July 2016 Texas Bar Exam Forum

[jcsmith]

that wasn't too bad

I really really really had to pee while they were checking the MPT books and I knew that I had to wait 15 min to leave after P and E started. I couldn't focus the first couple of minutes.

Anyways, there were more things I wanted to say on the MPT, but didn't get to. That makes me nervous. And the P and E, there was only a couple of them where I had no idea. I hope that I did well. I can tell I'm going to be a nervous wreck for months.

[fly_lawy3r]

that wasn't too bad

I really really really had to pee while they were checking the MPT books and I knew that I had to wait 15 min to leave after P and E started. I couldn't focus the first couple of minutes.

Anyways, there were more things I wanted to say on the MPT, but didn't get to. That makes me nervous. And the P and E, there was only a couple of them where I had no idea. I hope that I did well. I can tell I'm going to be a nervous wreck for months.

Oh man, my bladder was seconds away from bursting. I basically sprinted to the bathroom the second after 15 mins of P&E time had passed.

But yeah, I thought the P&E overall was pretty fair. As for the MPT, I liked that we were assigned a memo. I'm sure I could have used an extra 5-10 minutes (as always) but hey, it is what it is. Two days to go, people.

[bigtex29]

.

[umstah]

in addition to below, how much of the points simply come from finishing on time? I hit all four of the issues and (i think) generally structured it like a memo, but definitely was a blur and i was just trying to get through as much as i could in order to make sure i finished (which thankfully i did).

[nsd193]

Is it just me or was anyone else confused as to why there were like 3 hearsay/party-admission questions on the Crim Pro & Evidence portion? I think I said basically the same thing on all 3 questions.

[jduluoz54]

Is it just me or was anyone else confused as to why there were like 3 hearsay/party-admission questions on the Crim Pro & Evidence portion? I think I said basically the same thing on all 3 questions.

Thank you - I'm not the only one. I am convinced there was an exception to the exception that made one of the answers different...I'm doing everything I can to not think about it - Obviously not working.

[fly_lawy3r]

.

[fly_lawy3r]

[Duplicate]

[umstah]

yeah, it came up like 4 times. i was confused as well. good to see yall think the same thing. i think i accidentally defined it as "hearsay exception" instead of "non-hearsay". hopefully not a big deal..

[jcsmith]

Is it just me or was anyone else confused as to why there were like 3 hearsay/party-admission questions on the Crim Pro & Evidence portion? I think I said basically the same thing on all 3 questions.

Thank you - I'm not the only one. I am convinced there was an exception to the exception that made one of the answers different...I'm doing everything I can to not think about it - Obviously not working.

Seriously, THANK YOU. They were hitting that point pretty hard. Toward the end I kept thinking "there is NO way they're testing the party-opponent non-hearsay thing again" but then the thought occurred that maybe they were trying to get in our heads.

Yes! I thought the same thing. I thought I was going crazy and it kind of psyched me out. It's kind of like having the same multiple choice answer 5 times in a row. You think one has to be wrong. I can't even remember what I put for them. I'm going to try to forget it.

[jordan1007]

deleted

[jduluoz54]

fly_lawy3r wrote:
jduluoz54 wrote:
nsd193 wrote:
Is it just me or was anyone else confused as to why there were like 3 hearsay/party-admission questions on the Crim Pro & Evidence portion? I think I said basically the same thing on all 3 questions.


Thank you - I'm not the only one. I am convinced there was an exception to the exception that made one of the answers different...I'm doing everything I can to not think about it - Obviously not working.


Seriously, THANK YOU. They were hitting that point pretty hard. Toward the end I kept thinking "there is NO way they're testing the party-opponent non-hearsay thing again" but then the thought occurred that maybe they were trying to get in our heads.


Yes! I thought the same thing. I thought I was going crazy and it kind of psyched me out. It's kind of like having the same multiple choice answer 5 times in a row. You think one has to be wrong. I can't even remember what I put for them. I'm going to try to forget it.

Yea I put the same thing for two of them, but on the third they were testing whether you'd catch that non-hearsay that's admissible against a co-defendant isn't automatically admissible against the other co-defendant.

I knew it was something. They got me.

[mavshoosiers]

why do i only remember 2 of them being evidence questions about hearsay in crim pro? was there one towards the middle around #10-15?

[BVest]

Yes! I thought the same thing. I thought I was going crazy and it kind of psyched me out. It's kind of like having the same multiple choice answer 5 times in a row. You think one has to be wrong. I can't even remember what I put for them. I'm going to try to forget it.

FWIW looking forward to tomorrow, you will almost certainly have the same MBE answer 5+ times in a row. Possibly more than once. It's not that unusual with only 4 answer choices.

[bigtex29]

.

[fly_lawy3r]

.

[TA923]

fly_lawy3r wrote:
jduluoz54 wrote:
nsd193 wrote:
Is it just me or was anyone else confused as to why there were like 3 hearsay/party-admission questions on the Crim Pro & Evidence portion? I think I said basically the same thing on all 3 questions.


Thank you - I'm not the only one. I am convinced there was an exception to the exception that made one of the answers different...I'm doing everything I can to not think about it - Obviously not working.


Seriously, THANK YOU. They were hitting that point pretty hard. Toward the end I kept thinking "there is NO way they're testing the party-opponent non-hearsay thing again" but then the thought occurred that maybe they were trying to get in our heads.


Yes! I thought the same thing. I thought I was going crazy and it kind of psyched me out. It's kind of like having the same multiple choice answer 5 times in a row. You think one has to be wrong. I can't even remember what I put for them. I'm going to try to forget it.

Yea I put the same thing for two of them, but on the third they were testing whether you'd catch that non-hearsay that's admissible against a co-defendant isn't automatically admissible against the other co-defendant.

This isn't true. Oral admissions are HIGHLY disfavored in Texas. The general rule is that they're inadmissible unless they meet an exception, including judicial statements and electronically recorded. Don't confuse the Texas rule with the MBE rule on admissions of a party opponent.

[bigtex29]

.

[TA923]

.

[jordan1007]

deleted

[Yardbird]

It really serves no purpose to nit-pick now, and you’re just going to end up annoyed that you missed something (because face it, we all likely missed something somewhere) or make someone else worry if they missed what you claim to have gotten. Better to focus on tomorrow and not post-mortem today IMO. Also, aren’t we supposed to not talk about the actual questions? =P

On another note, I found the 360 character limit a little too short for a few questions. Also did not enjoy driving through flooded streets to get to the exam.

[BigZuck]

Yeah the character limit is messed up IMO, it should be like 500 characters.

I also wasn't a fan of the flooding or the half hour it took to get out of the lot. The BLE needs to step up its game because Houston was kind of a disaster IMO. Forcing people to pee their pants or lose precious time is just cruel.

[BVest]

On another note, I found the 360 character limit a little too short for a few questions. Also did not enjoy driving through flooded streets to get to the exam.

Yeah, 360 seems short. Don't forget though that this is only the second time they've permitted typing and in February they permitted 460, which, for whatever reason, they decided was too much. I wouldn't be surprised to see them change it again to narrow in on whatever they're trying to get to.

[BVest]

.

Probably too late to order one (and surely violates some rule, or it would after the first time someone gets caught using one).

[0lol]

Totally crossed my mind to get one of those after having to pee cost me points on the lsat