I'm missing a blank in my crim pro handout. Prosecutorial misconduct may require ______ or reversal of conviction. I'm assuming mistrial?

Probably covered in the big outline, but is it harmless error test for prosecutor misconduct? If so, just lol.

[ndp1234]

I'm missing a blank in my crim pro handout. Prosecutorial misconduct may require ______ or reversal of conviction. I'm assuming mistrial?

Probably covered in the big outline, but is it harmless error test for prosecutor misconduct? If so, just lol.

I have 'mistrial' for that blank.

[Easy-E]

I'm missing a blank in my crim pro handout. Prosecutorial misconduct may require ______ or reversal of conviction. I'm assuming mistrial?

Probably covered in the big outline, but is it harmless error test for prosecutor misconduct? If so, just lol.

I have 'mistrial' for that blank.

Cool, thanks. I brain-farted just wrote "either".

[Nebby]

I'm getting pummeled on 4th amendment questions

Fuck the police

[TLSModBot]

I'm getting pummeled on 4th amendment questions

Fuck the police

I'm assuming that second line is what you keep putting for all such 4th Amendment questions

[TLSModBot]

TIL that in Maryland, the following doesn't exist:
1. spousal rape absent force or separation
2. Rape of men and/or anal rape
3. homosexual incest


BUT adultery is a misdemeanor punishable by a $10 fine.

I take it all back, Maryland is a garbage state.

[Vantwins]

TIL that in Maryland, the following doesn't exist:
1. spousal rape absent force or separation
2. Rape of men and/or anal rape
3. homosexual incest


BUT adultery is a misdemeanor punishable by a $10 fine.

I take it all back, Maryland is a garbage state.

Seriously, those same ones caught me by surprise. Also surprised that you can murder a fetus. And fascinated that if a vasectomy doesn't work you can sue the dr for wrongful pregnancy and get childrearing expenses for 18 years. Revenge Porn is a charge that definitely didn't exist when I took the VA bar in 2003!

Back to work...just bombed the Milestone #2 which is a bummer because while taking it I was thinking "this isn't so bad."

[Chardee_MacDennis]

Fuck the MBE.

That is all.

[Easy-E]

More crimpro fuckery

[+] Spoiler

The right to search incident to a lawful arrest includes the right to search pockets of clothing and to open containers found inside the pockets. The right also extends to containers “immediately associated” with the person (such as a shoulder bag or purse), so long as the containers are large enough to conceal a weapon or evidence of a crime.

In the question, the person was threatening to hit a child and was arrested for disturbing the peace and making violent threats. Huh? What evidence/weapon would there possibly have been?