BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 (UBE -NY) Forum

[jrthor10]

Re: the dog question. My best guess is that the individual could be a known/anticipated trespasser or a licensee. As a result, b/c of the signs, owner did what he needed to regardless of how the neighbor is classified.

[Br3v]

Was this supposed to be a joke?

Got 12/21 correct on that free NCBE thing. Doesn't feel good at all.

~SLIGHT SPOILERS~



Dog trespass Q (#4):

[+] Spoiler

A man has four German shepherd dogs that he has trained for guard duty and that he holds for breeding purposes. The man has “Beware of Dogs” signs clearly posted around a fenced-in yard where he keeps the dogs. The man’s next-door neighbor frequently walks past the man’s house and knows about the dogs’ ferocity. One summer day, the neighbor entered the man’s fenced-in yard to retrieve a snow shovel that the man had borrowed during the past winter. The neighbor was attacked by one of the dogs and was severely injured

Correct answer: No, because the neighbor knew that the man had dan-gerous dogs in the yard.

I chose: No, because the neighbor was trespassing when he entered the man’s property.

Why is the trespass answer not correct? The guy was trespassing, and the homeowner met his duty to known or anticipated trespassers. The only explanation I can think of is because the guy was retrieving his shovel from a few months ago, he had some sort of license to be there? But even then, the homeowner met his duty to licensees and invitees with the signs.

Guardianship Q (# 11)

[+] Spoiler

So is it a basic rule that if you are under guardianship, a contract is void no matter what? I assume because of lack of capacity (ben if the person is temporary lucid)

Designated representative Q (#14)

[+] Spoiler

What the heck is a designated representative? What limits are placed on a designated representative? None? They can just sit there and listen to testimony and then testify themselves?

Grand Jury (#19)

[+] Spoiler

Can someone explain to me the difference between prior testimony non-hearsay and prior testimony hearsay exception? I assume the latter (hearsay exception) is the one when you need to have had a chance to develop the testimony (aka a grand jury wouldn't work because no cross), whereas non-hearsay works in a grand jury because you just need to be present at current trial and the prior statement was under oath?

Yes.

[SLS_AMG]

Think he was saying yes to your guardianship assertion and nothing more.

[Br3v]

Think he was saying yes to your guardianship assertion and nothing more.

I didn't notice he had bolded that. Thanks.

Also thanks to all the other answers provided by others

[MCFC]

Got 12/21 correct on that free NCBE thing. Doesn't feel good at all.

~SLIGHT SPOILERS~



Dog trespass Q (#4):

[+] Spoiler

A man has four German shepherd dogs that he has trained for guard duty and that he holds for breeding purposes. The man has “Beware of Dogs” signs clearly posted around a fenced-in yard where he keeps the dogs. The man’s next-door neighbor frequently walks past the man’s house and knows about the dogs’ ferocity. One summer day, the neighbor entered the man’s fenced-in yard to retrieve a snow shovel that the man had borrowed during the past winter. The neighbor was attacked by one of the dogs and was severely injured

Correct answer: No, because the neighbor knew that the man had dan-gerous dogs in the yard.

I chose: No, because the neighbor was trespassing when he entered the man’s property.

Why is the trespass answer not correct? The guy was trespassing, and the homeowner met his duty to known or anticipated trespassers. The only explanation I can think of is because the guy was retrieving his shovel from a few months ago, he had some sort of license to be there? But even then, the homeowner met his duty to licensees and invitees with the signs.

[+] Spoiler

My read on this was one was just that it was a standard example of an answer being wrong because it is too broad. It's definitely ambiguous, but I can read it as saying, "No, a trespasser can never recover." Which is a clear misstatement of law.

[MCFC]

The designated representative question is FRE 615.

[+] Spoiler

Rule 615. Excluding Witnesses
At a party’s request, the court must order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses’ testimony. Or the court may do so on its own. But this rule does not authorize excluding:

(a) a party who is a natural person;

(b) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person, after being designated as the party’s representative by its attorney;

(c) a person whose presence a party shows to be essential to presenting the party’s claim or defense; or

(d) a person authorized by statute to be present.

[Itwasluck]

The designated representative question is FRE 615.

Rule 615. Excluding Witnesses
At a party’s request, the court must order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses’ testimony. Or the court may do so on its own. But this rule does not authorize excluding:

(a) a party who is a natural person;

(b) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person, after being designated as the party’s representative by its attorney;

(c) a person whose presence a party shows to be essential to presenting the party’s claim or defense; or

(d) a person authorized by statute to be present.

Thanks for this. If something like this were on the actual exam, I would just close my eyes and point

[Br3v]

Thanks MCFC!

[MCFC]

Thanks for this. If something like this were on the actual exam, I would just close my eyes and point

Yeah, if that was on a practice set I would've been like, "Ugh, Barbri, this would never be on a real exam." And yet.

[Itwasluck]

Thanks for this. If something like this were on the actual exam, I would just close my eyes and point

Yeah, if that was on a practice set I would've been like, "Ugh, Barbri, this would never be on a real exam." And yet.

Sort of worries me. But then there are a lot of questions on the NCBE practice tests that are far easier than anything Barbri has thrown at us. I like to think that for every one of those questions we will get one freebie. At least that's what I tell myself before I go to sleep each night

[SLS_AMG]

I said this earlier, but I really don't think all 200 questions will be like that. Otherwise, there's no way the average score would be well over 100. There must be a mix of questions like that and the easier questions that NCBE has released from prior exams. That would explain why most people do better than expected (from getting less difficult questions right plus some difficult questions right) and also why everyone feels terrible (cause they remember all the questions that are like the ones from the 21 set).

[KRose04]

I said this earlier, but I really don't think all 200 questions will be like that. Otherwise, there's no way the average score would be well over 100. There must be a mix of questions like that and the easier questions that NCBE has released from prior exams. That would explain why most people do better than expected (from getting less difficult questions right plus some difficult questions right) and also why everyone feels terrible (cause they remember all the questions that are like the ones from the 21 set).

I agree. I've done 2 OPE's and I average 70% on them. On the 21 from the site... DON'T ask lol. I'm going with the OPE.

[mvp99]

Stupid question but I messed up my understanding of Prior Inconsistent Statement (PIS). I didn't take evidence in LS.

Could someone tell me if there is anything wrong with this:

PIS
Extrinsic evidence for PIS is allowed if (i) justices so requires or (ii) the witness is given opportunity to deny or explain the statement. Cross about PIS w/o extrinsic evidence is always admissible (of course as long as the judge allows it but why wouldn't the judge allow it's not a collateral matter).

BUT the use of extrinsic evidence for PIS to impeach is not the same as being admissible as substantive evidence.

For PIS to be admitted as substantive evidence (as non-hearsay) it must be made under penalty of perjury (assuming no other exception applies like party-opponent admission).

Prior Consistent Statement

PCS is admissible as non-hearsay when it is used to rebut or rehabilitate, or prior identification, which can be used even without an attack on the credibility of the witness.

[ellewoods123]

Stupid question but I messed up my understanding of Prior Inconsistent Statement (PIS). I didn't take evidence in LS.

Could someone tell me if there is anything wrong with this:

PIS
Extrinsic evidence for PIS is allowed if (i) justices so requires or (ii) the witness is given opportunity to deny or explain the statement. Cross about PIS w/o extrinsic evidence is always admissible (of course as long as the judge allows it but why wouldn't the judge allow it's not a collateral matter).

BUT the use of extrinsic evidence for PIS to impeach is not the same as being admissible as substantive evidence.

For PIS to be admitted as substantive evidence (as non-hearsay) it must be made under penalty of perjury (assuming no other exception applies like party-opponent admission).

Prior Consistent Statement

PCS is admissible as non-hearsay when it is used to rebut or rehabilitate, or prior identification, which can be used even without an attack on the credibility of the witness.

You're good - all correct!

[rivermaker]

Anyone have a trusts outline they can donate to me? I will forever be grateful and buy you shots if you are ever in AZ.

[ellewoods123]

Can someone explain to me when congress my limit SC jurisdiction? I feel like this is very straightforward but for some reason keep losing it. Only appellate jurisdiction? Is that correct?

[KRose04]

Anyone have a trusts outline they can donate to me? I will forever be grateful and buy you shots if you are ever in AZ.

sure. PM me your email

[LionelHutzJD]

Can someone explain to me when congress my limit SC jurisdiction? I feel like this is very straightforward but for some reason keep losing it. Only appellate jurisdiction? Is that correct?

Exceptions Clause Art. III:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

So yes, Congress may limit SC appellate Jxn.

[Br3v]

Are you guys reading all of the extra essays? I'm pretty much only going to 4 or 5

[SLS_AMG]

Are you guys reading all of the extra essays? I'm pretty much only going to 4 or 5

I'm only "doing" 1-4 or 1-5 for most subjects. I'm probably gonna read the extra ones while traveling to NY.

[WahooLaw24]

Wanna make sure I get all of this right:

We can bring a cell phone, but just have to leave it in the designated room?

And hoodies are okay as long as the hood isn't on? Sneakers good?

[yodamiked]

at this point I feel that studying is like eating. Yea I eat something new and its nice but something has to come out on the other end.

This is my favorite thing ever.

[jj252525]

Anyone have a trusts outline they can donate to me? I will forever be grateful and buy you shots if you are ever in AZ.

Mine is so-so, but let me know if you want it.

[LionelHutzJD]

Wanna make sure I get all of this right:

We can bring a cell phone, but just have to leave it in the designated room?

And hoodies are okay as long as the hood isn't on? Sneakers good?

Sneakers good. Flip flops/sandals no good.

[AndroidLawyer]

I wanted to confirm the only thing we are required to bring is the seat ticket and identification? We don't have to attach a passport photo or anything?