BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[kyle010723]

Exceptions to the above: MPQ set #6.

Hahaha, exactly. Following Guzman rules screwed me over a few times... namely, any animal on the MBE is always dangerous (except cows and dogs).

[Kage3212]

Exceptions to the above: MPQ set #6.

Hahaha, exactly. Following Guzman rules screwed me over a few times... namely, any animal on the MBE is always dangerous (except cows and dogs).

Dont forget bees.

[kyle010723]

Exceptions to the above: MPQ set #6.

Hahaha, exactly. Following Guzman rules screwed me over a few times... namely, any animal on the MBE is always dangerous (except cows and dogs).

Dont forget bees.

Or rattlesnakes!

[Good Guy Gaud]

Exceptions to the above: MPQ set #6.

Hahaha, exactly. Following Guzman rules screwed me over a few times... namely, any animal on the MBE is always dangerous (except cows and dogs).

Dont forget bees.

YEA BUT THEY WERE DOMESTICATED

[bluewin888]

can someone help explain how jury instruction to affect substantial rules? it is from civil pro ?

A protester brought an action in federal court against a police
officer, alleging that the officer’s use of force in arresting the
protester violated the protester’s federal civil rights.
During the jury trial, eyewitnesses gave conflicting testimony
on the arrest. At the close of evidence, the protester moved
for judgment as a matter of law, which the court denied.
The court instructed the jury that the protester’s burden of
proof was clear and convincing evidence, rather than the
correct burden of preponderance of the evidence. The jury
returned a verdict for the officer, and the court entered judgment
accordingly.
What is the protester’s best option for challenging the
judgment?
(A) Seek a new trial, because the jury instruction affected the
protester’s substantial rights.
(B) Seek a new trial, because the verdict was against the
clear weight of the evidence.
(C) Seek judgment as a matter of law, because the jury did
not have legally sufficient evidence to find for the officer.
(D) Seek judgment as a matter of law, because the jury’s
findings were clearly erroneous.

[BVest]

I just tried it. 15/21 which is slightly below my Barbri average. I mean, fair housing act?? Withdrawal of complaint?! Huh?

I also got 15/21 which is in line with my barbri. I did get those two though (thanks to year-long civ pro and property courses 1L year). I was a little nervous when I missed 3 of the first 4, but I then started to spread them out a bit better.

On the friend who agreed to steal the TV:

[+] Spoiler

I felt like he had accomplice liability for the burglary for having driven him there (help) and encouraged him in the crime's commission. That's the very definition of accomplice. And an accomplice is liable for the crime itself. Am I wrong about that?

I even felt like he was potentially liable for conspiracy as well, because while he did not intend to steal the TV himself, he did intend for his friend to commit the burglary (otherwise, calling the police on him gets you nowhere) and agreed to help him do so (by driving him to the scene). Even if his intent was that his friend get caught committing the burglary, that includes that he intend the burglary be committed in the first place. But there wasn't a choice of "Burglary and conspiracy" so I picked just burglary.

And yeah, the K modification question...

[kyle010723]

can someone help explain how jury instruction to affect substantial rules? it is from civil pro ?

A protester brought an action in federal court against a police
officer, alleging that the officer’s use of force in arresting the
protester violated the protester’s federal civil rights.
During the jury trial, eyewitnesses gave conflicting testimony
on the arrest. At the close of evidence, the protester moved
for judgment as a matter of law, which the court denied.
The court instructed the jury that the protester’s burden of
proof was clear and convincing evidence, rather than the
correct burden of preponderance of the evidence. The jury
returned a verdict for the officer, and the court entered judgment
accordingly.
What is the protester’s best option for challenging the
judgment?
(A) Seek a new trial, because the jury instruction affected the
protester’s substantial rights.
(B) Seek a new trial, because the verdict was against the
clear weight of the evidence.
(C) Seek judgment as a matter of law, because the jury did
not have legally sufficient evidence to find for the officer.
(D) Seek judgment as a matter of law, because the jury’s
findings were clearly erroneous.

[+] Spoiler

A, for new trial. JNOV is not proper because a reasonable jury can conclude otherwise. B is not right because it does not need to be "clear" weight.

[BVest]

can someone help explain how jury instruction to affect substantial rules? it is from civil pro ?

A protester brought an action in federal court against a police
officer, alleging that the officer’s use of force in arresting the
protester violated the protester’s federal civil rights.
During the jury trial, eyewitnesses gave conflicting testimony
on the arrest. At the close of evidence, the protester moved
for judgment as a matter of law, which the court denied.
The court instructed the jury that the protester’s burden of
proof was clear and convincing evidence, rather than the
correct burden of preponderance of the evidence. The jury
returned a verdict for the officer, and the court entered judgment
accordingly.
What is the protester’s best option for challenging the
judgment?
(A) Seek a new trial, because the jury instruction affected the
protester’s substantial rights.
(B) Seek a new trial, because the verdict was against the
clear weight of the evidence.
(C) Seek judgment as a matter of law, because the jury did
not have legally sufficient evidence to find for the officer.
(D) Seek judgment as a matter of law, because the jury’s
findings were clearly erroneous.

[+] Spoiler

The jury instructions affected the protester's substantial rights because it made it more difficult for the protester to get a jury verdict on his action to enforce his rights than the law requires. That said, the question is one that can be largely answered by process of elimination. Here we're told that there's conflicting evidence on both sides. As a result, JMOL would be wrong, as would verdict against clear weight of the evidence, so you can eliminate B, C, and D and just go with A. I think this question would likely be counted as a civ pro question, though I suppose it could be a Con Law.

ETA: The "against clear weight of evidence" is the standard for a mot. for new trial on factual sufficiency grounds, I think... Here though you're challenging the court's incorrect application of the law, not the jury's finding against the clear weight.

[musicfor18]

I just tried it. 15/21 which is slightly below my Barbri average. I mean, fair housing act?? Withdrawal of complaint?! Huh?

I also got 15/21 which is in line with my barbri. I did get those two though (thanks to year-long civ pro and property courses 1L year). I was a little nervous when I missed 3 of the first 4, but I then started to spread them out a bit better.

On the friend who agreed to steal the TV:

[+] Spoiler

I felt like he had accomplice liability for the burglary for having driven him there (help) and encouraged him in the crime's commission. That's the very definition of accomplice. And an accomplice is liable for the crime itself. Am I wrong about that?

I even felt like he was potentially liable for conspiracy as well, because while he did not intend to steal the TV himself, he did intend for his friend to commit the burglary (otherwise, calling the police on him gets you nowhere) and agreed to help him do so (by driving him to the scene). Even if his intent was that his friend get caught committing the burglary, that includes that he intend the burglary be committed in the first place. But there wasn't a choice of "Burglary and conspiracy" so I picked just burglary.

And yeah, the K modification question...

[+] Spoiler

theres no conspiracy because common law requires two guilty minds, and he didn't intend that the crime be committed. There's no accomplice liability because he withdrew by calling the police and preventing the crime.

[kyle010723]

I just tried it. 15/21 which is slightly below my Barbri average. I mean, fair housing act?? Withdrawal of complaint?! Huh?

I also got 15/21 which is in line with my barbri. I did get those two though (thanks to year-long civ pro and property courses 1L year). I was a little nervous when I missed 3 of the first 4, but I then started to spread them out a bit better.

On the friend who agreed to steal the TV:

[+] Spoiler

I felt like he had accomplice liability for the burglary for having driven him there (help) and encouraged him in the crime's commission. That's the very definition of accomplice. And an accomplice is liable for the crime itself. Am I wrong about that?

I even felt like he was potentially liable for conspiracy as well, because while he did not intend to steal the TV himself, he did intend for his friend to commit the burglary (otherwise, calling the police on him gets you nowhere) and agreed to help him do so (by driving him to the scene). Even if his intent was that his friend get caught committing the burglary, that includes that he intend the burglary be committed in the first place. But there wasn't a choice of "Burglary and conspiracy" so I picked just burglary.

And yeah, the K modification question...

[+] Spoiler

I thought the Friend was an accomplice too. But I think the reason that you cannot get him for accomplice was because he had NO intent to assist.

But yea, that question was odd. And if the real MPE is anything like that, we're all screwed...

[kyle010723]

[+] Spoiler

theres no conspiracy because common law requires two guilty minds, and he didn't intend that the crime be committed. There's no accomplice liability because he withdrew by calling the police and preventing the crime.

So to withdraw from conspiracy, you need to notify co-parties. But to withdraw from accomplice, you only need to call the cop?

[Good Guy Gaud]

[+] Spoiler

theres no conspiracy because common law requires two guilty minds, and he didn't intend that the crime be committed. There's no accomplice liability because he withdrew by calling the police and preventing the crime.

So to withdraw from conspiracy, you need to notify co-parties. But to withdraw from accomplice, you only need to call the cop?

I don't think you can withdraw from a conspiracy

ETA: once an "overt" act has been taken, right?

[musicfor18]

[+] Spoiler

theres no conspiracy because common law requires two guilty minds, and he didn't intend that the crime be committed. There's no accomplice liability because he withdrew by calling the police and preventing the crime.

So to withdraw from conspiracy, you need to notify co-parties. But to withdraw from accomplice, you only need to call the cop?

I don't think you can withdraw from a conspiracy

ETA: once an "overt" act has been taken, right?

Withdrawal isn't a defense to conspiracy, but it's a defense to any crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy after you withdrew.

[kyle010723]

[+] Spoiler

theres no conspiracy because common law requires two guilty minds, and he didn't intend that the crime be committed. There's no accomplice liability because he withdrew by calling the police and preventing the crime.

So to withdraw from conspiracy, you need to notify co-parties. But to withdraw from accomplice, you only need to call the cop?

I don't think you can withdraw from a conspiracy

ETA: once an "overt" act has been taken, right?

That's right, you cannot withdraw from a conspiracy once you agreed to it period. My brain is definitely NOT functioning.

[Kage3212]

Best part about this is that here in PA, the legislature had decided that you can indeed withdraw from a conspiracy, so long as you thwart the success of the underlying crimes and your withdrawl is completely voluntary and renounce any criminal intent. Ugh.....

[musicfor18]

Best part about this is that here in PA, the legislature had decided that you can indeed withdraw from a conspiracy, so long as you thwart the success of the underlying crimes and your withdrawl is completely voluntary and renounce any criminal intent. Ugh.....

This is the Model Penal Code approach.

[victortsoi]

[+] Spoiler

theres no conspiracy because common law requires two guilty minds, and he didn't intend that the crime be committed. There's no accomplice liability because he withdrew by calling the police and preventing the crime.

So to withdraw from conspiracy, you need to notify co-parties. But to withdraw from accomplice, you only need to call the cop?

I don't think you can withdraw from a conspiracy

ETA: once an "overt" act has been taken, right?

That's right, you cannot withdraw from a conspiracy once you agreed to it period. My brain is definitely NOT functioning.

you can withdraw but you basically have to be cersei from game of thrones and do the walk...completely undo every aspect of your crime and make sure nothing comes of the agreement. basically almost never see that on the mbe.

[musicfor18]

[+] Spoiler

theres no conspiracy because common law requires two guilty minds, and he didn't intend that the crime be committed. There's no accomplice liability because he withdrew by calling the police and preventing the crime.

So to withdraw from conspiracy, you need to notify co-parties. But to withdraw from accomplice, you only need to call the cop?

I'm actually pretty sure this is correct.

[Tiago Splitter]

Barbri has made very clear there is no withdrawal from conspiracy on the MBE. You can only get out of liability for subsequent crimes.

[kyle010723]

Sigh, my answer to all these is just don't rob anyone or break into places, then no need to worry about conspiracy or accomplice. Now accomplice for bigamy was a whole nother level.

[Kage3212]

Easiest way to think about it is that one cannot withdraw from the conspiracy itself (on the MBE). However, one can withdraw from the co-conspirators subsequent crimes, including the target offense of the conspiracy.

Thus, the person would be guilty of conspiracy to murder, but not the actual murder if he effectively withdrew.

I know this was a little beaten, but the above kind of sums it up.

[musicfor18]

Easiest way to think about it is that one cannot withdraw from the conspiracy itself (on the MBE). However, one can withdraw from the co-conspirators subsequent crimes, including the target offense of the conspiracy.

Thus, the person would be guilty of conspiracy to murder, but not the actual murder if he effectively withdrew.

I know this was a little beaten, but the above kind of sums it up.

If an MBE question specifically says "under the Model Penal Code," then the right answer is that you can withdraw from the conspiracy itself by voluntarily going to the cops and preventing the target crime from happening. The BarBri outlines say this. But such a question would be evil!

[musicfor18]

Sigh, my answer to all these is just don't rob anyone or break into places, then no need to worry about conspiracy or accomplice. Now accomplice for bigamy was a whole nother level.

Was there actually a question on accomplice liability for bigamy?

[rinkrat19]

Anyone take that 21 question MBE sample set on the NCBE site? Thought it was worth doing because of all the talk about Barbri questions being different from the real ones.

Got 81% correct, about 10% better than my average for barbri questions...

So maybe there is something to the barbri questions being harder? Anyone else do this?

I don't recall what I got on the set but I know it was also a fair deal higher than what I average on BarBri. There just may be something to this altitude training BarBri has us doing but unfortunately there is no way for us to find out until we receive our PASSING scores

Hmm, got 67%. That's around my average. Not bad, I guess.

I just tried it. 15/21 which is slightly below my Barbri average. I mean, fair housing act?? Withdrawal of complaint?! Huh?

jfc, I just got my lowest score on anything in weeks (barbri or emanuel). 43%. I'm so screwed. My percentages were already in the "it'll take a miracle" range, but at least I was at about 60% usually.
(my fellowship depends on passing, so I'm not like one you biglaw people who'll get 2 tries before anyone cares.)

[Good Guy Gaud]

Rink, have you taken any time off lately? Might be worthwhile if you haven't. Just 1/2 day or so.

Helped me refocus.