Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2014 Exam Forum

[Lasers]

anyone gonna take the simulated test at ucla?

i'm considering it, but i'm not certain. even though i'm way behind in terms of practice, i'll be done with all the substantive review (i.e. my stupid quick once overs) by then so maybe...

[TooManyLoans]

This was one of the "best" essays on the NJ bar for this particular question. Makes me wonder.

"1) The testimony of Mark is inadmissible under the Hearsay Exception of Dying declaration.

Relevant testimony is any evidence which tends to prove or disprove an element evidence is Admissible as a general rule; However, there are many exceptions including Hearsay. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the matter asserted. Hearsay is generally inadmissible however there are many exceptions.

A Dying declaration is an out of court statement made by a declarant in the face of impending death. The judge should rule that the test for Brian’s statement was subjectively met. Further Dying Declarations are admissible in criminal trials and the statements must pertain to the circumstances surrounding the death. This exception is allowed because dying people are supposedly less likely to lie in the face of death.

Brian’s testimony is relevant because it tends to show motive for Stacey wanting to kill him. The testimony that Stacey was embezzling money and he was on his way to tell the authorities. In additional Stacey is on trial for murder not embezzlement so the prosecution can argue that the statement is being introduced to show motive rather than truth of the matter asserted.

In this case because Brian’s testimony is relevant and goes to show both motive as well as possible circumstances surrounding his death, the evidence should be rules admissible."

As someone studying for NJ this makes me feel at ease.

[Shawshank33]

An eight-year-old girl went to the grocery store with her mother. The girl pushed the grocery cart while her mother put items into it. The girl's mother remained near her at all times. The plaintiff, another customer in the store, noticed the girl pushing the cart in a manner that caused the plaintiff no concern. A short time later, the cart that the girl was pushing struck the plaintiff in the knee, inflicting serious injury. If the plaintiff brings an action, based on negligence, against the grocery store, the store's best defense will be that
A. A store owes no duty to its customers to control the use of its shopping carts.
B. A store owes no duty to its customers to control the conduct of other customers.
C. Any negligence of the store was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury.
D. A supervised child pushing a cart does not pose an unreasonable risk to other customers.

Did anybody figure out the answer to this yet??? Seems like the consensus is D, but I'm leaning towards B. Only because elements of negligence are duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages. So it seems like the best defense would be to assert that you owe no duty to the plaintiff. It would kill the whole chain right?

Grocery store shoppers are invitees – members of the public who come onto land held open to them and who do so for the purpose for which the land is held open. Such people reasonably expect that the premises have been made safe for them, and the owner must exercise reasonable care for the safety of such people. Reasonable care by the owner may require that she exercise control over third persons on the premises. But the fact pattern indicates that the mother was near her child at all times and that the plaintiff herself was not concerned by child's pushing of the grocery cart. Under these circumstances, it does not appear that the child posed an unreasonable risk to the grocery shoppers. (D) is the best answer.

[071816]

anyone gonna take the simulated test at ucla?

i'm considering it, but i'm not certain. even though i'm way behind in terms of practice, i'll be done with all the substantive review (i.e. my stupid quick once overs) by then so maybe...

I was considering it, but ucla is pretty far from me (although it's the closest to me out of all the locations). I'll probably just end up doing it at home this week

[dreakol]

This was one of the "best" essays on the NJ bar for this particular question. Makes me wonder.

"1) The testimony of Mark is inadmissible under the Hearsay Exception of Dying declaration.

Relevant testimony is any evidence which tends to prove or disprove an element evidence is Admissible as a general rule; However, there are many exceptions including Hearsay. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the matter asserted. Hearsay is generally inadmissible however there are many exceptions.

A Dying declaration is an out of court statement made by a declarant in the face of impending death. The judge should rule that the test for Brian’s statement was subjectively met. Further Dying Declarations are admissible in criminal trials and the statements must pertain to the circumstances surrounding the death. This exception is allowed because dying people are supposedly less likely to lie in the face of death.

Brian’s testimony is relevant because it tends to show motive for Stacey wanting to kill him. The testimony that Stacey was embezzling money and he was on his way to tell the authorities. In additional Stacey is on trial for murder not embezzlement so the prosecution can argue that the statement is being introduced to show motive rather than truth of the matter asserted.

In this case because Brian’s testimony is relevant and goes to show both motive as well as possible circumstances surrounding his death, the evidence should be rules admissible."

As someone studying for NJ this makes me feel at ease.

I've been looking at model answers for my state and none of them really stand out. Are model answers a fair indicator of what is expected in the essays? I remember reading somewhere that it wasn't wise to base how well you need to write an essay based off state released model answers but I can't imagine the bar is trying to trick anyone.

[simonesa]

anyone else going to take the simulated mbe on Wednesday aT NYU (NY Bar) and How much of the Practice MBE Have People Completed. Im only at 53 percent

I am going. I am at 61% overall (NY & NJ), and I've completed less than 50% of the MBE PQs. I get way too distracted taking simulated exams in my apartment or even in the library.

[themis513]

Anyone else feeling overwhelmed by evidence? Wayyy worse than NY CPLR!!!

[Tanicius]

anyone else going to take the simulated mbe on Wednesday aT NYU (NY Bar) and How much of the Practice MBE Have People Completed. Im only at 53 percent

I am going. I am at 61% overall (NY & NJ), and I've completed less than 50% of the MBE PQs. I get way too distracted taking simulated exams in my apartment or even in the library.

It would be awesome if these prep companies could design PC programs (not just cell phone apps, but actual programs for our computers) that shut down all other programs on our computer when we're taking practice tests, and the only way out of the program is to cancel your entire answer sheet or submit it with every answer filled in. That would work wonders for me. I'd just leave my cell phone, go to the library, and BAM, two uninterrupted hours of practice questions.

[simonesa]

Anyone else feeling overwhelmed by evidence? Wayyy worse than NY CPLR!!!

I didn't take evidence in law school, and I am regretting that decision now. I made a little hearsay chart, but other than that, I think I am going to have to cut my loses and focus on other areas.

And all the NY distinctions can go to hell. Really, I feel like NY is being difficult for no reason when it comes to some of this stuff.

[Tanicius]

I pretty much know none of my essay materials. Like none of it. I vaguely remember Jeffries saying that joinder is almost always permissible, so there' that. Oh, and a court will punish just about everything in any legal subject matter anywhere if there's fraud, so I try to smell fraud whenever possible in my answers.

[Genuine4ps]

Anyone else feeling overwhelmed by evidence? Wayyy worse than NY CPLR!!!

I didn't take evidence in law school, and I am regretting that decision now. I made a little hearsay chart, but other than that, I think I am going to have to cut my loses and focus on other areas.

And all the NY distinctions can go to hell. Really, I feel like NY is being difficult for no reason when it comes to some of this stuff.

It amazes me that evidence was not required course at some schools. How common is it for law schools to make it optional.

I'm also fairly surprised that some schools don't require crim pro.

[Genuine4ps]

I pretty much know none of my essay materials. Like none of it. I vaguely remember Jeffries saying that joinder is almost always permissible, so there' that. Oh, and a court will punish just about everything in any legal subject matter anywhere if there's fraud, so I try to smell fraud whenever possible in my answers.

I think this is one problem with Themis's approach. Their heavy workload forces us to neglect subjects after we've competed them. We end up not retaining the information, because we don't see it for relatively long period of time.

I'm behind, because I've been going to back and reviewing subjects even when Themis hasn't told me to. While I still don't remember everything, I at least have much of it stored in my mind.

[Tanicius]

Anyone else feeling overwhelmed by evidence? Wayyy worse than NY CPLR!!!

I didn't take evidence in law school, and I am regretting that decision now. I made a little hearsay chart, but other than that, I think I am going to have to cut my loses and focus on other areas.

And all the NY distinctions can go to hell. Really, I feel like NY is being difficult for no reason when it comes to some of this stuff.

It amazes me that evidence was not required course at some schools. How common is it for law schools to make it optional.

I'm also fairly surprised that some schools don't require crim pro.

The ABA just needs to come clean and admit that transactions and business litigation are entirely their own areas of license, completely separate from criminal litigation, as is property law. We should be able to get a separate license to practice criminal law, which should require evidence and all-things criminal, and we should be able to get a separate license to practice stuff related to corporations/partnership law, a separate license to do family law and wills/trusts, etc. If you want to be an attorney who can practice in every legal realm possible, then great for you -- sign up for every specialty bar certification possible and go wild, you Shitlaw Gunner, you. But as for me, yeah I'd much rather study just criminal law, procedure, and evidence right now, and leave everything related to torts, businesses, regulatory law and contracts for when I ponder going into private practice 10+ years from now.

Whatever. A month from now, I bet my concern for the legal profession's outdated licensing procedures will... diminish.

[jigglypuffdreams]

[/quote]
It amazes me that evidence was not required course at some schools. How common is it for law schools to make it optional.

I'm also fairly surprised that some schools don't require crim pro.[/quote]


At my mediocre T2, everything after 1L was optional except for professional responsibility. And I've heard better schools are even less likely to require bar subjects. I'm glad I made myself take con law II (only the basic "how the three branches of government work" con law I stuff was actually required), evidence, and criminal procedure, or I'd be screwed teaching myself every nuance of the MBE materials in two months. Memorizing some of the essay stuff isn't bad (although trying to understand commercial paper and secured transactions is not very fun), but understanding the details the MBE seems to test on would be a lot trickier.

[themis513]

Anyone else feeling overwhelmed by evidence? Wayyy worse than NY CPLR!!!

I didn't take evidence in law school, and I am regretting that decision now. I made a little hearsay chart, but other than that, I think I am going to have to cut my loses and focus on other areas.

And all the NY distinctions can go to hell. Really, I feel like NY is being difficult for no reason when it comes to some of this stuff.

It amazes me that evidence was not required course at some schools. How common is it for law schools to make it optional.

I'm also fairly surprised that some schools don't require crim pro.

It was mandatory at my school but im still struggling! I didn't go to school in NY so thats definitely kicking my ass right now as well. But I am also cutting my losses when it comes to the essay portion. Only problem is that im also performing very poorly on the MBE questions for evidence. With other MBE subjects reading through the materials helps with retention. But with evidence I am having a hard time understanding in the first place so theres not much retention.

I am praying to god that as i keep seeing the material it will click bc otherwise I don't know what others tactics I can use to understand the material.

BTW the NY evidence professor was wayyyyy better than the MBE evidence professor. I picked up more of the fed law from her lectures than I did the MBE lectures!!

[numbertwo88]

I wish the handouts were not fill in the blank. Because this is annoying as hell.

Has anyone just correlated the long outlines to the handouts? I am so over spending time watching 5 million segments on essay topics that may or may not show up on the bar exam.

[Genuine4ps]

[Tanicius]

Yeah, now that I have no lecture videos left, my study time is basically five minutes of reading an outline and absorbing maybe 5% of it, then 30 minutes of TLS and Reddit. The only thing I can sit down and do effectively are practice MBE questions. For essay outlines I'm fucked.

[j1987]

It amazes me that evidence was not required course at some schools. How common is it for law schools to make it optional.

I'm also fairly surprised that some schools don't require crim pro.

My school required Evidence, as well as "Business Associations" which was agency/partnerships/corporations. Crim Pro wasn't required, but it was HIGHLY recommended as was Wills, Trusts, and Estates. I took all these classes, and I'm glad I did because at least some of this stuff is familiar.

[Genuine4ps]

Anyone ele's short outlines disappear? I can't find them anymore under "my communication."

[lsutiger1987]

The MPT section is really scaring me. I looked at the lecture and I'm so confused. Should I be worried?

[Lilly76]

I pretty much know none of my essay materials. Like none of it. I vaguely remember Jeffries saying that joinder is almost always permissible, so there' that. Oh, and a court will punish just about everything in any legal subject matter anywhere if there's fraud, so I try to smell fraud whenever possible in my answers.

I think this is one problem with Themis's approach. Their heavy workload forces us to neglect subjects after we've competed them. We end up not retaining the information, because we don't see it for relatively long period of time.

I'm behind, because I've been going to back and reviewing subjects even when Themis hasn't told me to. While I still don't remember everything, I at least have much of it stored in my mind.

This. I was going over some questions from Milestone 1 that I'd taken weeks ago, and I felt like I couldn't remember any property law because I hadn't dealt with it in forever. Hopefully I've retained enough for things to just start coming back when I read a question.

[northwood]

have some faith in yourselves. if you spent time working on subjects you may amaze yourself at how much you either know your remember, or instinctively know ( trust your gut) to be correct or incorrect, even if you cant put exact themis-defined vocabulary words or explanations to it.

y'all got this... Get your pom-poms ready and be your own cheerleader

[Tanicius]

The MPT section is really scaring me. I looked at the lecture and I'm so confused. Should I be worried?

The MPT is really only something you can learn by doing. Take 90 minutes tonight or tomorrow and do one. It's not as hard as it sounds. Just stick to the suggested time blocks: 25 minutes to read everything in the following order: Examination Instructions --> Assignment Letter --> Statutes and Case law --> Fact pattern materials. Then 20 minutes to outline, and 45 minutes to write.

You will be pleasantly surprised to find you can do it because this is actually one of the few tasks on the bar that law school did a very good job preparing you for. Most of the lecture suggestions are just about reading closely and following the instructions provided. Do that and you will not come even close to failing the MPT.

[d3sp]

Does anybody else get frustrated when you complete all the reading and lectures for an essay topic, review your notes, and find that the three were wholly inadequate to prepare for the practice essay questions? I know they try to narrow the field of knowledge we have to learn into smaller categories, but it's awfully disconcerting when my essay practice questions are not even fully covered in the material!