MD Bar Exam- July 2015- Thoughts Forum

[NYKfanAIesq]

I basically just answered the family law question based off knowing grandparents weren't guaranteed anything + rational person analysis. Had no idea about the SCOTUS case.

I had no idea about the SCOTUS case either.. A quick google search found me this:

http://m.peoples-law.org/grandparent-visitation-rights

[nomolawskool2]

What did you guys think about the Crim Pro? Reasonable suspicion for Terry Stop after observing drug dealer enter and exit car, but subsequent search illegal.... or full blown probable cause to search for evidence of the crime?

[NYKfanAIesq]

For the family law essay, I understood analysis to be as follows: Bio parents have fundamental right to decide who can come into contact with child (Trox). If parent objects to third party visitation, then the TP must show (1) bio parent is unfit OR (2) exceptional circumstances. If TP can show either of these then do best interests of child analysis to determine whether granting visitation is warranted. In that question, no evidence that surviving parent was unfit or that exceptional circumstnaces exist to override his objection to continued contact with maternal grandparents.

I hit a lot of those points, also mentioned George's wishes as far as the g-parents because he told the kids to forget about the late mom Donna or whatever her name was..

[NYKfanAIesq]

Any thoughts on the easement Q?

[nomolawskool2]

I struggled with that one...freaking hate property.

I said company probably had right to easement by necessity despite knowing that parcel was landlocked before buying it since the 3 parcels all used to be owned by Jones or whoever. I don't remember there being a "knowledge" element to easements by necessity but I may have screwed that up. I said no chance of imposing this easement over the north parcel instead of the client's because that was not an original component of the Jones' parcel.

I mentioned that client should check to see if an easement by prescription existed over northern parcel because there was evidence of prior use. If the company's parcel had such an easement, then there would be no necessity to impose one over the client's land. I pointed out that, even if the prior owners of hte nursery had obtained a right of passage at some point, it probably had been abandoned by their selling the parcel + nonuse.

I completely blanked in regarsd to where the easement would probably be imposed. Because the client's parcel and the one right above it were both part of the Jones' estate and therefore both subject to the easement, I said it should probably go over their border line since hte question mentioned this was the miost direct route. I forgot to mention that client could probably be compensated by company for any decrease in value caused by easement.

Either way, I don't think it matters if we got the law wrong as long as we backed up our mistakes with some "lawyerly" analysis.

[FrattyBoh]

What did you guys think about the Crim Pro? Reasonable suspicion for Terry Stop after observing drug dealer enter and exit car, but subsequent search illegal.... or full blown probable cause to search for evidence of the crime?

So that question could have gone both ways. Maryland judges love to uphold searches, and will find probable cause from basically anything (MD COA recently upheld "furtive movements" as sufficient PC in a drug search case). The great thing about the 4A is how easy it is to argue both sides. Especially in a state that's very PC-friendly.

I think one could competently argue that there was probable cause (bizarre transaction by a known drug dealer). Md police routinely arrest people for hand-to-hand and "package" swaps by known drug dealers. Probably 60% of Baltimore drug arrests are based on these stakeout transactions. They're almost always upheld.

[FrattyBoh]

Any thoughts on the easement Q?

So long as you spotted all the potential issues (prior use, necessity, prescription, etc) and analyzed throughly, I think you'll be fine.

[FrattyBoh]

One of my friends didn't even finish the MPT and completely blanked out about easements (for some reason, he just couldn't think up the word "easement""), and had a difficult time on the other essays.

Gahhhhhgg

Damn. It's almost impossible to pass if you bomb an essay and weren't almost perfect on the others. Not remembering the term "easement" on an easement question is rough. Yikes.

[NYKfanAIesq]

What did you guys think about the Crim Pro? Reasonable suspicion for Terry Stop after observing drug dealer enter and exit car, but subsequent search illegal.... or full blown probable cause to search for evidence of the crime?

So that question could have gone both ways. Maryland judges love to uphold searches, and will find probable cause from basically anything (MD COA recently upheld "furtive movements" as sufficient PC in a drug search case). The great thing about the 4A is how easy it is to argue both sides. Especially in a state that's very PC-friendly.

I think one could competently argue that there was probable cause (bizarre transaction by a known drug dealer). Md police routinely arrest people for hand-to-hand and "package" swaps by known drug dealers. Probably 60% of Baltimore drug arrests are based on these stakeout transactions. They're almost always upheld.

I argued illegal search but played devil's advocate, so I think I'm okay for this one.. Hopefully

[NYKfanAIesq]

I struggled with that one...freaking hate property.

I said company probably had right to easement by necessity despite knowing that parcel was landlocked before buying it since the 3 parcels all used to be owned by Jones or whoever. I don't remember there being a "knowledge" element to easements by necessity but I may have screwed that up. I said no chance of imposing this easement over the north parcel instead of the client's because that was not an original component of the Jones' parcel.

I mentioned that client should check to see if an easement by prescription existed over northern parcel because there was evidence of prior use. If the company's parcel had such an easement, then there would be no necessity to impose one over the client's land. I pointed out that, even if the prior owners of hte nursery had obtained a right of passage at some point, it probably had been abandoned by their selling the parcel + nonuse.

I completely blanked in regarsd to where the easement would probably be imposed. Because the client's parcel and the one right above it were both part of the Jones' estate and therefore both subject to the easement, I said it should probably go over their border line since hte question mentioned this was the miost direct route. I forgot to mention that client could probably be compensated by company for any decrease in value caused by easement.

Either way, I don't think it matters if we got the law wrong as long as we backed up our mistakes with some "lawyerly" analysis.

Nice I argued easement by necessity, but didn't get to the other implied easements because I saved this question for last.. Evidence was my stronger subject so I did that one first

[kateebee]

The Crim Pro fact pattern was almost exactly the fact pattern of a COA case that came out recently. I even worked on it as an intern. As I was reading it, I was dying inside because I should have known exactly how court came out and I could ace it if I could just pull it to the front of my brain and I couldn't do it. I am pretty sure my analysis sided with the dissent in the case but at least there's a cognizant dissent so maybe I won't totally fail.

[kateebee]

Oh, also, was anyone else surprised they let us keep the questions? I didn't take them with me because I knew I had no interest in revisiting what I got right or wrong, but I was shocked they weren't making us return them. I guess they aren't planning on re-using any of the questions?

[NYKfanAIesq]

The Crim Pro fact pattern was almost exactly the fact pattern of a COA case that came out recently. I even worked on it as an intern. As I was reading it, I was dying inside because I should have known exactly how court came out and I could ace it if I could just pull it to the front of my brain and I couldn't do it. I am pretty sure my analysis sided with the dissent in the case but at least there's a cognizant dissent so maybe I won't totally fail.

Wow what COA case?

[kateebee]

I can't remember the name. It came out Nov/Dec 2013. Barbara wrote the majority, Greene wrote the dissent.

[Elston Gunn]

Oh, also, was anyone else surprised they let us keep the questions? I didn't take them with me because I knew I had no interest in revisiting what I got right or wrong, but I was shocked they weren't making us return them. I guess they aren't planning on re-using any of the questions?

They always post PDFs on their website after, so they can't reuse them anyway.

[gr8scOtt!]

I can't remember the name. It came out Nov/Dec 2013. Barbara wrote the majority, Greene wrote the dissent.

Holt v. State, maybe? http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2013/98a12.pdf

[NYKfanAIesq]

I can't remember the name. It came out Nov/Dec 2013. Barbara wrote the majority, Greene wrote the dissent.

Holt v. State, maybe? http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2013/98a12.pdf

Thanks for finding that!

[FrattyBoh]

From Harrell's dissent:

"What the Majority’s opinion essentially will stand for is that if a person associates with a “known drug dealer,” there is automatically reasonable suspicion to stop that person if found in the company of the “known drug dealer.”"

Haha yep. As I mentioned, Maryland is insanely pro-state on the 4A.

How about the Agency question, guys? Screwy set of facts, huh?

[NYKfanAIesq]

From Harrell's dissent:

"What the Majority’s opinion essentially will stand for is that if a person associates with a “known drug dealer,” there is automatically reasonable suspicion to stop that person if found in the company of the “known drug dealer.”"

Haha yep. As I mentioned, Maryland is insanely pro-state on the 4A.

How about the Agency question, guys? Screwy set of facts, huh?

The dog houses question... Ah yes

[nomolawskool2]

So under Holt's holding that association gives rise to reasonable suspicion and not PC, heroin in our fact pattern should be suppressed right? Client was validly pulled over for Terry Stop based on reasonable suspicion, but warrantless search illegal, correct?

[Barrister2015]

So under Holt's holding that association gives rise to reasonable suspicion and not PC, heroin in our fact pattern should be suppressed right? Client was validly pulled over for Terry Stop based on reasonable suspicion, but warrantless search illegal, correct?

Re: the drug case - I don't know, I thought the previous surveillance and the statement that the dealer was a "known drug dealer" raised PC, since PC is a common sense determination based on the totality of the facts. I didn't even bother with Terry analysis since I thought the cops had PC for the car and therefore, the search was legal.

I wasted a lot of time on the dog house question talking about agency issues. It was only at the very end that I realized it was also a statute of frauds question. I quickly typed in a few sentences about it being unenforceable due to a lack of writing; I just really hope whatever I typed up was coherent.

The easement question: I just said that there wan easement by necessity over the two eastern parcels and that the owners of those two parcels could decide between themselves where to place the easement. I mentioned that Triple A's prior knowledge of its landlocked nature might affect its ability to get an easement by necessity, but I concluded that an easement by necessity probably still arose because I couldn't remember anything about whether prior knowledge impacted the analysis.

For the northern parcel, I said an easement by necessity could still exist and I referenced my analysis for the eastern parcels. I also said there was a possibility of easement by prescription or implied easement.

[NYKfanAIesq]

So under Holt's holding that association gives rise to reasonable suspicion and not PC, heroin in our fact pattern should be suppressed right? Client was validly pulled over for Terry Stop based on reasonable suspicion, but warrantless search illegal, correct?

Re: the drug case - I don't know, I thought the previous surveillance and the statement that the dealer was a "known drug dealer" raised PC, since PC is a common sense determination based on the totality of the facts. I didn't even bother with Terry analysis since I thought the cops had PC for the car and therefore, the search was legal.

I wasted a lot of time on the dog house question talking about agency issues. It was only at the very end that I realized it was also a statute of frauds question. I quickly typed in a few sentences about it being unenforceable due to a lack of writing; I just really hope whatever I typed up was coherent.

The easement question: I just said that there wan easement by necessity over the two eastern parcels and that the owners of those two parcels could decide between themselves where to place the easement. I mentioned that Triple A's prior knowledge of its landlocked nature might affect its ability to get an easement by necessity, but I concluded that an easement by necessity probably still arose because I couldn't remember anything about whether prior knowledge impacted the analysis.

For the northern parcel, I said an easement by necessity could still exist and I referenced my analysis for the eastern parcels. I also said there was a possibility of easement by prescription or implied easement.

everything was a blur!! but I had the statute of frauds realization at the last moment as well for that agencies question.

crim pro: i argued for illegal search

property: i argued against an implied easement by necessity.

[Barrister2015]

So under Holt's holding that association gives rise to reasonable suspicion and not PC, heroin in our fact pattern should be suppressed right? Client was validly pulled over for Terry Stop based on reasonable suspicion, but warrantless search illegal, correct?

Re: the drug case - I don't know, I thought the previous surveillance and the statement that the dealer was a "known drug dealer" raised PC, since PC is a common sense determination based on the totality of the facts. I didn't even bother with Terry analysis since I thought the cops had PC for the car and therefore, the search was legal.

I wasted a lot of time on the dog house question talking about agency issues. It was only at the very end that I realized it was also a statute of frauds question. I quickly typed in a few sentences about it being unenforceable due to a lack of writing; I just really hope whatever I typed up was coherent.

The easement question: I just said that there wan easement by necessity over the two eastern parcels and that the owners of those two parcels could decide between themselves where to place the easement. I mentioned that Triple A's prior knowledge of its landlocked nature might affect its ability to get an easement by necessity, but I concluded that an easement by necessity probably still arose because I couldn't remember anything about whether prior knowledge impacted the analysis.

For the northern parcel, I said an easement by necessity could still exist and I referenced my analysis for the eastern parcels. I also said there was a possibility of easement by prescription or implied easement.

everything was a blur!! but I had the statute of frauds realization at the last moment as well for that agencies question.

crim pro: i argued for illegal search

property: i argued against an implied easement by necessity.

Almost a week out and I'm still having nightmares about the bar exam! Ughhhh

[NYKfanAIesq]

So under Holt's holding that association gives rise to reasonable suspicion and not PC, heroin in our fact pattern should be suppressed right? Client was validly pulled over for Terry Stop based on reasonable suspicion, but warrantless search illegal, correct?

Re: the drug case - I don't know, I thought the previous surveillance and the statement that the dealer was a "known drug dealer" raised PC, since PC is a common sense determination based on the totality of the facts. I didn't even bother with Terry analysis since I thought the cops had PC for the car and therefore, the search was legal.

I wasted a lot of time on the dog house question talking about agency issues. It was only at the very end that I realized it was also a statute of frauds question. I quickly typed in a few sentences about it being unenforceable due to a lack of writing; I just really hope whatever I typed up was coherent.

The easement question: I just said that there wan easement by necessity over the two eastern parcels and that the owners of those two parcels could decide between themselves where to place the easement. I mentioned that Triple A's prior knowledge of its landlocked nature might affect its ability to get an easement by necessity, but I concluded that an easement by necessity probably still arose because I couldn't remember anything about whether prior knowledge impacted the analysis.

For the northern parcel, I said an easement by necessity could still exist and I referenced my analysis for the eastern parcels. I also said there was a possibility of easement by prescription or implied easement.

everything was a blur!! but I had the statute of frauds realization at the last moment as well for that agencies question.

crim pro: i argued for illegal search

property: i argued against an implied easement by necessity.

Almost a week out and I'm still having nightmares about the bar exam! Ughhhh

TRUST ME...i know, that's why i started this topic... to vent!

[Barrister2015]

So under Holt's holding that association gives rise to reasonable suspicion and not PC, heroin in our fact pattern should be suppressed right? Client was validly pulled over for Terry Stop based on reasonable suspicion, but warrantless search illegal, correct?

Re: the drug case - I don't know, I thought the previous surveillance and the statement that the dealer was a "known drug dealer" raised PC, since PC is a common sense determination based on the totality of the facts. I didn't even bother with Terry analysis since I thought the cops had PC for the car and therefore, the search was legal.

I wasted a lot of time on the dog house question talking about agency issues. It was only at the very end that I realized it was also a statute of frauds question. I quickly typed in a few sentences about it being unenforceable due to a lack of writing; I just really hope whatever I typed up was coherent.

The easement question: I just said that there wan easement by necessity over the two eastern parcels and that the owners of those two parcels could decide between themselves where to place the easement. I mentioned that Triple A's prior knowledge of its landlocked nature might affect its ability to get an easement by necessity, but I concluded that an easement by necessity probably still arose because I couldn't remember anything about whether prior knowledge impacted the analysis.

For the northern parcel, I said an easement by necessity could still exist and I referenced my analysis for the eastern parcels. I also said there was a possibility of easement by prescription or implied easement.

everything was a blur!! but I had the statute of frauds realization at the last moment as well for that agencies question.

crim pro: i argued for illegal search

property: i argued against an implied easement by necessity.

Almost a week out and I'm still having nightmares about the bar exam! Ughhhh

TRUST ME...i know, that's why i started this topic... to vent!

Glad I'm not alone. And venting, despite what they tell us, actually does help!

Also, call it Stockholm syndrome or something, but I feel so weird not reporting to my usual study spot to prep for the bar these past few days...I mean, I don't miss studying...I guess I'm just institutionalized now and don't know what to do with free time