Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[rcharter1978]

Is voluntary intox a defense to involuntary manslaughter?

No, voluntary intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes.

I swear I saw a question about this that didn't make sense on either Themis or Adaptibar but I cannot find it now. If the intoxication makes it so that the defendant couldn't appreciate the significant risk, then maybe it can be a defense?

I don't think so, the only loophole I could think of is if the involuntary manslaughter is a charge because it was a death during the commission of a specific intent felony that was not under the first degree felony murder rule.

In that case, I can see a situation where the voluntary intoxication would negate the specific intent requirement of the underlying crime and therefore you wouldn't be able to establish the underlying crime and therefore the involuntary manslaughter charge.

But, for voluntary intoxication, it shouldn't be a defense to general intent crimes/crimes of negligence, AFAIK.

[TLSModBot]

Is voluntary intox a defense to involuntary manslaughter?

No, voluntary intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes.

I swear I saw a question about this that didn't make sense on either Themis or Adaptibar but I cannot find it now. If the intoxication makes it so that the defendant couldn't appreciate the significant risk, then maybe it can be a defense?

Voluntary intoxication where you don't fully appreciate the intoxicating effects can in some circumstances become involuntary intoxication - maybe that's what you're thinking of?

[rcharter1978]

Is voluntary intox a defense to involuntary manslaughter?

No, voluntary intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes.

I swear I saw a question about this that didn't make sense on either Themis or Adaptibar but I cannot find it now. If the intoxication makes it so that the defendant couldn't appreciate the significant risk, then maybe it can be a defense?

Voluntary intoxication where you don't fully appreciate the intoxicating effects can in some circumstances become involuntary intoxication - maybe that's what you're thinking of?

I took Barbri, but I had never heard of the idea that if you voluntarily drank/became intoxicated that it may become involuntary intoxication if you didn't appreciate the intoxicating effects of something that is intoxicating (drugs, liquor).

I suppose since involuntary intoxication in unknowingly becoming intoxicated, if you were RX'd a drug that you didn't realize would make you loopy and it did perhaps that counts as involuntary intoxication.

Interesting.

[TLSModBot]

Is voluntary intox a defense to involuntary manslaughter?

No, voluntary intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes.

I swear I saw a question about this that didn't make sense on either Themis or Adaptibar but I cannot find it now. If the intoxication makes it so that the defendant couldn't appreciate the significant risk, then maybe it can be a defense?

Voluntary intoxication where you don't fully appreciate the intoxicating effects can in some circumstances become involuntary intoxication - maybe that's what you're thinking of?

I took Barbri, but I had never heard of the idea that if you voluntarily drank/became intoxicated that it may become involuntary intoxication if you didn't appreciate the intoxicating effects of something that is intoxicating (drugs, liquor).

I suppose since involuntary intoxication in unknowingly becoming intoxicated, if you were RX'd a drug that you didn't realize would make you loopy and it did perhaps that counts as involuntary intoxication.

Interesting.

Yeah that's pretty much it - if you willingly get drunk and just didn't realize how drunk you were, I don't think that'll get you to involuntary

[BarPreppin'12]

There should be a diploma privilege, like there is in Wisconsin. All this bar study is bullshit!

[Fivedham]

There should be a diploma privilege, like there is in Wisconsin. All this bar study is bullshit!

Frankly, we should be allowed a crack at the bar exam during 2L summer so that when we graduate, we don't have to spend a full summer doing this bullshit. It'd be like med school where they take their boards between their second and third year.

Also, I lost an entire afternoon session for a simulated essay exam because Themis logged me out when I hit submit. Three hours of writing, four full essays, down the drain. Should've done it in Word.

[ChocolateTruffle]

Does anyone know what scale the New York MEE essays are graded on and what's the average score?? Thanks!

[bsktbll28082]

Those MBE analysis videos: worth it? I was just going to go through the test myself.

[rambleon65]

Those MBE analysis videos: worth it? I was just going to go through the test myself.

I found them to only be helpful in that it forced me to go through subject by subject. But that's about it. It also is nice to put on at 2X and paying attention only on questions you need help on.

On the other hand, the guy saying, "this is an easy question" vs. "this is a hard question" blah blah blah... is not very helpful. I found that I got many more of the "hard questions" right than the "easy questions." I think someone else said this on this thread before.

[Easy-E]

Anyone using Emanuel's in addition to Themis? I still have plenty of Themis PQs but I figure I might pick it up and starting doing extra work before bed, and I hear the strategy stuff is very good.

[hogfan1991]

Anyone using Emanuel's in addition to Themis? I still have plenty of Themis PQs but I figure I might pick it up and starting doing extra work before bed, and I hear the strategy stuff is very good.

I have been using it to supplement. These past few days when focusing on specific subjects I have been doing the extra practice questions in those subjects. I think it is good to have another perspective in questions. The questions in Emanuel do seem easier than Themis' for the most part.

[bsktbll28082]

Anyone using Emanuel's in addition to Themis? I still have plenty of Themis PQs but I figure I might pick it up and starting doing extra work before bed, and I hear the strategy stuff is very good.

Yes. The strategy sections are helpful; I think I will reread them actually. My only complaint is the repeat of questions; it's skewing my % on themis.

[Easy-E]

Anyone using Emanuel's in addition to Themis? I still have plenty of Themis PQs but I figure I might pick it up and starting doing extra work before bed, and I hear the strategy stuff is very good.

I have been using it to supplement. These past few days when focusing on specific subjects I have been doing the extra practice questions in those subjects. I think it is good to have another perspective in questions. The questions in Emanuel do seem easier than Themis' for the most part.

Well that's good, assuming Themis is more difficult rather than more accurate. I might just grab it, because why not at this point.

I'm been doing the same thing this week. Revising my outline against the FRO and my missed PQs, then doing the optional set for each MBE topic. Should be done on Friday or Saturday, gonna do the practice MBE (finally) on Monday/Tuesday, and then just 50 question sets + outline essays like crazy.

[Easy-E]

Anyone using Emanuel's in addition to Themis? I still have plenty of Themis PQs but I figure I might pick it up and starting doing extra work before bed, and I hear the strategy stuff is very good.

Yes. The strategy sections are helpful; I think I will reread them actually. My only complaint is the repeat of questions; it's skewing my % on themis.

I'm finding some repeats on the option sets from Themis. The contracts one had like 3 pairs of questions with the same underlying substance.

[Easy-E]

Just wanna make sure I got this right. So, invoking right to counsel and Blockburger test.

D gets caught in the act of bribing a public official. He's arrested, and properly invokes his right to counsel. Three days later, the official admits D also sells him crack. Police can arrest D and interrogate him as to the drug charge, assuming he slinging crack and bribery both require an independent element to be proven.

Right?

[mu13ski]

Just wanna make sure I got this right. So, invoking right to counsel and Blockburger test.

D gets caught in the act of bribing a public official. He's arrested, and properly invokes his right to counsel. Three days later, the official admits D also sells him crack. Police can arrest D and interrogate him as to the drug charge, assuming he slinging crack and bribery both require an independent element to be proven.

Right?

Yup. That's my understanding.

[rambleon65]

I love it when Themis tells you to write around 700-900 words per essay but then gives you a 2000 word sample response...

[Easy-E]

I love it when Themis tells you to write around 700-900 words per essay but then gives you a 2000 word sample response...

I believe that's called being:

"Themed right in the Themer"

[Fivedham]

I love it when Themis tells you to write around 700-900 words per essay but then gives you a 2000 word sample response...

For Pennsylvania essays, they just copy and paste the PA Bar Examiners' ridiculously over-detailed sample answer. Like, come on Themis, this is publicly available info, why am I paying you over a grand to see stuff that I could've gotten for free. They should be writing their own model answers.

[Easy-E]

Do you just treat an administrative warrant just like a normal, police warrant?

[BigZuck]

Do you just treat an administrative warrant just like a normal, police warrant?

There's a small section on this in the full outline, I can't really remember what differences there might be and I've only had one question on it (Fireman searching house for cause of arson). I think it's just that admin warrants can only look for certain things (like cause of a fire) but if they stumble on other stuff in plain view or whatever that can be turned over to police and D is screwed as always.

IDK maybe that's not right. If there is a question on the real bar about admin warrants I'm just going to stop taking the test right there and ragequit just purely based on principal. I suggest you do the same.

[mu13ski]

Starting to try and review/memorize state specific rules (IL). How am I supposed to remember these quirky rules on top of everything else?

[Easy-E]

Do you just treat an administrative warrant just like a normal, police warrant?

There's a small section on this in the full outline, I can't really remember what differences there might be and I've only had one question on it (Fireman searching house for cause of arson). I think it's just that admin warrants can only look for certain things (like cause of a fire) but if they stumble on other stuff in plain view or whatever that can be turned over to police and D is screwed as always.

IDK maybe that's not right. If there is a question on the real bar about admin warrants I'm just going to stop taking the test right there and ragequit just purely based on principal. I suggest you do the same.

That's the only question I've seen as well. I thought it was even more relaxed for them for some reason, but then that question said he exceeded the scope of the warrant, which was to search the house for proof of the cause of the fire. Didn't say "only the burned portion" (found evidence in the unburned upstairs that the homeowner did it).

Bailing seems fair too.

[ndp1234]

Do you just treat an administrative warrant just like a normal, police warrant?

There's a small section on this in the full outline, I can't really remember what differences there might be and I've only had one question on it (Fireman searching house for cause of arson). I think it's just that admin warrants can only look for certain things (like cause of a fire) but if they stumble on other stuff in plain view or whatever that can be turned over to police and D is screwed as always.

IDK maybe that's not right. If there is a question on the real bar about admin warrants I'm just going to stop taking the test right there and ragequit just purely based on principal. I suggest you do the same.

That's the only question I've seen as well. I thought it was even more relaxed for them for some reason, but then that question said he exceeded the scope of the warrant, which was to search the house for proof of the cause of the fire. Didn't say "only the burned portion" (found evidence in the unburned upstairs that the homeowner did it).

Bailing seems fair too.

This is how I think of it. Typically need an administrative warrant to search a dwelling or commercial building not subject to heavy regulation. No admin warrant needed if the commercial building is a highly regulated industry/business. Ex: The Dept of Buildings needs a warrant to search my home. However, the department of Health does not need a warrant to search a restaurant for compliance.

[BigZuck]

Do you just treat an administrative warrant just like a normal, police warrant?

There's a small section on this in the full outline, I can't really remember what differences there might be and I've only had one question on it (Fireman searching house for cause of arson). I think it's just that admin warrants can only look for certain things (like cause of a fire) but if they stumble on other stuff in plain view or whatever that can be turned over to police and D is screwed as always.

IDK maybe that's not right. If there is a question on the real bar about admin warrants I'm just going to stop taking the test right there and ragequit just purely based on principal. I suggest you do the same.

That's the only question I've seen as well. I thought it was even more relaxed for them for some reason, but then that question said he exceeded the scope of the warrant, which was to search the house for proof of the cause of the fire. Didn't say "only the burned portion" (found evidence in the unburned upstairs that the homeowner did it).

Bailing seems fair too.

I don't really remember the specifics of the question other than "Fireman walking in burned house" but I got it right, I think it's because he was supposed to find evidence of the cause of the fire itself so sifting through the burnt stuff below was ok. But, he couldn't go upstairs because that part wasn't burnt.

Basically, he could find "the source" of the fire in so far as the physical source of the fire. But, he couldn't find "the source" of the fire meaning, like, evidence of who the arsonist was.

Not sure if that makes any sense and I could be wrong. Again, if it comes up I quit and I expect everyone ITT to do the same.