Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2014 Exam Forum

[Catleesi]

Thanks. It seems like you were very satisfied with Themis for the MBE? Did you think their MBE PQs accurately reflected the actual MBE questions?

Yeah. They were pretty similar, and I saw a lot of questions I recognized. Those "pick the best answer---- ALL THE ANSWERS SUCK" questions actually exist. I was kinda hoping those were just poorly written. And there was one question last year where the answers were all "Yes/No because of the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendment" and I just head/desked. The format was basically the same. The only surprises were a couple of Civ Pro MBE questions, but I think they were test ones since Civ Pro was NOT an MBE subject last year and I think it is now (or is going to be).

[Genuine4ps]

Thanks. It seems like you were very satisfied with Themis for the MBE? Did you think their MBE PQs accurately reflected the actual MBE questions?

Yeah. They were pretty similar, and I saw a lot of questions I recognized. Those "pick the best answer---- ALL THE ANSWERS SUCK" questions actually exist. I was kinda hoping those were just poorly written. And there was one question last year where the answers were all "Yes/No because of the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendment" and I just head/desked. The format was basically the same. The only surprises were a couple of Civ Pro MBE questions, but I think they were test ones since Civ Pro was NOT an MBE subject last year and I think it is now (or is going to be).

Good to hear.

Yes, this is the last bar exam where Civ Pro will NOT be on the MBE. In February it will have these questions. Any Civ Pro questions are purely test questions.

[Genuine4ps]

I have a question for you Crim Pro masters.

I just came across a question where the police had an arrest warrant to arrest D in his home. They arrested him illegally, however, in his neighbor's home. According to the correct answer, a subsequent prosecution of D was valid. How is this possible? If that's the case, it seems like a PO can arrest a suspect anytime they want without a warrant--of course, any evidence seized would be inadmissible.

[Tanicius]

I have a question for you Crim Pro masters.

I just came across a question where the police had an arrest warrant to arrest D in his home. They arrested him illegally, however, in his neighbor's home. According to the correct answer, a subsequent prosecution of D was valid. How is this possible? If that's the case, it seems like a PO can arrest a suspect anytime they want without a warrant--of course, any evidence seized would be inadmissible.

It's valid cause D had no expectation of privacy in his neighbor's home. The neighbor, however, does a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if the police saw drugs in the neighbor's home while they arrested D, they would not be able to use that evidence against neighbor specifically unless they had a warrant to search neighbor's home.

[colonial108]

Hi 2014 kids-- I used Themis last year, and I remember how I felt at this point and wanted to drop by for brief encouragement. Using Themis, I passed the UBE with 55 points to spare.

You can do it!!! Having read a few recent posts, the only advice I have is *for the love of all that is holy do the practice essays.* Law school essays are NOT bar essays! D:

I'm sorry the bar exam is happening to you, but hang tight. You will pass, and all of this will be just a crappy summer.

Good luck!!

This is interesting because I took the UBE, too and thought the practice essays were a waste of time (as far as actually writing each one out...I DID read all of them and the model answers).

I guess everyone is just different when it comes to the bar exam. At the end of the day though, I think we would agree that the Themis material got us prepared, regardless of the actual strategy. I thought the MBE questions were really similar to the real thing.

Just my .02

[champ33]

I have a question for you Crim Pro masters.

I just came across a question where the police had an arrest warrant to arrest D in his home. They arrested him illegally, however, in his neighbor's home. According to the correct answer, a subsequent prosecution of D was valid. How is this possible? If that's the case, it seems like a PO can arrest a suspect anytime they want without a warrant--of course, any evidence seized would be inadmissible.

It's valid cause D had no expectation of privacy in his neighbor's home. The neighbor, however, does a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if the police saw drugs in the neighbor's home while they arrested D, they would not be able to use that evidence against neighbor specifically unless they had a warrant to search neighbor's home.

I think it's more simple than that. The only rule applicable here is that an unconstitutional arrest does not bar a subsequent prosecution - just any evidence seized pursuant to that arrest is probably barred. The way I remember this is to think about there being some minor technical violation in arresting a serial killer. It would be crazy to let that person completely avoid prosecution as a result.

[Genuine4ps]

I have a question for you Crim Pro masters.

I just came across a question where the police had an arrest warrant to arrest D in his home. They arrested him illegally, however, in his neighbor's home. According to the correct answer, a subsequent prosecution of D was valid. How is this possible? If that's the case, it seems like a PO can arrest a suspect anytime they want without a warrant--of course, any evidence seized would be inadmissible.

It's valid cause D had no expectation of privacy in his neighbor's home. The neighbor, however, does a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if the police saw drugs in the neighbor's home while they arrested D, they would not be able to use that evidence against neighbor specifically unless they had a warrant to search neighbor's home.

I see. What if the police officer, without a warrant, barged into your home to arrest you for robbery. Even though the arrest was illegal, would they still be able to initiate a prosecution against you, or are you off scot-free? Could they even let you go and arrest you again with a valid arrest warrant?

[bport hopeful]

I have a question for you Crim Pro masters.

I just came across a question where the police had an arrest warrant to arrest D in his home. They arrested him illegally, however, in his neighbor's home. According to the correct answer, a subsequent prosecution of D was valid. How is this possible? If that's the case, it seems like a PO can arrest a suspect anytime they want without a warrant--of course, any evidence seized would be inadmissible.

It's valid cause D had no expectation of privacy in his neighbor's home. The neighbor, however, does a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if the police saw drugs in the neighbor's home while they arrested D, they would not be able to use that evidence against neighbor specifically unless they had a warrant to search neighbor's home.

I see. What if the police officer, without a warrant, barged into your home to arrest you for robbery. Even though the arrest was illegal, would they still be able to initiate a prosecution against you, or are you off scot-free? Could they even let you go and arrest you again with a valid arrest warrant?

You can still be charged/tried, they just can't use any evidence found incident to the violation.

[northwood]

I have a question for you Crim Pro masters.

I just came across a question where the police had an arrest warrant to arrest D in his home. They arrested him illegally, however, in his neighbor's home. According to the correct answer, a subsequent prosecution of D was valid. How is this possible? If that's the case, it seems like a PO can arrest a suspect anytime they want without a warrant--of course, any evidence seized would be inadmissible.

It's valid cause D had no expectation of privacy in his neighbor's home. The neighbor, however, does a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if the police saw drugs in the neighbor's home while they arrested D, they would not be able to use that evidence against neighbor specifically unless they had a warrant to search neighbor's home.

I see. What if the police officer, without a warrant, barged into your home to arrest you for robbery. Even though the arrest was illegal, would they still be able to initiate a prosecution against you, or are you off scot-free? Could they even let you go and arrest you again with a valid arrest warrant?

Notwithstanding the illegal arrest, if there is sufficient probable cause ( use angulilar spinneli dual standard- informant's truthworiness and the trustworthiness ofhte information received- ie. track record of being right) to have an neutral, disinterested and detrached magistrate issue another arrest warrant ( based on probable cause that a crime was committee dand the person to be arrested did in fact commit the crime), or the officer witnessed the defendant commit the crime, or some other way to establish sufficient probable cause- then you can be arrested again..

However It is more likely than not that any information the officers may have gained from the illegal arrest would not be admitted, unless undert eht inevitable discovery rule-( but this ususally goes for confessions or other statemetns given as a result of an improper police interrogation) if the information that the officers got would inevitably have been received by the officer anyways, then after properly mirandizing the suspect it would be okay in MBE ( but not NY which suppress this statement as well)

you also have the emergency excpetion to the warrant requirement ( but unlikely for a robbery) or hot pursuit warrant exception.

[071816]

Is it possible to redo past MBE question sets? If so, how do you do it?

[Gotti]

TIL that Schott laminated the evidence rules and put them in his shower to learn them.

[Genuine4ps]

Thanks, Northwood and Bport.

[bport hopeful]

Im on that Northwood Supplement.

[SilverE2]

I'm curious what you guys think of this question. I don't think the reasoning is correct:

Question Text: A plaintiff brought suit against a defendant for injuries she sustained in a car accident that she accused the defendant of negligently causing. Prior to filing suit, the plaintiff’s attorney had the plaintiff visit a physician to determine the extent of her injuries for purposes of determining the damages to be claimed in the lawsuit. After the plaintiff’s examination, while the attorney, plaintiff, and physician were discussing the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, the plaintiff admitted that she “may have had a few beers” right before the accident. At trial, the defendant’s counsel sought to call the doctor to testify about the statement. The plaintiff properly objected to the introduction of this testimony. How should the judge rule on the plaintiff’s objection?

Answer Choices:

A. Sustain the objection, as the attorney-client privilege is applicable.
B. Sustain the objection, as the physician-patient privilege is applicable.
C. Overrule the objection, as the statement was made by an opposing party.
D. Overrule the objection, as the physician would constitute an expert witness.

Learner Selected Answer: Overrule the objection, as the statement was made by an opposing party.

Correct:

Correct Answer: Sustain the objection, as the attorney-client privilege is applicable.

Rationale: Answer choice A is correct. Under attorney-client privilege, a confidential communication between a client and an attorney is privileged. While the presence of a third party can destroy privilege, a communication to a representative of the attorney is also privileged. A representative of an attorney is a person who is employed to assist the attorney in providing legal services. Here, the physician has been employed to assist the plaintiff’s attorney in determining the damages to be sought when filing the lawsuit. The physician’s presence would therefore not destroy the privilege, and the attorney-client privilege would apply. Answer choice B is incorrect, as the statement was not made for the purpose of medical treatment of the plaintiff, but only to assist the attorney in determining the extent of the injuries to make a claim for damages in the lawsuit. Answer choice C is incorrect because, while the statement was made by a party to the current litigation and is being offered by an opposing party (and therefore is not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(A)), the fact that it was spoken by the plaintiff means that the attorney-client privilege prevents it from coming into evidence. Remember that even if a statement is admissible under one rule (for example, a hearsay exception), it may still be inadmissible under another rule. Answer choice D is incorrect, as it does not matter if the physician here would constitute an expert witness. The physician here is not being called by the defendant’s counsel to give expert testimony, but to provide evidence that the plaintiff may herself have been negligent.

I think it's ridiculous that the physician would be considered "a person who is employed to assist the attorney in providing legal services." The physician isn't employed by the attorney for that purpose, he's not the attorney's employee. Does this mean that if the attorney in a car accident case goes with the defendant to take the car to a mechanic for a damage assessment, any admissions made by the defendant while at the garage would be exempt?

[northwood]

Im on that Northwood Supplement.

does this count as essay writing?

[Shawshank33]

Does anyone have helpful study tips/outlines for memorizing Commercial Paper? My eyes are glazing over during this lecture...

[TooManyLoans]

I'm curious what you guys think of this question. I don't think the reasoning is correct:

Question Text: A plaintiff brought suit against a defendant for injuries she sustained in a car accident that she accused the defendant of negligently causing. Prior to filing suit, the plaintiff’s attorney had the plaintiff visit a physician to determine the extent of her injuries for purposes of determining the damages to be claimed in the lawsuit. After the plaintiff’s examination, while the attorney, plaintiff, and physician were discussing the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, the plaintiff admitted that she “may have had a few beers” right before the accident. At trial, the defendant’s counsel sought to call the doctor to testify about the statement. The plaintiff properly objected to the introduction of this testimony. How should the judge rule on the plaintiff’s objection?

Answer Choices:

A. Sustain the objection, as the attorney-client privilege is applicable.
B. Sustain the objection, as the physician-patient privilege is applicable.
C. Overrule the objection, as the statement was made by an opposing party.
D. Overrule the objection, as the physician would constitute an expert witness.

Learner Selected Answer: Overrule the objection, as the statement was made by an opposing party.

Correct:

Correct Answer: Sustain the objection, as the attorney-client privilege is applicable.

Rationale: Answer choice A is correct. Under attorney-client privilege, a confidential communication between a client and an attorney is privileged. While the presence of a third party can destroy privilege, a communication to a representative of the attorney is also privileged. A representative of an attorney is a person who is employed to assist the attorney in providing legal services. Here, the physician has been employed to assist the plaintiff’s attorney in determining the damages to be sought when filing the lawsuit. The physician’s presence would therefore not destroy the privilege, and the attorney-client privilege would apply. Answer choice B is incorrect, as the statement was not made for the purpose of medical treatment of the plaintiff, but only to assist the attorney in determining the extent of the injuries to make a claim for damages in the lawsuit. Answer choice C is incorrect because, while the statement was made by a party to the current litigation and is being offered by an opposing party (and therefore is not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(A)), the fact that it was spoken by the plaintiff means that the attorney-client privilege prevents it from coming into evidence. Remember that even if a statement is admissible under one rule (for example, a hearsay exception), it may still be inadmissible under another rule. Answer choice D is incorrect, as it does not matter if the physician here would constitute an expert witness. The physician here is not being called by the defendant’s counsel to give expert testimony, but to provide evidence that the plaintiff may herself have been negligent.

I think it's ridiculous that the physician would be considered "a person who is employed to assist the attorney in providing legal services." The physician isn't employed by the attorney for that purpose, he's not the attorney's employee. Does this mean that if the attorney in a car accident case goes with the defendant to take the car to a mechanic for a damage assessment, any admissions made by the defendant while at the garage would be exempt?

I did this question yesterday, and it got me so frustrated because I agree with you. I thought for sure, that the presence of the doctor would be a third party that ruins the A-C privilege.

When I read the explanation, I though okay, it says she went there solely for litigation purposes but still he doesn't work for the lawyer. I have no idea where to draw the line. I was always under the assumption that it was limited to paralegals/investigators working for the attorney on the case.

[Shawshank33]

TIL that Schott laminated the evidence rules and put them in his shower to learn them.

LOL. I can't stand him.

[Gotti]

Idk, I think it makes sense -- the physician is the lawyer's agent bc he was specifically hired by the attorney to assess damages for this specific lawsuit.

[northwood]

Idk, I think it makes sense -- the physician is the lawyer's agent bc he was specifically hired by the attorney to assess damages for this specific lawsuit.

perhaps it is also admissible as a satemtnn made for the purpsoes of obtaining and receiving medical attention; and that by conducting the tests with the attorney present in order to deterimine the sufficiency/ legality of their claim- the physican had the dual role of acting as a physician and acting as an agent for the lawyer. B is wrong because the car accident, not being drunk caused the injury ( being drunk is like saying Dave did it) C is wrong because the statement was made by the plaintiff. D is wrong because it is irrelevant as to the issue of the question, ie the introduction of evidence

so by process of elimination you are left with A- and you don't need to worry much about the confidentialiy issue for this question. I also agree with Gotti because by providing us with the info that the doctor, physician and patient were all discussing strategy the question lets us know that the doctor isn't just a rando doctor, but is more of an agent and that the patient provided this information to help them formulate a case

[Xifeng]

TIL that Schott laminated the evidence rules and put them in his shower to learn them.

Yeah I just got to that today and wanted to just give up early because I was so horrified

[Prime]

Professor Charles P. Bubany who teaches Texas Criminal procedure is horrible. This guy is all over the place. Anyone taking the Texas bar had to suffer through this TX Crim Procedure lecture.

He was pretty bad. I learned more reading over the 'model' answers than I did sitting through his lecture.

[Prime]

Scored 64% on my first milestone and 56% on my second milestone.

I was fuming as I went through the second milestone exam. So many of those questions were poorly worded!

On the plus side, I think I finally understand hearsay.

[klbisho4]

I'm curious what you guys think of this question. I don't think the reasoning is correct:

Question Text: A plaintiff brought suit against a defendant for injuries she sustained in a car accident that she accused the defendant of negligently causing. Prior to filing suit, the plaintiff’s attorney had the plaintiff visit a physician to determine the extent of her injuries for purposes of determining the damages to be claimed in the lawsuit. After the plaintiff’s examination, while the attorney, plaintiff, and physician were discussing the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, the plaintiff admitted that she “may have had a few beers” right before the accident. At trial, the defendant’s counsel sought to call the doctor to testify about the statement. The plaintiff properly objected to the introduction of this testimony. How should the judge rule on the plaintiff’s objection?

Answer Choices:

A. Sustain the objection, as the attorney-client privilege is applicable.
B. Sustain the objection, as the physician-patient privilege is applicable.
C. Overrule the objection, as the statement was made by an opposing party.
D. Overrule the objection, as the physician would constitute an expert witness.

Learner Selected Answer: Overrule the objection, as the statement was made by an opposing party.

Correct:

Correct Answer: Sustain the objection, as the attorney-client privilege is applicable.

Rationale: Answer choice A is correct. Under attorney-client privilege, a confidential communication between a client and an attorney is privileged. While the presence of a third party can destroy privilege, a communication to a representative of the attorney is also privileged. A representative of an attorney is a person who is employed to assist the attorney in providing legal services. Here, the physician has been employed to assist the plaintiff’s attorney in determining the damages to be sought when filing the lawsuit. The physician’s presence would therefore not destroy the privilege, and the attorney-client privilege would apply. Answer choice B is incorrect, as the statement was not made for the purpose of medical treatment of the plaintiff, but only to assist the attorney in determining the extent of the injuries to make a claim for damages in the lawsuit. Answer choice C is incorrect because, while the statement was made by a party to the current litigation and is being offered by an opposing party (and therefore is not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(A)), the fact that it was spoken by the plaintiff means that the attorney-client privilege prevents it from coming into evidence. Remember that even if a statement is admissible under one rule (for example, a hearsay exception), it may still be inadmissible under another rule. Answer choice D is incorrect, as it does not matter if the physician here would constitute an expert witness. The physician here is not being called by the defendant’s counsel to give expert testimony, but to provide evidence that the plaintiff may herself have been negligent.

I think it's ridiculous that the physician would be considered "a person who is employed to assist the attorney in providing legal services." The physician isn't employed by the attorney for that purpose, he's not the attorney's employee. Does this mean that if the attorney in a car accident case goes with the defendant to take the car to a mechanic for a damage assessment, any admissions made by the defendant while at the garage would be exempt?

I did this question yesterday, and it got me so frustrated because I agree with you. I thought for sure, that the presence of the doctor would be a third party that ruins the A-C privilege.

When I read the explanation, I though okay, it says she went there solely for litigation purposes but still he doesn't work for the lawyer. I have no idea where to draw the line. I was always under the assumption that it was limited to paralegals/investigators working for the attorney on the case.

I picked A and got this one right. The question clearly tells you that the lawyer sent his client to the physician to get checked out. Therefore, the physician was acting as an investigator/agent of the lawyer and would not destroy the A/C privilege.

[numbertwo88]

This may help someone. It helped me because I hate mortgages from the depths of my soul.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a1d88tvkkytf3 ... andout.pdf