California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[CALawGirl]

People deal with things/anxiety differently. Maybe forgetting about the Bar works for some and that's fine. But you don't know everyone's story and what passing or failing means to someone or if this is a 2nd, 3rd, 4th attempt at the Bar. So even if there's nothing we can do or we are crying over spilled milk, as long as we are not hurting YOU, don't worry about us. Besides, if you don't care, why are you logging in here and checking?

This is our way of dealing with it & maybe it's taking us longer than you, so what? It's our stress, our headache, our pain. So, if you don't have anything comforting or encouraging...

Let us be. Let us mourn, let us kick ourselves for missing stuff, or the shoulda, woulda, coulda. I will not apologize for dealing this the Bar MY way! You don't have to like or understand it but for the sake of humanity, respect it or at the very least ignore.

Thank you.

Talking about it here won't help you pass the bar

True! But going out and having fun won't help me pass the bar either. So in the interim, let me deal with it MY way. At the end of the day, MY time, MY computer, MY suffering, MY everything. You deal with it YOUR way; I deal with it MY way. Got it? We don't need to be jerks towards each other, we have different views, that's it.

[DwightSchruteFarms]

Jesus Christ are you guys still talking bout the exam? ! Go out and have some fun! No sense labor in giver what issues you may have missed

Why the fuck do you care? Go out and have your fun and let us be.

And stop using the Lord's name in vain, it's not a good look.

Kinda a felt sorry for you when I heard u failed in feb. Not anymore. Enjoy your suffering.

Shots fired.

[MBAtoJD]

Jesus Christ are you guys still talking bout the exam? ! Go out and have some fun! No sense labor in giver what issues you may have missed

Why the fuck do you care? Go out and have your fun and let us be.

And stop using the Lord's name in vain, it's not a good look.

Kinda a felt sorry for you when I heard u failed in feb. Not anymore. Enjoy your suffering.

Shots fired.

[grabs popcorn and wears bulletproof vest]

[dtl]

Am I the only one who felt better about things after the list?

I mean - I totally missed shit. I could kick myself for not thinking of allowing the confession in as impeachment should the P perjure himself or contradict it.

Yet it confirmed for me that I got the majority. At the very least that means there won't be any "you did this one entirely wrong!" surprises come November.

In short: If it stresses you out, don't read it. Some of us find it therapeutic.

[glitter178]

Am I the only one who felt better about things after the list?

I mean - I totally missed shit. I could kick myself for not thinking of allowing the confession in as impeachment should the P perjure himself or contradict it.

Yet it confirmed for me that I got the majority. At the very least that means there won't be any "you did this one entirely wrong!" surprises come November.

In short: If it stresses you out, don't read it. Some of us find it therapeutic.

I feel better about everything except the trusts/ CP essay. I totally bombed that one

[CALawGirl]

Am I the only one who felt better about things after the list?

I mean - I totally missed shit. I could kick myself for not thinking of allowing the confession in as impeachment should the P perjure himself or contradict it.

Yet it confirmed for me that I got the majority. At the very least that means there won't be any "you did this one entirely wrong!" surprises come November.

In short: If it stresses you out, don't read it. Some of us find it therapeutic.

AMEN!!!!

This thread should be a place to vent, worry, scream, share fears, etc. I'd hate for people to hold back because someone is going to tell them to go outside to have fun. It is comforting to be able to express myself to people who are in the same boat & can understand.

I too missed impeachment and that it would come in if D takes the stand. Oh well, I'm hoping that won't cost me too much. I got everything else even the timing issue for requesting to go pro se.

[catechumen]

I missed present sense impression on evidence too.... It fits, but seems a bit of a stretch... There is always going to be a random issue or two that you miss... It's not a deal breaker. One or two MBE's will make up for just about any minor issue.

As for the rest of that list... I still contend that negligence products liability was an issue. But I digress.

Oh and for the record Homer, I think everyone bombed the Trusts/CP essay. There is a reason most of us waited to do it last. I suspect it will be graded easier since so many people did so bad on it. So try not to jump off Springfield Gorge Homer... Unless it's on a skateboard...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmLj2QI54cA

[Carryon]

Am I the only one who felt better about things after the list?

I mean - I totally missed shit. I could kick myself for not thinking of allowing the confession in as impeachment should the P perjure himself or contradict it.

Yet it confirmed for me that I got the majority. At the very least that means there won't be any "you did this one entirely wrong!" surprises come November.

In short: If it stresses you out, don't read it. Some of us find it therapeutic.

AMEN!!!!

This thread should be a place to vent, worry, scream, share fears, etc. I'd hate for people to hold back because someone is going to tell them to go outside to have fun. It is comforting to be able to express myself to people who are in the same boat & can understand.

I too missed impeachment and that it would come in if D takes the stand. Oh well, I'm hoping that won't cost me too much. I got everything else even the timing issue for requesting to go pro se.

I don't remember impeachment being discussed in the non student model answers on any of the past exams involving confessions. However, possibly in this case, the defendant was going to falsely testify, so maybe it would have been allowed for impeachment purposes if he did so and that we were suppose to discuss that situation in our answer. Unfortunately for me, I did not discuss it, but I am still not 100 percent sure that we should have done so. Anybody have any thoughts on this?

[glitter178]

Am I the only one who felt better about things after the list?

I mean - I totally missed shit. I could kick myself for not thinking of allowing the confession in as impeachment should the P perjure himself or contradict it.

Yet it confirmed for me that I got the majority. At the very least that means there won't be any "you did this one entirely wrong!" surprises come November.

In short: If it stresses you out, don't read it. Some of us find it therapeutic.

AMEN!!!!

This thread should be a place to vent, worry, scream, share fears, etc. I'd hate for people to hold back because someone is going to tell them to go outside to have fun. It is comforting to be able to express myself to people who are in the same boat & can understand.

I too missed impeachment and that it would come in if D takes the stand. Oh well, I'm hoping that won't cost me too much. I got everything else even the timing issue for requesting to go pro se.

I don't remember impeachment being discussed in the non student model answers on any of the past exams involving confessions. However, possibly in this case, the defendant was going to falsely testify, so maybe it would have been allowed for impeachment purposes if he did so and that we were suppose to discuss that situation in our answer. Unfortunately for me, I did not discuss it, but I am still not 100 percent sure that we should have done so. Anybody have any thoughts on this?

I am pretty sure the question asked something like whether it could be used/admitted *for any purpose.* I distinctly remember latching onto those three words and assuming they wanted an impeachment discussion.

[Snape]

.

[adonai]

The key to the question was a motion to dismiss the confession by the criminal defendant's lawyer (pre-trial). Impeachment would not be an issue until trial when it could possibly be used to impeach….we had no such facts.

This. Now I remember why I didn't write about it. Seems too outside the scope of the call.

[Snape]

The key to the question was a motion to dismiss the confession by the criminal defendant's lawyer (pre-trial). Impeachment would not be an issue until trial when it could possibly be used to impeach….we had no such facts.

This. Now I remember why I didn't write about it. Seems too outside the scope of the call.

Yeah, I'm sure if you hit the main point a small digression wouldn't hurt at all, but the main call of the question was a pre-trial motion to dismiss the confession. An impeachment would require adding additional facts in a trial that had not yet even started and then undertaking a full scale evidence analysis (relevance/403/etc etc etc) but who knows.

[CALawGirl]

I'm lost. I don't know if the impeachment issue should have been raised (if it needed to be raised at all) under (1) admitting the confession or (2) under whether the attorney can refuse his client to testify. A couple of people have mentioned the call having a "...for any purpose" and I just don't remember that phrase. I'm just finding comfort in the fact that you don't need to raise ALL issues to pass.

[Snape]

.

[glitter178]

I'm lost. I don't know if the impeachment issue should have been raised (if it needed to be raised at all) under (1) admitting the confession or (2) under whether the attorney can refuse his client to testify. A couple of people have mentioned the call having a "...for any purpose" and I just don't remember that phrase. I'm just finding comfort in the fact that you don't need to raise ALL issues to pass.

I am extremely sure I remember the phrase "for any purpose."/ a variant. Doesn't mean it warranted an extended discussion.

[Snape]

is a huge no-no.

[Jay Heizenburg]

The key to the question was a motion to dismiss the confession by the criminal defendant's lawyer (pre-trial). Impeachment would not be an issue until trial when it could possibly be used to impeach….we had no such facts.

This, too. That's what I kept telling myself, "There are no facts to support Impeachment."

Besides, Impeachment is more in line with Evidence than with Criminal Procedure.

[glitter178]

Re: the "for any reason" phrase: I am not saying that it warranted a huge discussion. I certainly didn't give it one. But for whatever reason, that phrase is burned into my memory with this question (alongside with the week before trial timeliness issue). I am very confident that none of us will fail/ pass on this "issue", regardless. I wish us all 1440+, esp given that we are discussing this on a Friday night almost a month after the fact....

Eta: Reason/ purpose/ whatever. I'm enjoying a little bourbon right now..

[Jay Heizenburg]

I'm lost. I don't know if the impeachment issue should have been raised (if it needed to be raised at all) under (1) admitting the confession or (2) under whether the attorney can refuse his client to testify. A couple of people have mentioned the call having a "...for any purpose" and I just don't remember that phrase. I'm just finding comfort in the fact that you don't need to raise ALL issues to pass.

I am extremely sure I remember the phrase "for any purpose."/ a variant. Doesn't mean it warranted an extended discussion.

Alright, so what was your Impeachment analysis then?

I think it has to be along the line of:

"Here, If D takes the stand and testifies falsely he can be Impeached with his previously excluded confession ... But D will counter that that confession was coerced when after invoking his right to remain silent P threatened to tell the DA that D was uncooperative."

It comes off as very speculative minor issue. We should be fine on that issue either way.

[LawJunky]

Hello fellow bar exam takers.

I took the exam in Pasadena. I have been reading this thread since I discovered it right after the test. I was mocked by someone who considers any inquiry into the test's content to be obsessing over the exam. I disagree, but I kept her input in the back of my mind to make sure I did not go overboard and actually start obsessing ... I am very happy to see there are like minded people on this board - who find value in discussing the test.

The bar exam was the most challenging thing I have ever done, and I enjoyed every bit of my preparation. Hearing the posters debate the issues on each essay has been a fascinating exercise. I thank you for writing and sharing your thoughts. Most of all, your posts are giving me confidence that I may have a remote shot at passing. If I fail, I'll just take it again in Feb.

In the Trusts exam, since there was a charitable trust that failed ( the charity did not perform to the settlor's trust purpose), wouldn't Cy Pres be an issue to raise? And since there are no ascertainable beneficiaries in a charitable trust, wouldn't the rule against perpetuities be worth mentioning? I guess not since no one here has mentioned it. I sorta hit the other issues discussed by members of this board so your writings have been a welcome sight.

Again, thank you for posting so much good stuff.

[kerryconverse]

The prompt definitely said "for any purpose," which I thought was the hint to talk about impeachment

...stilll sweating the mbe every day.

[jarofsoup]

I'm lost. I don't know if the impeachment issue should have been raised (if it needed to be raised at all) under (1) admitting the confession or (2) under whether the attorney can refuse his client to testify. A couple of people have mentioned the call having a "...for any purpose" and I just don't remember that phrase. I'm just finding comfort in the fact that you don't need to raise ALL issues to pass.

I am extremely sure I remember the phrase "for any purpose."/ a variant. Doesn't mean it warranted an extended discussion.

Alright, so what was your Impeachment analysis then?

I think it has to be along the line of:

"Here, If D takes the stand and testifies falsely he can be Impeached with his previously excluded confession ... But D will counter that that confession was coerced when after invoking his right to remain silent P threatened to tell the DA that D was uncooperative."



It comes off as very speculative minor issue. We should be fine on that issue either way.

It was really one sentence issue and saying that the assertion was incorrect. I think you guys are over analyzing this.

It came up like: "The defense moves to have the evidence suppressed and does not want it to come in for "any purpose."

Then the analysis goes like.

RULE for exclusion/Grounds for exclusion. Here....

However, while the evidence should be excluded from the prosecutors case in chief because it was obtained in violation of [XYZ], the prosecutor may still use it for impeachment purposes.

By the way if you have taken crim pro threats to tell the DA would not be a coerced confession.

[CALawGirl]

I'm lost. I don't know if the impeachment issue should have been raised (if it needed to be raised at all) under (1) admitting the confession or (2) under whether the attorney can refuse his client to testify. A couple of people have mentioned the call having a "...for any purpose" and I just don't remember that phrase. I'm just finding comfort in the fact that you don't need to raise ALL issues to pass.

I am extremely sure I remember the phrase "for any purpose."/ a variant. Doesn't mean it warranted an extended discussion.

Alright, so what was your Impeachment analysis then?

I think it has to be along the line of:

"Here, If D takes the stand and testifies falsely he can be Impeached with his previously excluded confession ... But D will counter that that confession was coerced when after invoking his right to remain silent P threatened to tell the DA that D was uncooperative."



It comes off as very speculative minor issue. We should be fine on that issue either way.

It was really one sentence issue and saying that the assertion was incorrect. I think you guys are over analyzing this.

It came up like: "The defense moves to have the evidence suppressed and does not want it to come in for "any purpose."

Then the analysis goes like.

RULE for exclusion/Grounds for exclusion. Here....

However, while the evidence should be excluded from the prosecutors case in chief because it was obtained in violation of [XYZ], the prosecutor may still use it for impeachment purposes.

By the way if you have taken crim pro threats to tell the DA would not be a coerced confession.

YES! Thanks, Jarofsoup. Now, I remember the "for any purpose" phrase. That was actually in the facts & not in the call which is why I didn't remember. So, yes...Impeachment was definitely an issue. It makes perfect sense.

Darn...if I could go back in time, I would switch my 14th A voluntariness analysis for the Impeachment analysis. Too late now!

[Carryon]

Hello fellow bar exam takers.

I took the exam in Pasadena. I have been reading this thread since I discovered it right after the test. I was mocked by someone who considers any inquiry into the test's content to be obsessing over the exam. I disagree, but I kept her input in the back of my mind to make sure I did not go overboard and actually start obsessing ... I am very happy to see there are like minded people on this board - who find value in discussing the test.

The bar exam was the most challenging thing I have ever done, and I enjoyed every bit of my preparation. Hearing the posters debate the issues on each essay has been a fascinating exercise. I thank you for writing and sharing your thoughts. Most of all, your posts are giving me confidence that I may have a remote shot at passing. If I fail, I'll just take it again in Feb.

In the Trusts exam, since there was a charitable trust that failed ( the charity did not perform to the settlor's trust purpose), wouldn't Cy Pres be an issue to raise? And since there are no ascertainable beneficiaries in a charitable trust, wouldn't the rule against perpetuities be worth mentioning? I guess not since no one here has mentioned it. I sorta hit the other issues discussed by members of this board so your writings have been a welcome sight.

Again, thank you for posting so much good stuff.

I mentioned cy pres, but the rule against perpetuities does not apply for charitable trusts.

[Jay Heizenburg]

I'm lost. I don't know if the impeachment issue should have been raised (if it needed to be raised at all) under (1) admitting the confession or (2) under whether the attorney can refuse his client to testify. A couple of people have mentioned the call having a "...for any purpose" and I just don't remember that phrase. I'm just finding comfort in the fact that you don't need to raise ALL issues to pass.

I am extremely sure I remember the phrase "for any purpose."/ a variant. Doesn't mean it warranted an extended discussion.

Alright, so what was your Impeachment analysis then?

I think it has to be along the line of:

"Here, If D takes the stand and testifies falsely he can be Impeached with his previously excluded confession ... But D will counter that that confession was coerced when after invoking his right to remain silent P threatened to tell the DA that D was uncooperative."



It comes off as very speculative minor issue. We should be fine on that issue either way.

It was really one sentence issue and saying that the assertion was incorrect. I think you guys are over analyzing this.

It came up like: "The defense moves to have the evidence suppressed and does not want it to come in for "any purpose."

Then the analysis goes like.

RULE for exclusion/Grounds for exclusion. Here....

However, while the evidence should be excluded from the prosecutors case in chief because it was obtained in violation of [XYZ], the prosecutor may still use it for impeachment purposes.

By the way if you have taken crim pro threats to tell the DA would not be a coerced confession.

I can barely understand this, but what is your definition of an interrogation?