BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[envisciguy]

Am I screwed that I've done only about a total of 1800 MBEs? My score was 128 on the Simulated.

I've been shifting my focus on the Essays right now, and have only done about 250ish or so MBEs since I took the Simulated exam. Thoughts?

This is a joke right?

Nooo... not joking at all. My school recommends that people do at least 2400 mbes before game day. I have no idea how the hell that is possible if you intend to focus on doing well on the Essays. So I've been skipping days on my daily MBEs considering it counts for only 40 and most people who fail end up failing bc of the essays.

I've done almost all the questions barbri has assigned so far for my PSP and I'm a little over 800. So I think you're probably safe with a thousand more.

[Good Guy Gaud]

I don't think PSP count includes the simulated MBE/refresher/practice MBE/half day MBE, right?

[mr.hands]

I don't think PSP count includes the simulated MBE/refresher/practice MBE/half day MBE, right?

Right, almost positive that they don't

[rinkrat19]

If I know I've done 4 sets of MPQs in a subject, why would that subject only have one point on my percent correct graph and one bar on my percentile graph? Is it because nobody else did the sets I did, during the same week that I did?

[Good Guy Gaud]

I don't think PSP count includes the simulated MBE/refresher/practice MBE/half day MBE, right?

Right, almost positive that they don't

K, woo!

Then I've probably done 1500 MBE Q's or so. (I really have no idea but that sounds good)

[Good Guy Gaud]

If I know I've done 4 sets of MPQs in a subject, why would that subject only have one point on my percent correct graph and one bar on my percentile graph? Is it because nobody else did the sets I did, during the same week that I did?

Yea, I think so.

[Blue Ivy]

For strict scrutiny review I have:

Race
Alienage (if done by states and not in the context of a essential government job)
National Original

Right to:
Interstate Travel
Vote
Use Contraceptives
Practice Religion
Association
Marriage
Procreation
Speech
Custody
Keep family unit together
Raise children

Am I missing anything else that would require strict scrutiny review?

[kykiske]

Damnit. Back to earth for me today. Did the "Half-Day" MBE, and got 67/100. Got 85/100 on the MBE Refresher. Hopefully my real score is somewhere between those scores.

[ArmyOfficer]

Damnit. Back to earth for me today. Did the "Half-Day" MBE, and got 67/100. Got 85/100 on the MBE Refresher. Hopefully my real score is somewhere between those scores.

Was the Half Day MBE all the tricky stupid questions like the MBE Refresher?

[Good Guy Gaud]

Damnit. Back to earth for me today. Did the "Half-Day" MBE, and got 67/100. Got 85/100 on the MBE Refresher. Hopefully my real score is somewhere between those scores.

Was the Half Day MBE all the tricky stupid questions like the MBE Refresher?

Was a more fair exam, IMO

[kykiske]

Damnit. Back to earth for me today. Did the "Half-Day" MBE, and got 67/100. Got 85/100 on the MBE Refresher. Hopefully my real score is somewhere between those scores.

Was the Half Day MBE all the tricky stupid questions like the MBE Refresher?

To be super honest, as I was going through the Half Day test, I thought it was easier than the MBE Refresher. Yet my score was much lower on the Half Day.

So, yeah, I have no clue what is going on.

[Kage3212]

Any consensus as to whether these MBE refresher review videos are worth it?

[Poopface]

What does "foundation" mean in evidence law and when is it required? When an answer says "inadmissible because there was no proper foundation laid" what the heck does that mean? Sorry if this is a dumb question I didn't take evidence in law school

[Good Guy Gaud]

Any consensus as to whether these MBE refresher review videos are worth it?

Waste of time, IMO. Better off going through the explanation section.

[kykiske]

Just read Question 4 for Real Property, MEE.

WTF was that lol.

So many issues. So much ambiguity.

Then I read the model answer and became more confused.

[rinkrat19]

What does "foundation" mean in evidence law and when is it required? When an answer says "inadmissible because there was no proper foundation laid" what the heck does that mean? Sorry if this is a dumb question I didn't take evidence in law school

I am shit at proper legal definitions, so here is my plain-language version.
Foundation is like giving context of what a piece of evidence is and why it should be admissible. E.g., you can't just submit a photo into evidence; you have to show it to a witness and ask them if the photo is a fair and accurate representation of the scene of the incident as they recall it. You can't just start asking a random witness to interpret DNA analysis results; you have to establish that they are an expert in the field of DNA analysis by education/experience/certification and that they have read all the data on the analysis in question. You can't just start asking a witness about the victim's injuries, you have to establish that they are a board-certified doctor and they were the one who treated the victim after the attack in question. And so on.

[brotherdarkness]

What does "foundation" mean in evidence law and when is it required? When an answer says "inadmissible because there was no proper foundation laid" what the heck does that mean? Sorry if this is a dumb question I didn't take evidence in law school

I am shit at proper legal definitions, so here is my plain-language version.
Foundation is like giving context of what a piece of evidence is and why it should be admissible. E.g., you can't just submit a photo into evidence; you have to show it to a witness and ask them if the photo is a fair and accurate representation of the scene of the incident as they recall it. You can't just start asking a random witness to interpret DNA analysis results; you have to establish that they are an expert in the field of DNA analysis by education/experience/certification and that they have read all the data on the analysis in question. You can't just start asking a witness about the victim's injuries, you have to establish that they are a board-certified doctor and they were the one who treated the victim after the attack in question. And so on.

While we're on the subject, what's the difference between "foundation" and "authentication"?

[Good Guy Gaud]

I'm so tired of MBE/MEE that I thoroughly enjoyed the MPT I just did.

I've got problems.

[rinkrat19]

What does "foundation" mean in evidence law and when is it required? When an answer says "inadmissible because there was no proper foundation laid" what the heck does that mean? Sorry if this is a dumb question I didn't take evidence in law school

I am shit at proper legal definitions, so here is my plain-language version.
Foundation is like giving context of what a piece of evidence is and why it should be admissible. E.g., you can't just submit a photo into evidence; you have to show it to a witness and ask them if the photo is a fair and accurate representation of the scene of the incident as they recall it. You can't just start asking a random witness to interpret DNA analysis results; you have to establish that they are an expert in the field of DNA analysis by education/experience/certification and that they have read all the data on the analysis in question. You can't just start asking a witness about the victim's injuries, you have to establish that they are a board-certified doctor and they were the one who treated the victim after the attack in question. And so on.

While we're on the subject, what's the difference between "foundation" and "authentication"?

Foundation is establishing that this piece of paper is a page from the store's ledger and we need it because it shows the price that the client paid for the thingy on date X. (What it is/why it's relevant.)
Authentication is having the person who filled out the ledger saying "yep, that's my handwriting, that's what I wrote, nobody changed it." Or someone else saying "yep, that's Bob's handwriting and that's the ledger form that the company uses." (The jury should believe the paper.)

[gobias_inc]

What does "foundation" mean in evidence law and when is it required? When an answer says "inadmissible because there was no proper foundation laid" what the heck does that mean? Sorry if this is a dumb question I didn't take evidence in law school

More or less, it asks if the witness have the knowledge and factual basis to bring in a specific piece of evidence. On simple things like a picture of a house where a crime was committed, you ask the witness "Is this a picture of your house? Does it accurately reflect what your house looked like on the day of the crime?" and that lays the foundation for introducing that picture. For more complicated things, especially experts, you need to establish that the witness is able to introduce more complicated evidence. For instance, if the witness is an engineer and you want to introduce their conclusion that a bridge was negligently designed, you need to establish that they have the knowledge and factual basis to make that conclusion; that's going to mean bringing in information like their professional qualifications, their experience in the field, what specific facts they used in making that conclusion (pictures of the bridge, blueprints, looking at the scene after the bridge collapsed, etc) and why that conclusion is reliable.

Foundation proves both to the judge and the finder of fact that the evidence being offered is reliable; otherwise why would a judge be willing to admit it, or why would a jury accept that evidence in their deliberations?

[gobias_inc]

What does "foundation" mean in evidence law and when is it required? When an answer says "inadmissible because there was no proper foundation laid" what the heck does that mean? Sorry if this is a dumb question I didn't take evidence in law school

I am shit at proper legal definitions, so here is my plain-language version.
Foundation is like giving context of what a piece of evidence is and why it should be admissible. E.g., you can't just submit a photo into evidence; you have to show it to a witness and ask them if the photo is a fair and accurate representation of the scene of the incident as they recall it. You can't just start asking a random witness to interpret DNA analysis results; you have to establish that they are an expert in the field of DNA analysis by education/experience/certification and that they have read all the data on the analysis in question. You can't just start asking a witness about the victim's injuries, you have to establish that they are a board-certified doctor and they were the one who treated the victim after the attack in question. And so on.

While we're on the subject, what's the difference between "foundation" and "authentication"?

Foundation is "this evidence is admissible because it's supported by personal knowledge of the witness"
Authentication is "this evidence is, in fact, what the proponent purports it to be."

[Killingly]

Just finished the Emmanuel test - 134/200, but no Civ Pro.

Got 103/200 on the simulated MBE.

If I can go 134/200 raw on the real thing I'd be elated.

Eta: I wish Barbri had told us/I'd discovered earlier that study smart lets you do questions organized by subtopic. Sigh. So many regrets.

[brotherdarkness]

What does "foundation" mean in evidence law and when is it required? When an answer says "inadmissible because there was no proper foundation laid" what the heck does that mean? Sorry if this is a dumb question I didn't take evidence in law school

I am shit at proper legal definitions, so here is my plain-language version.
Foundation is like giving context of what a piece of evidence is and why it should be admissible. E.g., you can't just submit a photo into evidence; you have to show it to a witness and ask them if the photo is a fair and accurate representation of the scene of the incident as they recall it. You can't just start asking a random witness to interpret DNA analysis results; you have to establish that they are an expert in the field of DNA analysis by education/experience/certification and that they have read all the data on the analysis in question. You can't just start asking a witness about the victim's injuries, you have to establish that they are a board-certified doctor and they were the one who treated the victim after the attack in question. And so on.

While we're on the subject, what's the difference between "foundation" and "authentication"?

Foundation is establishing that this piece of paper is a page from the store's ledger and we need it because it shows the price that the client paid for the thingy on date X. (What it is/why it's relevant.) Authentication is having the person who filled out the ledger saying "yep, that's my handwriting, that's what I wrote, nobody changed it." (The jury should believe the paper.) (Or someone else saying "yep, that's Bob's handwriting and that's the ledger form that the company uses.")

How do we establish foundation for the piece of paper? Call the person who filled out the report to say "yes, that is a page from the store's ledger." That seems a lot like authentication, so I assume I'm misunderstanding.

[gobias_inc]

What does "foundation" mean in evidence law and when is it required? When an answer says "inadmissible because there was no proper foundation laid" what the heck does that mean? Sorry if this is a dumb question I didn't take evidence in law school

I am shit at proper legal definitions, so here is my plain-language version.
Foundation is like giving context of what a piece of evidence is and why it should be admissible. E.g., you can't just submit a photo into evidence; you have to show it to a witness and ask them if the photo is a fair and accurate representation of the scene of the incident as they recall it. You can't just start asking a random witness to interpret DNA analysis results; you have to establish that they are an expert in the field of DNA analysis by education/experience/certification and that they have read all the data on the analysis in question. You can't just start asking a witness about the victim's injuries, you have to establish that they are a board-certified doctor and they were the one who treated the victim after the attack in question. And so on.

While we're on the subject, what's the difference between "foundation" and "authentication"?

Foundation is establishing that this piece of paper is a page from the store's ledger and we need it because it shows the price that the client paid for the thingy on date X. (What it is/why it's relevant.) Authentication is having the person who filled out the ledger saying "yep, that's my handwriting, that's what I wrote, nobody changed it." (The jury should believe the paper.) (Or someone else saying "yep, that's Bob's handwriting and that's the ledger form that the company uses.")

How do we establish foundation for the piece of paper? Call the person who filled out the report to say "yes, that is a page from the store's ledger." That seems a lot like authentication, so I assume I'm misunderstanding.

Foundation for the paper would be "Do you recognize this paper? What is it? How do you recognize it?" if you're trying to introduce the paper itself.
Authentication would be "Is that Bob's handwriting?" if you're trying to prove that Bob wrote it.

[Charger]

I thought I had this down pat, but now I'm not sure that I understand where venue is proper. I understand the two part test: venue is proper i) where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim took place; and ii) the district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the state where that district is located.

The second prong is confusing to me. If all defendants don't reside in the same state, then do we just ignore prong #2? And does "reside" mean "domicile"? I feel like sometimes we're supposed to consider personal jdx, but sometimes we dont..? (See Q54 MBE Refresher) Can someone clarify?

Venue is a three-part test.

First, are all Ds residents of the same state? If so, any district where one of those Ds is residing is proper.

If not, second step. Where did the issue giving rise to the suit occur? Venue is proper in that district.

And if you can't lay venue in either, then venue is proper wherever any D is subject to PJ.

As far as reside and venue, it's different than PJ. For venue, a defendant resides wherever it is subject to PJ. For PJ, a defendant resides in only two places (place of incorporation and nerve center)

Question on this. I thought it was more of a two part test. First, if all D's reside in the same state then any district where one of those D resides OR where the issue giving rise to the suit occurred. P has the choice between these two. Then, if neither, then wherever D is subject to PJ.

Can someone clear this up for me?