Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE) Forum

[SLS_AMG]

Honestly, I feel like (and hope!) the nuances that people are discussing here are far beyond the minimum competency required to pass this exam. I doubt most exam takers even thought about most of this stuff.

I can't believe I'm more freaked out and scared of failing because of the MEEs rather than the Mbes. I just can't believe how many incorrect things I may have written. I really hope they determine the essays this time were more difficult and somehow the curve helps us... is that even likely?

Relax. No one got everything. The bulk of your points will come from your analysis. Multiple UBE states have released model answers that flat out get the law wrong and they're still model answers. That should tell you everything you need to know. Moreover, the consensus seems to be that the essays were difficult not only in content but also in the amount of material covered in three hours.

[whitecollar23]

( “[T]he district court is under no obligation to suppress evidence sua sponte.”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1182, 115 S.Ct. 1172, 130 L.Ed.2d 1125 (1995). I.e. it is not an error to not exclude evidence that should've been suppressed.

Sua sponte implies that no party objects, and the court excludes on its own motion. If a party objects, and evidence is admitted improperly over the objection, then it is an error, at least if it affects a substantial right. [citation needed]

If a defendant objects, what we need to know then is whether a general objection is enough to replace a motion to suppress.

A general objection is enough for an appeal when it's clear based on the context what it was for. It's in the FRE. Forget which one, but you could easily Google it.

The question was about whether the trial court erred, not what a court should do with this on appeal. And I thought the whole premise of plain error review is that a trial court can err in failing to exclude evidence even absent objection. You might say that that's only the case where the error is substantial, but the first prong of plain error review is whether there's an error at all; prong two is substantiality. The answer to that can be yes even though there's no substantiality, so the test assumes the possibility of insubstantial, unobjected errors.

"A court may take notice of a plain error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved." FRE 103(e). It MAY take notice, meaning it's in the court's discretion in such a situation, unlike when it is objected to properly. From notes on the rule: "In the nature of things the application of the plain error rule will be more likely with respect to the admission of evidence than to exclusion, since failure to comply with normal requirements of offers of proof is likely to produce a record which simply does not disclose the error."

I hope this helps.

[whitecollar23]

^^ pretty sure it's out of 10

I know for a fact, with 100% certainty, that in NY it's graded out of 6. You're welcome to believe it's graded out of 10; it doesn't really make a difference. But I know, for certain, that's it's graded out of 6. You can message me if you want me to explain further.

so is a 3 failing then? meaning if I truly think I failed the MPT/essays can I estimate on the seperac calculator that I got 3s or is that too generous? 1s and 2s a real thing even if you put something on the paper?

Based on my essays that Kaplan grades, it is definitely possible to get a 2.

[afarmerfromiowa]

"A court may take notice of a plain error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved." FRE 103(e). It MAY take notice, meaning it's in the court's discretion in such a situation, unlike when it is objected to properly. From notes on the rule: "In the nature of things the application of the plain error rule will be more likely with respect to the admission of evidence than to exclusion, since failure to comply with normal requirements of offers of proof is likely to produce a record which simply does not disclose the error."

I hope this helps.

again, that's a rule about when a party can raise a "claim of error." (See 103(a), on how a "claim of error" is properly preserved and when a party "may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude..."). It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a ruling is an error or not, which is what we were asked - not whether the defendant could claim error after the fact. If you're a trial judge and a witness starts testifying to blatant hearsay, you're supposed to stop it whether or not anyone objects. However, if you don't receive an objection and don't exclude, you have discretion to consider whether, e.g., to grant a new trial on the basis of your erroneous admissions, assuming they're error, or to treat the party's claim of error as unpreserved for purposes of post-trial motions, and an appellate court is limited to plain-error review. the notes you're quoting cut my way, as courts are more likely, the notes say, to review unpreserved errors when those errors take the form of erroneous admissions (which the question was potentially about); an erroneous exclusion unaccompanied by an offer of proof will produce a record which isn't susceptible to appellate review.

In any event, the question was quite opaque on the basis for and nature of the objections, so as to disguise what the question was about - which, apparently, was very successful, as many people here seem to have mistaken it for a straight-up evidence question. All we maybe know is that there were no pre-trial motions.

[afarmerfromiowa]

I thought the evidence issues were quite insubstantial and that it was almost all about Miranda.

lol no.

the whole thing's just a series of statements made by one party, offered by his opponent, plus the little business of the recorded recollection and the reading/admitting distinction, which was extremely basic and not very involved, though there were some points there. there were some non-miranda crim pro issues as well, but mostly miranda

[SLS_AMG]

I thought the evidence issues were quite insubstantial and that it was almost all about Miranda.

lol no.

the whole thing's just a series of statements made by one party, offered by his opponent, plus the little business of the recorded recollection and the reading/admitting distinction, which was extremely basic and not very involved, though there were some points there. there were some non-miranda crim pro issues as well, but mostly miranda

Without getting into too much detail, I think it's important with evidence to start from the top and consider the evidentiary fundamentals before jumping straight to hearsay/nonhearsay/hearsay exceptions. There was more there than just considering statements. There was something to be said re: evidence on every subpart, save maybe one.

[MoreCowBellPlease]

I thought the evidence issues were quite insubstantial and that it was almost all about Miranda.

lol no.

the whole thing's just a series of statements made by one party, offered by his opponent, plus the little business of the recorded recollection and the reading/admitting distinction, which was extremely basic and not very involved, though there were some points there. there were some non-miranda crim pro issues as well, but mostly miranda

Without getting into too much detail, I think it's important with evidence to start from the top and consider the evidentiary fundamentals before jumping straight to hearsay/nonhearsay/hearsay exceptions. There was more there than just considering statements. There was something to be said re: evidence on every subpart, save maybe one.

Ugh...I was wanting to discuss Miranda but did not feel like there was an issue with that based on the fact pattern. I guess I didn't read carefully. I talked about FRE 403, hearsay, and past recollection recorded.


On a side note... is personal service on a non-resident defendant in the forum state sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant (and therefore, no minimum contacts analysis required)?

[mvp99]

I thought the evidence issues were quite insubstantial and that it was almost all about Miranda.

lol no.

the whole thing's just a series of statements made by one party, offered by his opponent, plus the little business of the recorded recollection and the reading/admitting distinction, which was extremely basic and not very involved, though there were some points there. there were some non-miranda crim pro issues as well, but mostly miranda

Without getting into too much detail, I think it's important with evidence to start from the top and consider the evidentiary fundamentals before jumping straight to hearsay/nonhearsay/hearsay exceptions. There was more there than just considering statements. There was something to be said re: evidence on every subpart, save maybe one.

Ugh...I was wanting to discuss Miranda but did not feel like there was an issue with that based on the fact pattern. I guess I didn't read carefully. I talked about FRE 403, hearsay, and past recollection recorded.


On a side note... is personal service on a non-resident defendant in the forum state sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant (and therefore, no minimum contacts analysis required)?

yes.

it seems everyone struggled with the evidence essay to some extent

[SLS_AMG]

I thought the evidence issues were quite insubstantial and that it was almost all about Miranda.

lol no.

the whole thing's just a series of statements made by one party, offered by his opponent, plus the little business of the recorded recollection and the reading/admitting distinction, which was extremely basic and not very involved, though there were some points there. there were some non-miranda crim pro issues as well, but mostly miranda

Without getting into too much detail, I think it's important with evidence to start from the top and consider the evidentiary fundamentals before jumping straight to hearsay/nonhearsay/hearsay exceptions. There was more there than just considering statements. There was something to be said re: evidence on every subpart, save maybe one.

Ugh...I was wanting to discuss Miranda but did not feel like there was an issue with that based on the fact pattern. I guess I didn't read carefully. I talked about FRE 403, hearsay, and past recollection recorded.


On a side note... is personal service on a non-resident defendant in the forum state sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant (and therefore, no minimum contacts analysis required)?

With regards to the first part of your post, I really wouldn't worry about it. I didn't really discuss crim pro either even though I recognized the issue since (1) I was under the impression the examiners never combine MBE topics in essays and (2) it didn't seem possible to address two topics with so many sub-questions in 30 minutes.

It still seems to be debated that that essay was even testing two topics, but to the extent it was, it was first and foremost an evidence essay, despite what the quoted poster may have said. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[evidence_notcrimpro]

Anytime I have studied MEE essays, evidence essays ask about whether the court was correct in admitting the evidence. Criminal law/pro MEE essays ask about suppression of evidence which hints at 4th, 5th, or 6th amendment issues. How can you write an analysis of crim pro issues in 15 minutes?? Also, any fact pattern about being in court and raising objections about testifying is usually evidence questions.

[MoreCowBellPlease]

I thought the evidence issues were quite insubstantial and that it was almost all about Miranda.

lol no.

the whole thing's just a series of statements made by one party, offered by his opponent, plus the little business of the recorded recollection and the reading/admitting distinction, which was extremely basic and not very involved, though there were some points there. there were some non-miranda crim pro issues as well, but mostly miranda

Without getting into too much detail, I think it's important with evidence to start from the top and consider the evidentiary fundamentals before jumping straight to hearsay/nonhearsay/hearsay exceptions. There was more there than just considering statements. There was something to be said re: evidence on every subpart, save maybe one.

Ugh...I was wanting to discuss Miranda but did not feel like there was an issue with that based on the fact pattern. I guess I didn't read carefully. I talked about FRE 403, hearsay, and past recollection recorded.


On a side note... is personal service on a non-resident defendant in the forum state sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant (and therefore, no minimum contacts analysis required)?

With regards to the first part of your post, I really wouldn't worry about it. I didn't really discuss crim pro either even though I recognized the issue since (1) I was under the impression the examiners never combine MBE topics in essays and (2) it didn't seem possible to address two topics with so many sub-questions in 30 minutes.

It still seems to be debated that that essay was even testing two topics, but to the extent it was, it was first and foremost an evidence essay, despite what the quoted poster may have said. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Thanks, all. You gave me peace of mind.

[Sam0406]

I'm still stressed so much about the MEE qs that were asked this July. MPT was okay. What are the chances the curve will actually be a little be lenient this summer? I know tpfers have posted that you don't have to write the correct law in order to receive passing score. I just wish I didn't have to rely and pray for a miracle on the MBE.

[ellewoods123]

I'm still stressed so much about the MEE qs that were asked this July. MPT was okay. What are the chances the curve will actually be a little be lenient this summer? I know tpfers have posted that you don't have to write the correct law in order to receive passing score. I just wish I didn't have to rely and pray for a miracle on the MBE.

wondering this also. been trying so hard to put it out my head but it seems the more time that passes the less and less confident I feel. I'm heavily relying on my MBE as well...I've always heard/read if you're in the 150 range you virtually autopass, but from playing with seperac calculator that just doesn't necessarily seem to be the case. I just wish we had any sense of what a 3 vs 4 answer looks like, etc.

[symphony07]

this whole post-bar exam pre-results life sucks. Feels so much like being stuck in limbo. Sometimes I think the prepping part was easier than this waiting period. numbness, very little desire to socialize, etc. just awful. Funnily enough, a bunch of my friends from law school have also gone AWOL. not a peep from anyone. social media is down, etc. LOL.

[symphony07]

I'm still stressed so much about the MEE qs that were asked this July. MPT was okay. What are the chances the curve will actually be a little be lenient this summer? I know tpfers have posted that you don't have to write the correct law in order to receive passing score. I just wish I didn't have to rely and pray for a miracle on the MBE.

wondering this also. been trying so hard to put it out my head but it seems the more time that passes the less and less confident I feel. I'm heavily relying on my MBE as well...I've always heard/read if you're in the 150 range you virtually autopass, but from playing with seperac calculator that just doesn't necessarily seem to be the case. I just wish we had any sense of what a 3 vs 4 answer looks like, etc.

maybe reviewing the essays on this page will help give a sense of what lower vs. higher graded essays look like:
http://www.makethisyourlasttime.com/essay-bank/

[Sam0406]

I'm still stressed so much about the MEE qs that were asked this July. MPT was okay. What are the chances the curve will actually be a little be lenient this summer? I know tpfers have posted that you don't have to write the correct law in order to receive passing score. I just wish I didn't have to rely and pray for a miracle on the MBE.

wondering this also. been trying so hard to put it out my head but it seems the more time that passes the less and less confident I feel. I'm heavily relying on my MBE as well...I've always heard/read if you're in the 150 range you virtually autopass, but from playing with seperac calculator that just doesn't necessarily seem to be the case. I just wish we had any sense of what a 3 vs 4 answer looks like, etc.

I don't know if this is helpful at all, I talked to a friend who passed on 3rd retake. He received higher score for each MEE (with all 4s it's out of 4s) first time compared to the second time (received mixtures of 3s and 4s), but ended up receiving higher total score for MEE/MPT overall because of the curve. This is really frustrating.

[SLS_AMG]

I'm still stressed so much about the MEE qs that were asked this July. MPT was okay. What are the chances the curve will actually be a little be lenient this summer? I know tpfers have posted that you don't have to write the correct law in order to receive passing score. I just wish I didn't have to rely and pray for a miracle on the MBE.

wondering this also. been trying so hard to put it out my head but it seems the more time that passes the less and less confident I feel. I'm heavily relying on my MBE as well...I've always heard/read if you're in the 150 range you virtually autopass, but from playing with seperac calculator that just doesn't necessarily seem to be the case. I just wish we had any sense of what a 3 vs 4 answer looks like, etc.

I know the wait is awful, but you have to convince yourself to move on. I often have trouble with things like this, but I've been oddly at peace after the bar. And this is coming from someone who walked out of the bar feeling pretty bad as well.

If nothing else, convince yourself you failed and enjoy the time before results are released as a way to decompress before prepping again. But, really, you should convince yourself you passed and forget about it completely. Think about it: if you stress about the exam until results are released, you'll essentially have surrendered about a half a year of your life to this exam. That's ridiculous, and you're just letting the bar examiners get the best of you. Get the best of them by forgetting about it. After all, living well is the best revenge.

[rkreymer]

I'm still stressed so much about the MEE qs that were asked this July. MPT was okay. What are the chances the curve will actually be a little be lenient this summer? I know tpfers have posted that you don't have to write the correct law in order to receive passing score. I just wish I didn't have to rely and pray for a miracle on the MBE.

wondering this also. been trying so hard to put it out my head but it seems the more time that passes the less and less confident I feel. I'm heavily relying on my MBE as well...I've always heard/read if you're in the 150 range you virtually autopass, but from playing with seperac calculator that just doesn't necessarily seem to be the case. I just wish we had any sense of what a 3 vs 4 answer looks like, etc.

I know the wait is awful, but you have to convince yourself to move on. I often have trouble with things like this, but I've been oddly at peace after the bar. And this is coming from someone who walked out of the bar feeling pretty bad as well.

If nothing else, convince yourself you failed and enjoy the time before results are released as a way to decompress before prepping again. But, really, you should convince yourself you passed and forget about it completely. Think about it: if you stress about the exam until results are released, you'll essentially have surrendered about a half a year of your life to this exam. That's ridiculous, and you're just letting the bar examiners get the best of you. Get the best of them by forgetting about it. After all, living well is the best revenge.

easier said than done. The waiting is just awful and the fact that everyone constantly asks whether the results are in is not helping the matter. I wonder if the results will come in sooner this year.

[BillCooper]

Needed a 270, got a 266. Failed in my jurisdiction but can transfer to many others.

MBE: 144
MEE: 122