Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[1down1togo]

i have completed 91.7% of the course and still feel unprepared...normal? the first time i took the bar back in 2009 I used barbri. I have preferred themis but don't remember how i felt this close to the exam last time.....

I think that's normal. I took it in 2013 with Kaplan. I remember the day before the exam, contemplating studying- and then decide agaiant it b/c I was thinking- screw this, I'll never learn it all, might as well relax

[ChocolateTruffle]

Had a bar exam nightmare last night. Dreamt I accidentally brought in my purse into the examination room (how I got it past security, I don't know) and was trying to hide it to no avail, and I was nervous that my phone in my purse might make some noise even though I turned it off. My desk was a complete mess. Then the examiners tricked us. It was day one and I was ready to type the MPT, but they gave us the MBE instead! Which just threw me off guard. They said they like to do that sometimes.

Not a good dream

[unidentifiable]

Had a bar exam nightmare last night. Dreamt I accidentally brought in my purse into the examination room (how I got it past security, I don't know) and was trying to hide it to no avail, and I was nervous that my phone in my purse might make some noise even though I turned it off. My desk was a complete mess. Then the examiners tricked us. It was day one and I was ready to type the MPT, but they gave us the MBE instead! Which just threw me off guard. They said they like to do that sometimes.

Not a good dream

that's definitely nightmare stuff.

i had a weird thing last night too:

I had been trying to fall asleep for over an hour (probably too much caffeine), mind was racing. Girlfriend in a deep sleep next to me. I rolled over and was sort of facing her, and had my eyes a little open. She raised her arm straight up, pointing at the ceiling. She aggressively whispered "oh my god, oh my god. you're going to die!"

I said "What?"

She sat straight up and said "I saw something hovering above you."

I said "Nope."

Then she rolled over and went back to sleep. Took a little while longer to fall asleep; I refused to look at the ceiling after that.....

[ChocolateTruffle]

Had a bar exam nightmare last night. Dreamt I accidentally brought in my purse into the examination room (how I got it past security, I don't know) and was trying to hide it to no avail, and I was nervous that my phone in my purse might make some noise even though I turned it off. My desk was a complete mess. Then the examiners tricked us. It was day one and I was ready to type the MPT, but they gave us the MBE instead! Which just threw me off guard. They said they like to do that sometimes.

Not a good dream

that's definitely nightmare stuff.

i had a weird thing last night too:

I had been trying to fall asleep for over an hour (probably too much caffeine), mind was racing. Girlfriend in a deep sleep next to me. I rolled over and was sort of facing her, and had my eyes a little open. She raised her arm straight up, pointing at the ceiling. She aggressively whispered "oh my god, oh my god. you're going to die!"

I said "What?"

She sat straight up and said "I saw something hovering above you."

I said "Nope."

Then she rolled over and went back to sleep. Took a little while longer to fall asleep; I refused to look at the ceiling after that.....

Oh god, that's both terrifying and funny lol, I wouldn't have been able to sleep after that!

[AlanShore]

Had a bar exam nightmare last night. Dreamt I accidentally brought in my purse into the examination room (how I got it past security, I don't know) and was trying to hide it to no avail, and I was nervous that my phone in my purse might make some noise even though I turned it off. My desk was a complete mess. Then the examiners tricked us. It was day one and I was ready to type the MPT, but they gave us the MBE instead! Which just threw me off guard. They said they like to do that sometimes.

Not a good dream

that's definitely nightmare stuff.

i had a weird thing last night too:

I had been trying to fall asleep for over an hour (probably too much caffeine), mind was racing. Girlfriend in a deep sleep next to me. I rolled over and was sort of facing her, and had my eyes a little open. She raised her arm straight up, pointing at the ceiling. She aggressively whispered "oh my god, oh my god. you're going to die!"

I said "What?"

She sat straight up and said "I saw something hovering above you."

I said "Nope."

Then she rolled over and went back to sleep. Took a little while longer to fall asleep; I refused to look at the ceiling after that.....

LOL what! hahahaha that is freaky

[Fivedham]

Has anyone come across an MBE question that involves a proper time to grant transactional immunity as opposed to use/derivative use immunity? The answers I've seen all seem to be the latter, with the former never being right.

[rcharter1978]

How about a little insight on this:

I heard, somewhere (i don't remember, maybe reddit; maybe here?) that it could be useful to wake up the morning of the MBE and do like 10-15 practice questions.

Do you think that's a good idea?

I think it would be a good way to get in the zone that morning -- to have multiple choice on the mind. But, I also think it could a confidence destroyer if I do don't do so well. Well, it would destroy confidence if I LET it destroy confidence.

I'm trying to balance that in my mind.

To me -- that sounds terrible. You're going to be doing 200 of them in a few hours, it seems like the time could be better spent centering yourself and getting mentally prepared instead of freaking yourself out with 15 more questions. I think you'll be plenty in the zone when you open up the packet and start doing questions.

But, its clearly worked for someone -- I just think by the time the bar rolled around I was pretty burned out on doing anymore MBE questions and I was just ready to do the real thing.

[rcharter1978]

Had a bar exam nightmare last night. Dreamt I accidentally brought in my purse into the examination room (how I got it past security, I don't know) and was trying to hide it to no avail, and I was nervous that my phone in my purse might make some noise even though I turned it off. My desk was a complete mess. Then the examiners tricked us. It was day one and I was ready to type the MPT, but they gave us the MBE instead! Which just threw me off guard. They said they like to do that sometimes.

Not a good dream

LOL. That sounds terrible. I had a few dreams/nightmares about waking up late and missing an hour of the exam. It was terrible, and the night before I'm pretty sure I slept with all my lights on and got up at 5am.

[AlanShore]

Has anyone come across an MBE question that involves a proper time to grant transactional immunity as opposed to use/derivative use immunity? The answers I've seen all seem to be the latter, with the former never being right.

Ive had two questions on this and both were derivative. One asked what type of immunity a prosecution should grant a witness to get him/her to testify while also simultaneously hurting the prosecution the least. I cant remember what the other question was..

[1down1togo]

Has anyone come across an MBE question that involves a proper time to grant transactional immunity as opposed to use/derivative use immunity? The answers I've seen all seem to be the latter, with the former never being right.

all the questions about immunity seem to be raising the same issue: what is the least amount of immunity that a prosecutor can give to overcome someone's 5th amendment right not to incriminate? Use and derivative use is all that is required, and it's a lesser grant than transactional. So in that sense, it's always going to be the right answer in talking about what is needed to overcome 5th amendment rights.

But to more succinctly answer your question- I have yet to see transactional immunity be a correct answer. Perhaps if they asked a question about giving someone the most immunity possible?

[ndp1234]

Has anyone come across an MBE question that involves a proper time to grant transactional immunity as opposed to use/derivative use immunity? The answers I've seen all seem to be the latter, with the former never being right.

Just think as transactional immunity as a courtesy gift since only use immunity is constitutionally required. None of these shady MBE characters are going to give larger rights than actually required.

[blach0987]

i have completed 91.7% of the course and still feel unprepared...normal? the first time i took the bar back in 2009 I used barbri. I have preferred themis but don't remember how i felt this close to the exam last time.....

I think that's normal. I took it in 2013 with Kaplan. I remember the day before the exam, contemplating studying- and then decide agaiant it b/c I was thinking- screw this, I'll never learn it all, might as well relax

For those taking the bar in another jurisdiction again, did you feel like you could maybe spend less time (half the summer as opposed to the whole summer) for the next jurisdiction?

[hirkaismyname]

Has anyone come across an MBE question that involves a proper time to grant transactional immunity as opposed to use/derivative use immunity? The answers I've seen all seem to be the latter, with the former never being right.

Just think as transactional immunity as a courtesy gift since only use immunity is constitutionally required. None of these shady MBE characters are going to give larger rights than actually required.

Maybe that Frank Abagnale guy got transactional immunity since he (AFAIK) works with the FBI to catch fellow con-artists.

[1down1togo]

i have completed 91.7% of the course and still feel unprepared...normal? the first time i took the bar back in 2009 I used barbri. I have preferred themis but don't remember how i felt this close to the exam last time.....

I think that's normal. I took it in 2013 with Kaplan. I remember the day before the exam, contemplating studying- and then decide agaiant it b/c I was thinking- screw this, I'll never learn it all, might as well relax

For those taking the bar in another jurisdiction again, did you feel like you could maybe spend less time (half the summer as opposed to the whole summer) for the next jurisdiction?

Nope- but I took mine 3 years apart. Having studied for the bar before helped- it came back quicker. But honestly, I'd forgotten a lot of it. I suppose If you took back to back administrations, less studying may be appropriate. But for me- 3 years has been enough to essentially forget it all

[ChocolateTruffle]

What's everyone's approach to a Conflict of Laws essay? Should we just know chapters 1 and 2 of the lecture handouts and try to apply it to the given set of facts? Or do you think we should attempt to memorize the WHOLE outline, including how it's applied to various subjects (torts, contracts, family law, etc)? There's just too much to know and I can't memorize it ALL!

Anyone??

[AlanShore]

Can someone clarify when specific acts can be used in a criminal trial?

1. cant use specific acts to show propensity
2. can use it to show something other than propensity (mimic)
3. D also cannot introduce specific acts to show that he/she acted in conformity with those specific acts (for example, specific times defendant has acted peacefully)
4. BUT if character trait is an essential element of crime charged, D CAN introduce specific prior acts inconsistent with crime

Is this right? and what is an example of character being an essential element of crime charged?

[unidentifiable]

What's everyone's approach to a Conflict of Laws essay? Should we just know chapters 1 and 2 of the lecture handouts and try to apply it to the given set of facts? Or do you think we should attempt to memorize the WHOLE outline, including how it's applied to various subjects (torts, contracts, family law, etc)? There's just too much to know and I can't memorize it ALL!

Anyone??

i'm pretty much focusing just on the 3 approaches. I feel like I could use that to BS at least a coherent essay.

I'm going to glance over the family law and wills/trusts stuff, just to be familiar, because I expect conflict of laws to be combined in one of those.

[ChocolateTruffle]

What's everyone's approach to a Conflict of Laws essay? Should we just know chapters 1 and 2 of the lecture handouts and try to apply it to the given set of facts? Or do you think we should attempt to memorize the WHOLE outline, including how it's applied to various subjects (torts, contracts, family law, etc)? There's just too much to know and I can't memorize it ALL!

Anyone??

i'm pretty much focusing just on the 3 approaches. I feel like I could use that to BS at least a coherent essay.

I'm going to glance over the family law and wills/trusts stuff, just to be familiar, because I expect conflict of laws to be combined in one of those.

Thanks! I thought that was the best use of my time, too, to focus on the three and try to BS my way through the essay using just the three approaches. One of the predictions says that Trusts and Family Law will appear on the MEE, so I think CoL may be combined with a family law essay.

[Fivedham]

What's everyone's approach to a Conflict of Laws essay? Should we just know chapters 1 and 2 of the lecture handouts and try to apply it to the given set of facts? Or do you think we should attempt to memorize the WHOLE outline, including how it's applied to various subjects (torts, contracts, family law, etc)? There's just too much to know and I can't memorize it ALL!

Anyone??

Taking Pennsylvania, so it doesn't apply to all you MEE folks, but I figure it's similar enough. I basically just talk about the different approaches and their factors, talk about PA's approach, and apply.

[BigZuck]

Can someone clarify when specific acts can be used in a criminal trial?

1. cant use specific acts to show propensity
2. can use it to show something other than propensity (mimic)
3. D also cannot introduce specific acts to show that he/she acted in conformity with those specific acts (for example, specific times defendant has acted peacefully)
4. BUT if character trait is an essential element of crime charged, D CAN introduce specific prior acts inconsistent with crime

Is this right? and what is an example of character being an essential element of crime charged?

I think I've only seen character be an element in like defamation/slander

Defendant says plaintiff is a thief
Plaintiff says dude that's defamation I'm suing you
Defendant says nah man you stole that pencil that one time, it's totes true

[luxxe]

Can someone clarify when specific acts can be used in a criminal trial?

1. cant use specific acts to show propensity
2. can use it to show something other than propensity (mimic)
3. D also cannot introduce specific acts to show that he/she acted in conformity with those specific acts (for example, specific times defendant has acted peacefully)
4. BUT if character trait is an essential element of crime charged, D CAN introduce specific prior acts inconsistent with crime

Is this right? and what is an example of character being an essential element of crime charged?

This is right afaik, plus being able to use specific acts when crossing a character witness. The times I've seen character being an essential element of the crime charged in MBE q's have been for fraud, libel, slander, etc.

[WhiskeynCoke]

MBE question about larceny I just got wrong:

[+] Spoiler

A gardener entered a garden center through a side entrance during regular business hours. He intended to steal some parsley plants for his garden. When no one was looking, he took the two small parsley plants that the owners kept behind the front register, put them under his sweatshirt, and walked toward the exit. Near the parsley plants at the back of the store, there was a sign that advertised, “Like our parsley plants? Today only! Two free parsley plants per customer!” The gardener never saw the sign. Burglary in the jurisdiction is defined as “entering any building unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime.” The jurisdiction follows the common-law definition of larceny. The following crimes are listed in descending order of seriousness. Which is the most serious crime of which the gardener may be convicted?

A) Burglary and larceny
B) Burglary only
C) Larceny only
D) Attempted larceny only

Answer choice C is correct. Mistake of fact is only a defense if it negates the defendant’s state of mind. The gardener is guilty of larceny because he took and carried away the property of the garden center with the intent to steal. Even though the parsley plants in the back of the store were being given away for free, the gardener did not know this fact. Thus, he was taking the property of the garden center with the intent to permanently deprive the store of the parsley plants. He is not guilty of burglary because there was no unlawful entering as required under the statute. The gardener entered the garden center lawfully as an invitee at a time when the garden center was open to the public. Thus, answer choices A and B are incorrect. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the gardener did commit the crime of attempted larceny by taking a substantial step towards the completion of the crime of larceny, the crime of attempted larceny is a less serious crime than the crime of larceny.

WTF? I thought that "trespassory taking" was an element of larceny, meaning that the taking must be without the owner's consent. A "mistake of fact" here is irrelevant because the first element of larceny is not satisfied: this was not a trespassory taking. Every element of the crime must be proved in order to convict a defendant. You can't steal something that the owner has consented to you taking it... Shouldn't this have been "attempted larceny?" This would be like a defendant being convicted of murder for shooting a dog, because he honestly thought the dog was his ex wife. That would be attempted murder, not actual murder.

Am I missing something?

[Robb]

MBE question about larceny I just got wrong:

[+] Spoiler

A gardener entered a garden center through a side entrance during regular business hours. He intended to steal some parsley plants for his garden. When no one was looking, he took the two small parsley plants that the owners kept behind the front register, put them under his sweatshirt, and walked toward the exit. Near the parsley plants at the back of the store, there was a sign that advertised, “Like our parsley plants? Today only! Two free parsley plants per customer!” The gardener never saw the sign. Burglary in the jurisdiction is defined as “entering any building unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime.” The jurisdiction follows the common-law definition of larceny. The following crimes are listed in descending order of seriousness. Which is the most serious crime of which the gardener may be convicted?

A) Burglary and larceny
B) Burglary only
C) Larceny only
D) Attempted larceny only

Answer choice C is correct. Mistake of fact is only a defense if it negates the defendant’s state of mind. The gardener is guilty of larceny because he took and carried away the property of the garden center with the intent to steal. Even though the parsley plants in the back of the store were being given away for free, the gardener did not know this fact. Thus, he was taking the property of the garden center with the intent to permanently deprive the store of the parsley plants. He is not guilty of burglary because there was no unlawful entering as required under the statute. The gardener entered the garden center lawfully as an invitee at a time when the garden center was open to the public. Thus, answer choices A and B are incorrect. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the gardener did commit the crime of attempted larceny by taking a substantial step towards the completion of the crime of larceny, the crime of attempted larceny is a less serious crime than the crime of larceny.

WTF? I thought that "trespassory taking" was an element of larceny, meaning that the taking must be without the owner's consent. A "mistake of fact" here is irrelevant because the first element of larceny is not satisfied: this was not a trespassory taking. Every element of the crime must be proved in order to convict a defendant. You can't steal something that the owner has consented to you taking it... Shouldn't this have been "attempted larceny?" This would be like a defendant being convicted of murder for shooting a dog, because he honestly thought the dog was his ex wife. That would be attempted murder, not actual murder.

Am I missing something?

Yeah, I got this one wrong too, and had similar problems with the answer. It seems weird, it's like they're offensively using mistake of fact.

[ndp1234]

MBE question about larceny I just got wrong:

[+] Spoiler

A gardener entered a garden center through a side entrance during regular business hours. He intended to steal some parsley plants for his garden. When no one was looking, he took the two small parsley plants that the owners kept behind the front register, put them under his sweatshirt, and walked toward the exit. Near the parsley plants at the back of the store, there was a sign that advertised, “Like our parsley plants? Today only! Two free parsley plants per customer!” The gardener never saw the sign. Burglary in the jurisdiction is defined as “entering any building unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime.” The jurisdiction follows the common-law definition of larceny. The following crimes are listed in descending order of seriousness. Which is the most serious crime of which the gardener may be convicted?

A) Burglary and larceny
B) Burglary only
C) Larceny only
D) Attempted larceny only

Answer choice C is correct. Mistake of fact is only a defense if it negates the defendant’s state of mind. The gardener is guilty of larceny because he took and carried away the property of the garden center with the intent to steal. Even though the parsley plants in the back of the store were being given away for free, the gardener did not know this fact. Thus, he was taking the property of the garden center with the intent to permanently deprive the store of the parsley plants. He is not guilty of burglary because there was no unlawful entering as required under the statute. The gardener entered the garden center lawfully as an invitee at a time when the garden center was open to the public. Thus, answer choices A and B are incorrect. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the gardener did commit the crime of attempted larceny by taking a substantial step towards the completion of the crime of larceny, the crime of attempted larceny is a less serious crime than the crime of larceny.

WTF? I thought that "trespassory taking" was an element of larceny, meaning that the taking must be without the owner's consent. A "mistake of fact" here is irrelevant because the first element of larceny is not satisfied: this was not a trespassory taking. Every element of the crime must be proved in order to convict a defendant. You can't steal something that the owner has consented to you taking it... Shouldn't this have been "attempted larceny?" This would be like a defendant being convicted of murder for shooting a dog, because he honestly thought the dog was his ex wife. That would be attempted murder, not actual murder.

Am I missing something?

Yeah, I got this one wrong too, and had similar problems with the answer. It seems weird, it's like they're offensively using mistake of fact.

It's trespassory because it's technically property of the garden store, even though they were giving it away for free, so that element is met.

[Robb]

MBE question about larceny I just got wrong:

[+] Spoiler

A gardener entered a garden center through a side entrance during regular business hours. He intended to steal some parsley plants for his garden. When no one was looking, he took the two small parsley plants that the owners kept behind the front register, put them under his sweatshirt, and walked toward the exit. Near the parsley plants at the back of the store, there was a sign that advertised, “Like our parsley plants? Today only! Two free parsley plants per customer!” The gardener never saw the sign. Burglary in the jurisdiction is defined as “entering any building unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime.” The jurisdiction follows the common-law definition of larceny. The following crimes are listed in descending order of seriousness. Which is the most serious crime of which the gardener may be convicted?

A) Burglary and larceny
B) Burglary only
C) Larceny only
D) Attempted larceny only

Answer choice C is correct. Mistake of fact is only a defense if it negates the defendant’s state of mind. The gardener is guilty of larceny because he took and carried away the property of the garden center with the intent to steal. Even though the parsley plants in the back of the store were being given away for free, the gardener did not know this fact. Thus, he was taking the property of the garden center with the intent to permanently deprive the store of the parsley plants. He is not guilty of burglary because there was no unlawful entering as required under the statute. The gardener entered the garden center lawfully as an invitee at a time when the garden center was open to the public. Thus, answer choices A and B are incorrect. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the gardener did commit the crime of attempted larceny by taking a substantial step towards the completion of the crime of larceny, the crime of attempted larceny is a less serious crime than the crime of larceny.

WTF? I thought that "trespassory taking" was an element of larceny, meaning that the taking must be without the owner's consent. A "mistake of fact" here is irrelevant because the first element of larceny is not satisfied: this was not a trespassory taking. Every element of the crime must be proved in order to convict a defendant. You can't steal something that the owner has consented to you taking it... Shouldn't this have been "attempted larceny?" This would be like a defendant being convicted of murder for shooting a dog, because he honestly thought the dog was his ex wife. That would be attempted murder, not actual murder.

Am I missing something?

Yeah, I got this one wrong too, and had similar problems with the answer. It seems weird, it's like they're offensively using mistake of fact.

It's trespassory because it's technically property of the garden store, even though they were giving it away for free, so that element is met.

What confuses me is that the outline says "The property must be taken without the owner’s consent" to meet the trespass prong.