Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[Rahviveh]

Is it safe to say Rule 37 sanctions (for discovery) are capable of being much more punitive than Rule 11 sanctions? The outline is not clear on this distinction.

Yes. Rule 11 sanctions seem to punish but not impact case i.e. a nonmonetary directive, an order to pay a penalty into court, and paying the atty's fees of the other party v. rule 37 which can allow dismissal of action, striking pleadings, disallowing parties to support claims/defenses, rendering a default judgment, etc.

Yeah I feel like that's something the outline should point out cause that's an easy way to remember things.

[pheerful22]

[





Right on! I'll probably be making a test run on Monday to get a feel for the place

yeah i definitely need to scope out the parking situation, entrance, etc. If you see someone wearing ohio state shirts or UVa shirts thats me (on test days) hahah

[Hmasterflex]

Right on! I'll probably be making a test run on Monday to get a feel for the place

yeah i definitely need to scope out the parking situation, entrance, etc. If you see someone wearing ohio state shirts or UVa shirts thats me (on test days) hahah

I'll be the guy with the grungy neck-beard, wooly pants and pullover. If we find each other and determine neither of us are rapers, we should grab a drink thursday evening at brick house.

[mlblaw]

"Unless a secured party authorizes the sale free and clear of the security interest, the buyer takes subject to a security interest."

So, the buyer is not personally liable for the debt but the secured party can repossess the collateral in the event of default?

[Hmasterflex]

"Unless a secured party authorizes the sale free and clear of the security interest, the buyer takes subject to a security interest."

So, the buyer is not personally liable for the debt but the secured party can repossess the collateral in the event of default?

More or less. Then go after the seller, who probably skipped town

[ndp1234]

Can someone clarify when extrinsic evidence is admissible for both purposes of character evidence and impeachment?

[WinSome]

Can someone clarify when extrinsic evidence is admissible for both purposes of character evidence and impeachment?

For impeachment, extrinsic evidence is always admissible to prove bias.

[ndp1234]

Can someone clarify when extrinsic evidence is admissible for both purposes of character evidence and impeachment?

For impeachment, extrinsic evidence is always admissible to prove bias.

For bias, they allow almost anything, so I get that. I guess I'm confused as to when you contradict someone with extrinsic evidence and you can bring in extrinsic evidence to prove someone's character when allowed under the character evidence rule. Does this make sense, or am I totally blurring everything together?

[Rahviveh]

Can someone clarify when extrinsic evidence is admissible for both purposes of character evidence and impeachment?

For impeachment, extrinsic evidence is always admissible to prove bias.

For bias, they allow almost anything, so I get that. I guess I'm confused as to when you contradict someone with extrinsic evidence and you can bring in extrinsic evidence to prove someone's character when allowed under the character evidence rule. Does this make sense, or am I totally blurring everything together?

I don't see any extrinsic evidence rules for character evidence. Someone else chip in here if I'm wrong.

Contradiction is impeachment. You can introduce extrinsic evidence for both bias and contradiction in impeaching a witness.

[countryfried]

I'm getting tired of hearing about this asshole who keep selling the same damn house to 3 different people.

[luxxe]

I'm getting tired of hearing about this asshole who keep selling the same damn house to 3 different people.

[WinSome]

Can someone clarify when extrinsic evidence is admissible for both purposes of character evidence and impeachment?

For impeachment, extrinsic evidence is always admissible to prove bias.

For bias, they allow almost anything, so I get that. I guess I'm confused as to when you contradict someone with extrinsic evidence and you can bring in extrinsic evidence to prove someone's character when allowed under the character evidence rule. Does this make sense, or am I totally blurring everything together?

Basically, you have to look to whether it is collateral matter or not. If it is collateral, then you can't introduce extrinsic evidence.

[xfer999]

This is the one where the defendant robs a husband & wife and one dies. Did someone already answer your question?

[+] Spoiler

At 11:00 p.m., a husband and a wife were accosted in the entrance to their apartment building by the defendant, who was armed as well as masked. The defendant ordered the couple to take him into their apartment. After they entered the apartment, the defendant forced the wife to bind and gag her husband and then to open a safe which contained a diamond necklace. The defendant then tied her up and fled with the necklace. He was apprehended by apartment building security guards. Before the guards could return to the apartment, but after the defendant was arrested, the husband, straining to free himself, suffered a massive heart attack and died.

The defendant is guilty of:
A. burglary, robbery, and murder.

B. robbery and murder only.

C. burglary and robbery only.

D. robbery only.

Answer choice A is correct. Common-law burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another at nighttime with the specific intent to commit a felony therein. The defendant is guilty of burglary because he used force to gain entry into the apartment (breaking and entering the dwelling of another) at night with the intent to commit a theft crime. Robbery is larceny from the person by force or intimidation. Here, the facts actually state that the defendant forced the wife to open the safe, and the defendant clearly had the intent to steal the necklace. The necklace is considered to be taken from the wife's person even though it was not on her body because it was within her control. Because the husband's death was caused as a result of the defendant's commission of an inherently dangerous felony (robbery or burglary), he is also guilty of murder under the felony murder rule. Accordingly, answer choices B, C, and D are incorrect because they are incomplete.

[+] Spoiler

Maybe I don't understand merger, but shouldn't one of the felonies merge with felony murder? I thought the underlying felony always merged for felony murder. I picked B, even though the elements were met for all three because one of the felonies has to merge. Should I assume if it say "guilty of" then not to merge crimes, but if it says "convicted of" to merge them.

[+] Spoiler

I think this question came up in the thread earlier. If I remember, people realized that it's not a merger if you treat the husband & wife as separate victims. (THIS IS THE TRAP.) So, burglary generally (never merges w underlying intended felony or attempt), robbery as to the wife, murder as to the husband. Does that sound right?

[BigZuck]

Can someone clarify when extrinsic evidence is admissible for both purposes of character evidence and impeachment?

For impeachment, extrinsic evidence is always admissible to prove bias.

For bias, they allow almost anything, so I get that. I guess I'm confused as to when you contradict someone with extrinsic evidence and you can bring in extrinsic evidence to prove someone's character when allowed under the character evidence rule. Does this make sense, or am I totally blurring everything together?

Basically, you have to look to whether it is collateral matter or not. If it is collateral, then you can't introduce extrinsic evidence.

I think if its collateral not involving bias then you can't bring in extrinsic and have to accept their answer regardless of whether it definitely contradicts your extrinsic evidence

But collateral involving bias can be proven by extrinsic I believe

(this is all getting way into the weeds though IMO, I don't think the bar is going to dive this far and if it does it's just 1 question so doesn't matter)

[1down1togo]

Can someone clarify when extrinsic evidence is admissible for both purposes of character evidence and impeachment?

For impeachment, extrinsic evidence is always admissible to prove bias.

For bias, they allow almost anything, so I get that. I guess I'm confused as to when you contradict someone with extrinsic evidence and you can bring in extrinsic evidence to prove someone's character when allowed under the character evidence rule. Does this make sense, or am I totally blurring everything together?

Basically, you have to look to whether it is collateral matter or not. If it is collateral, then you can't introduce extrinsic evidence.

I think if its collateral not involving bias then you can't bring in extrinsic and have to accept their answer regardless of whether it definitely contradicts your extrinsic evidence

But collateral involving bias can be proven by extrinsic I believe

(this is all getting way into the weeds though IMO, I don't think the bar is going to dive this far and if it does it's just 1 question so doesn't matter)

There's no such thing as collateral involving bias. Collateral is things that are not relevant- whether the murder victim's dress was red or burgundy; in a drug case, whether the defendant was employed at burger king for 5 years or 5.5 years. Bias is always relevant. If someone is lying or has reason to lie- that's relevant. If something involves bias- a reason to lie- its never collateral.

Also, to the person who stated:

Can someone clarify when extrinsic evidence is admissible for both purposes of character evidence and impeachment?

No, one can clarify it. It is an unknowable mess.

[BigZuck]

There's no such thing as collateral involving bias.

I was looking at something from the University of North Carolina that made that distinction. Maybe you're just a Dookie? I'll try to dig up some extrinsic evidence to prove your bias.

[WinSome]

This is the one where the defendant robs a husband & wife and one dies. Did someone already answer your question?

[+] Spoiler

At 11:00 p.m., a husband and a wife were accosted in the entrance to their apartment building by the defendant, who was armed as well as masked. The defendant ordered the couple to take him into their apartment. After they entered the apartment, the defendant forced the wife to bind and gag her husband and then to open a safe which contained a diamond necklace. The defendant then tied her up and fled with the necklace. He was apprehended by apartment building security guards. Before the guards could return to the apartment, but after the defendant was arrested, the husband, straining to free himself, suffered a massive heart attack and died.

The defendant is guilty of:
A. burglary, robbery, and murder.

B. robbery and murder only.

C. burglary and robbery only.

D. robbery only.

Answer choice A is correct. Common-law burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another at nighttime with the specific intent to commit a felony therein. The defendant is guilty of burglary because he used force to gain entry into the apartment (breaking and entering the dwelling of another) at night with the intent to commit a theft crime. Robbery is larceny from the person by force or intimidation. Here, the facts actually state that the defendant forced the wife to open the safe, and the defendant clearly had the intent to steal the necklace. The necklace is considered to be taken from the wife's person even though it was not on her body because it was within her control. Because the husband's death was caused as a result of the defendant's commission of an inherently dangerous felony (robbery or burglary), he is also guilty of murder under the felony murder rule. Accordingly, answer choices B, C, and D are incorrect because they are incomplete.

[+] Spoiler

Maybe I don't understand merger, but shouldn't one of the felonies merge with felony murder? I thought the underlying felony always merged for felony murder. I picked B, even though the elements were met for all three because one of the felonies has to merge. Should I assume if it say "guilty of" then not to merge crimes, but if it says "convicted of" to merge them.

[+] Spoiler

I think this question came up in the thread earlier. If I remember, people realized that it's not a merger if you treat the husband & wife as separate victims. (THIS IS THE TRAP.) So, burglary generally (never merges w underlying intended felony or attempt), robbery as to the wife, murder as to the husband. Does that sound right?

[+] Spoiler

I guess my issue would be that I really only see one count of robbery here, not two. I think he only committed robbery against the wife because he took the necklace through force/threat from her. Additionally, there's only the one item taken, so only one larceny, unless that one larceny can be used as a lesser included offense to two robberies, which I think might cause some double jeopardy problems. Also, if you look at multiple counts of robbery like this, would a bank hold up where the robber takes money from multiple tellers lead to multiple counts of robbery?

[rambleon65]

I'm basically calling it. I've hit that point. Taking MA bar. Themis says upon 75% completion, there is a 96% passage rate. Currently at 83%. I've done close to 2000 MBE PQs + Simulated/Milestone Qs, overall 68% accuracy. Will look over FROs lightly / daily and maybe do a few more 50-set qs, but I'm at the VERY EXCITED TO BE DONE phase.


Somebody tell me Im good to go, because, let's face it, that's all I'm looking for here.

[BigZuck]

I'm basically calling it. I've hit that point. Taking MA bar. Themis says upon 75% completion, there is a 96% passage rate. Currently at 83%. I've done close to 2000 MBE PQs + Simulated/Milestone Qs, overall 68% accuracy. Will look over FROs lightly / daily and maybe do a few more 50-set qs, but I'm at the VERY EXCITED TO BE DONE phase.


Somebody tell me Im good to go, because, let's face it, that's all I'm looking for here.

Let me officially be the first to say "Great job passing the Passachusetts bar!"

Congrats!

[AlanShore]

I'm basically calling it. I've hit that point. Taking MA bar. Themis says upon 75% completion, there is a 96% passage rate. Currently at 83%. I've done close to 2000 MBE PQs + Simulated/Milestone Qs, overall 68% accuracy. Will look over FROs lightly / daily and maybe do a few more 50-set qs, but I'm at the VERY EXCITED TO BE DONE phase.


Somebody tell me Im good to go, because, let's face it, that's all I'm looking for here.

I hope you're good to go because I have very similar %/scores (also taking MA)..... lets do this.

[AlanShore]

I'm basically calling it. I've hit that point. Taking MA bar. Themis says upon 75% completion, there is a 96% passage rate. Currently at 83%. I've done close to 2000 MBE PQs + Simulated/Milestone Qs, overall 68% accuracy. Will look over FROs lightly / daily and maybe do a few more 50-set qs, but I'm at the VERY EXCITED TO BE DONE phase.


Somebody tell me Im good to go, because, let's face it, that's all I'm looking for here.

Let me officially be the first to say "Great job passing the Passachusetts bar!"

Congrats!

Passachusetts may not be passachusetts anymore... scores have gone down in the last few years (more so than other states).

[ndp1234]

Can someone clarify when extrinsic evidence is admissible for both purposes of character evidence and impeachment?

For impeachment, extrinsic evidence is always admissible to prove bias.

For bias, they allow almost anything, so I get that. I guess I'm confused as to when you contradict someone with extrinsic evidence and you can bring in extrinsic evidence to prove someone's character when allowed under the character evidence rule. Does this make sense, or am I totally blurring everything together?

Basically, you have to look to whether it is collateral matter or not. If it is collateral, then you can't introduce extrinsic evidence.

I think if its collateral not involving bias then you can't bring in extrinsic and have to accept their answer regardless of whether it definitely contradicts your extrinsic evidence

But collateral involving bias can be proven by extrinsic I believe

(this is all getting way into the weeds though IMO, I don't think the bar is going to dive this far and if it does it's just 1 question so doesn't matter)

There's no such thing as collateral involving bias. Collateral is things that are not relevant- whether the murder victim's dress was red or burgundy; in a drug case, whether the defendant was employed at burger king for 5 years or 5.5 years. Bias is always relevant. If someone is lying or has reason to lie- that's relevant. If something involves bias- a reason to lie- its never collateral.

Also, to the person who stated:

Can someone clarify when extrinsic evidence is admissible for both purposes of character evidence and impeachment?

No, one can clarify it. It is an unknowable mess.

I feel like this portion of evidence cross-references itself, leading to very confused examinees. Glad someone agrees it's an unknowable mess.

[BigZuck]

I'm basically calling it. I've hit that point. Taking MA bar. Themis says upon 75% completion, there is a 96% passage rate. Currently at 83%. I've done close to 2000 MBE PQs + Simulated/Milestone Qs, overall 68% accuracy. Will look over FROs lightly / daily and maybe do a few more 50-set qs, but I'm at the VERY EXCITED TO BE DONE phase.


Somebody tell me Im good to go, because, let's face it, that's all I'm looking for here.

Let me officially be the first to say "Great job passing the Passachusetts bar!"

Congrats!

Passachusetts may not be passachusetts anymore... scores have gone down in the last few years (more so than other states).

Congrats to you too!

[rambleon65]

I'm basically calling it. I've hit that point. Taking MA bar. Themis says upon 75% completion, there is a 96% passage rate. Currently at 83%. I've done close to 2000 MBE PQs + Simulated/Milestone Qs, overall 68% accuracy. Will look over FROs lightly / daily and maybe do a few more 50-set qs, but I'm at the VERY EXCITED TO BE DONE phase.


Somebody tell me Im good to go, because, let's face it, that's all I'm looking for here.

Let me officially be the first to say "Great job passing the Passachusetts bar!"

Congrats!

Passachusetts may not be passachusetts anymore... scores have gone down in the last few years (more so than other states).

Congrats to you too!

yeah, yeah, i get it. It is PASS-achusetts. But we don't have happy hours, so this makes up for it (maybe).

[1down1togo]

I'm basically calling it. I've hit that point. Taking MA bar. Themis says upon 75% completion, there is a 96% passage rate. Currently at 83%. I've done close to 2000 MBE PQs + Simulated/Milestone Qs, overall 68% accuracy. Will look over FROs lightly / daily and maybe do a few more 50-set qs, but I'm at the VERY EXCITED TO BE DONE phase.


Somebody tell me Im good to go, because, let's face it, that's all I'm looking for here.

Jealous. I'm going to hit 100% on sunday- and it still only gives me a 90% chance of passing :* (