Yep, put me in this group too. Evidence and Con law are my toughest subject, and after the FRE portion of review I was still worried.... then the CA distinctions made me want to throw my laptop.LSATNightmares wrote:LOL as well. That was me with the CA distinctions lecture. It's hard enough keeping the FRE details in your mind.ph14 wrote:Lol at the bolded. I felt the same way.pkt63 wrote:I'd like to know this too. It is disturbing when the CMR is different from the lecture. Also, "reading" the California Evidence Distinctions in the CMR made me cry.jd20132013 wrote:How necessary is the CMR reading if you're trying to catch up? Seems like the lectures are supposed to highlight the must knows and i could use those extra hours to double up
However, I asked a couple of former graders and they said not to worry too much about every little distinction. One of my practice essays had 4 interrogatories and asked to answer according to CA law. Three of them I had no problem with (one was actually the same as FRE) but I could not remember the distinction for the 4th. I wrote according to FRE because I figured a correct application of inapplicable law was better than incorrect CA law application. Two graders said that was fine and they would not have deducted points at all; a third grader said that she would have knocked off a few points, but not that much as long as I applied the FRE properly.
That made me feel a little better. I'm going to scan through the CA distinctions to know the big differences, but I think I may just study up on FRE and take the minor hit if I can't figure out the distinction.
Also, fuck evidence.