Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017 Forum

[star fox]

Do you need to satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirement for a diversity claim when joining a defendant under compulsory joinder like you do for permissive joinder?

yeah and the court may just toss out the whole thing if the party is indispensable

[Bass]

Please educate me:

[+] Spoiler

Question 3260

The President entered into a treaty on human rights on behalf of the United States. The Senate ratified this treaty, which was not self-executing, but took no further action on the treaty. In accord with the terms of this treaty, an international tribunal determined that a prisoner was entitled to a reconsideration of his conviction for murder by a state court. The President issued an order requiring the state to give effect to the international tribunal’s determination. The state court, adhering to state law, refused to reconsider the prisoner’s conviction.

Has the state court violated the Supremacy Clause?

Answers:

Correct Answer: No, because the treaty was not self-executing.
No, because a treaty is not entitled to the same treatment as a federal statute.
Yes, because the conduct of foreign affairs is committed to the President.
You Selected: Yes, because the presidential order constituted implementation of the treaty.
Rationale:

Answer choice A is correct. Under the Supremacy Clause, a state is required to follow federal law when it conflicts with state law. A treaty that is not self-executing is not treated as federal law for purposes of the Supremacy Clause, however, unless it has been implemented through legislation. The President, acting on his own, cannot implement such a treaty. Consequently, the state court was free to follow state law; its refusal to reconsider the prisoner’s conviction did not violate the Supremacy Clause. Answer choice B is incorrect because a treaty may be entitled to the same treatment as a federal statute when the treaty is self-executing or has been implemented by legislation. Answer choice C is incorrect because the President cannot, acting on his own, implement a non-self-executing treaty, even a treaty that has been ratified by the Senate. Although the President is entrusted with the conduct of foreign affairs and has the power to enter into a treaty on behalf of the United States, he cannot take such actions on his own. Answer choice D is incorrect because the implementation of a non-self-executing treaty requires congressional legislation.

I couldn't quite reconcile the explanation above with Themis outline's description below:

[+] Spoiler

2. Treaties

Pursuant to the Treaty Clause (Art. II, Sec. 2. Cl. 2), the President has the exclusive power to negotiate treaties, although a treaty may only be ratified with the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate.

a. Effect of a treaty

The Constitution is superior to a treaty, and any conflict is resolved in favor of the Constitution. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). A treaty has the same authority as an act of Congress; should the two conflict, the one most recently adopted controls. A non-self-executing treaty (one that requires legislation in order to implement its provisions) does not have the same force of law as an act of Congress until legislation is passed effectuating the treaty. In the absence of implementing legislation by Congress, the President does not have the authority to make a non-self-executing treaty binding on the states. Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008); Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (Jackson, J., conc.). A ratified treaty takes precedence over any inconsistent state law. Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

What's the difference between a ratified treaty and a non-self-executing treaty effectuated by legislation?

[lavarman84]

Please educate me:

[+] Spoiler

Question 3260

The President entered into a treaty on human rights on behalf of the United States. The Senate ratified this treaty, which was not self-executing, but took no further action on the treaty. In accord with the terms of this treaty, an international tribunal determined that a prisoner was entitled to a reconsideration of his conviction for murder by a state court. The President issued an order requiring the state to give effect to the international tribunal’s determination. The state court, adhering to state law, refused to reconsider the prisoner’s conviction.

Has the state court violated the Supremacy Clause?

Answers:

Correct Answer: No, because the treaty was not self-executing.
No, because a treaty is not entitled to the same treatment as a federal statute.
Yes, because the conduct of foreign affairs is committed to the President.
You Selected: Yes, because the presidential order constituted implementation of the treaty.
Rationale:

Answer choice A is correct. Under the Supremacy Clause, a state is required to follow federal law when it conflicts with state law. A treaty that is not self-executing is not treated as federal law for purposes of the Supremacy Clause, however, unless it has been implemented through legislation. The President, acting on his own, cannot implement such a treaty. Consequently, the state court was free to follow state law; its refusal to reconsider the prisoner’s conviction did not violate the Supremacy Clause. Answer choice B is incorrect because a treaty may be entitled to the same treatment as a federal statute when the treaty is self-executing or has been implemented by legislation. Answer choice C is incorrect because the President cannot, acting on his own, implement a non-self-executing treaty, even a treaty that has been ratified by the Senate. Although the President is entrusted with the conduct of foreign affairs and has the power to enter into a treaty on behalf of the United States, he cannot take such actions on his own. Answer choice D is incorrect because the implementation of a non-self-executing treaty requires congressional legislation.

I couldn't quite reconcile the explanation above with Themis outline's description below:

[+] Spoiler

2. Treaties

Pursuant to the Treaty Clause (Art. II, Sec. 2. Cl. 2), the President has the exclusive power to negotiate treaties, although a treaty may only be ratified with the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate.

a. Effect of a treaty

The Constitution is superior to a treaty, and any conflict is resolved in favor of the Constitution. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). A treaty has the same authority as an act of Congress; should the two conflict, the one most recently adopted controls. A non-self-executing treaty (one that requires legislation in order to implement its provisions) does not have the same force of law as an act of Congress until legislation is passed effectuating the treaty. In the absence of implementing legislation by Congress, the President does not have the authority to make a non-self-executing treaty binding on the states. Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008); Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (Jackson, J., conc.). A ratified treaty takes precedence over any inconsistent state law. Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

What's the difference between a ratified treaty and a non-self-executing treaty effectuated by legislation?

Bass, the bold answers your question. But to go a step further, a ratified treaty would be a self-executing treaty. Basically, it would be a treaty with the provisions for executing it already built in. A non-self-executing treaty doesn't have sufficient provisions built in, so it is on Congress to legislate to enforce the treaty.

Regardless, I don't expect we'd get asked about the substance of a self-executing treaty vs. a non-self-executing treaty. I think you have to just keep in mind that a non-self-executing treaty doesn't take precedence over an inconsistent state law unless Congress acts to execute it.

[Bass]

Please educate me:

[+] Spoiler

Question 3260

The President entered into a treaty on human rights on behalf of the United States. The Senate ratified this treaty, which was not self-executing, but took no further action on the treaty. In accord with the terms of this treaty, an international tribunal determined that a prisoner was entitled to a reconsideration of his conviction for murder by a state court. The President issued an order requiring the state to give effect to the international tribunal’s determination. The state court, adhering to state law, refused to reconsider the prisoner’s conviction.

Has the state court violated the Supremacy Clause?

Answers:

Correct Answer: No, because the treaty was not self-executing.
No, because a treaty is not entitled to the same treatment as a federal statute.
Yes, because the conduct of foreign affairs is committed to the President.
You Selected: Yes, because the presidential order constituted implementation of the treaty.
Rationale:

Answer choice A is correct. Under the Supremacy Clause, a state is required to follow federal law when it conflicts with state law. A treaty that is not self-executing is not treated as federal law for purposes of the Supremacy Clause, however, unless it has been implemented through legislation. The President, acting on his own, cannot implement such a treaty. Consequently, the state court was free to follow state law; its refusal to reconsider the prisoner’s conviction did not violate the Supremacy Clause. Answer choice B is incorrect because a treaty may be entitled to the same treatment as a federal statute when the treaty is self-executing or has been implemented by legislation. Answer choice C is incorrect because the President cannot, acting on his own, implement a non-self-executing treaty, even a treaty that has been ratified by the Senate. Although the President is entrusted with the conduct of foreign affairs and has the power to enter into a treaty on behalf of the United States, he cannot take such actions on his own. Answer choice D is incorrect because the implementation of a non-self-executing treaty requires congressional legislation.

I couldn't quite reconcile the explanation above with Themis outline's description below:

[+] Spoiler

2. Treaties

Pursuant to the Treaty Clause (Art. II, Sec. 2. Cl. 2), the President has the exclusive power to negotiate treaties, although a treaty may only be ratified with the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate.

a. Effect of a treaty

The Constitution is superior to a treaty, and any conflict is resolved in favor of the Constitution. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). A treaty has the same authority as an act of Congress; should the two conflict, the one most recently adopted controls. A non-self-executing treaty (one that requires legislation in order to implement its provisions) does not have the same force of law as an act of Congress until legislation is passed effectuating the treaty. In the absence of implementing legislation by Congress, the President does not have the authority to make a non-self-executing treaty binding on the states. Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008); Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (Jackson, J., conc.). A ratified treaty takes precedence over any inconsistent state law. Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

What's the difference between a ratified treaty and a non-self-executing treaty effectuated by legislation?

Bass, the bold answers your question. But to go a step further, a ratified treaty would be a self-executing treaty. Basically, it would be a treaty with the provisions for executing it already built in. A non-self-executing treaty doesn't have sufficient provisions built in, so it is on Congress to legislate to enforce the treaty.

Regardless, I don't expect we'd get asked about the substance of a self-executing treaty vs. a non-self-executing treaty. I think you have to just keep in mind that a non-self-executing treaty doesn't take precedence over an inconsistent state law unless Congress acts to execute it.

Many thanks lavarman. In that case, my thoughts are as follows:

1 Question 3260 calls forth an example of a treaty ratified but is not self executing.
2 What then is the point of ratification? It seems ratification does not give the treaty force of law.
2 Or is ratification always a necessary step after the President signs a treaty?

[uceoledinbdnrn]

Please educate me:

[+] Spoiler

Question 3260

The President entered into a treaty on human rights on behalf of the United States. The Senate ratified this treaty, which was not self-executing, but took no further action on the treaty. In accord with the terms of this treaty, an international tribunal determined that a prisoner was entitled to a reconsideration of his conviction for murder by a state court. The President issued an order requiring the state to give effect to the international tribunal’s determination. The state court, adhering to state law, refused to reconsider the prisoner’s conviction.

Has the state court violated the Supremacy Clause?

Answers:

Correct Answer: No, because the treaty was not self-executing.
No, because a treaty is not entitled to the same treatment as a federal statute.
Yes, because the conduct of foreign affairs is committed to the President.
You Selected: Yes, because the presidential order constituted implementation of the treaty.
Rationale:

Answer choice A is correct. Under the Supremacy Clause, a state is required to follow federal law when it conflicts with state law. A treaty that is not self-executing is not treated as federal law for purposes of the Supremacy Clause, however, unless it has been implemented through legislation. The President, acting on his own, cannot implement such a treaty. Consequently, the state court was free to follow state law; its refusal to reconsider the prisoner’s conviction did not violate the Supremacy Clause. Answer choice B is incorrect because a treaty may be entitled to the same treatment as a federal statute when the treaty is self-executing or has been implemented by legislation. Answer choice C is incorrect because the President cannot, acting on his own, implement a non-self-executing treaty, even a treaty that has been ratified by the Senate. Although the President is entrusted with the conduct of foreign affairs and has the power to enter into a treaty on behalf of the United States, he cannot take such actions on his own. Answer choice D is incorrect because the implementation of a non-self-executing treaty requires congressional legislation.

I couldn't quite reconcile the explanation above with Themis outline's description below:

[+] Spoiler

2. Treaties

Pursuant to the Treaty Clause (Art. II, Sec. 2. Cl. 2), the President has the exclusive power to negotiate treaties, although a treaty may only be ratified with the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate.

a. Effect of a treaty

The Constitution is superior to a treaty, and any conflict is resolved in favor of the Constitution. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). A treaty has the same authority as an act of Congress; should the two conflict, the one most recently adopted controls. A non-self-executing treaty (one that requires legislation in order to implement its provisions) does not have the same force of law as an act of Congress until legislation is passed effectuating the treaty. In the absence of implementing legislation by Congress, the President does not have the authority to make a non-self-executing treaty binding on the states. Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008); Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (Jackson, J., conc.). A ratified treaty takes precedence over any inconsistent state law. Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

What's the difference between a ratified treaty and a non-self-executing treaty effectuated by legislation?

Bass, the bold answers your question. But to go a step further, a ratified treaty would be a self-executing treaty. Basically, it would be a treaty with the provisions for executing it already built in. A non-self-executing treaty doesn't have sufficient provisions built in, so it is on Congress to legislate to enforce the treaty.

Regardless, I don't expect we'd get asked about the substance of a self-executing treaty vs. a non-self-executing treaty. I think you have to just keep in mind that a non-self-executing treaty doesn't take precedence over an inconsistent state law unless Congress acts to execute it.

Many thanks lavarman. In that case, my thoughts are as follows:

1 Question 3260 calls forth an example of a treaty ratified but is not self executing.
2 What then is the point of ratification? It seems ratification does not give the treaty force of law.
2 Or is ratification always a necessary step after the President signs a treaty?

President ratifies after 2/3rds senate Advise and Consent. So all treaties get ratified.

But non-self executing treaties are basically agreements in principle whereas self-executing treaties are agreements to actually do something (like IDK some of the arbitration agreements in NAFTA or TPP were probably self-executing). For bar examistan, just go with lavarman's advice- look for congressional action after the treaty if they tell you it's not self executing.

If you're curious, they hypo you asked about is basically this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas

[robin600]

Does anybody else read this as being an in-person line-up with voice ID instead of just voice ID as the answer says? Makes a difference in this question!

[+] Spoiler

At the station, she was put in a lineup in which each woman was required to read the statement spoken by the gas station robber: “I’ve got a gun, so don’t do anything clever.”

[MelaPela]

Do you need to satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirement for a diversity claim when joining a defendant under compulsory joinder like you do for permissive joinder?

yeah and the court may just toss out the whole thing if the party is indispensable

Usually the party joined is joined under the same claim (like D1 joining D2) so AIC wouldn't be implicated. The questions testing this usually test it for diversity, not AIC.

[helpappreciated]

Can someone explain the question where rape resulted in the victim getting a hemorrhage that lead to death doesn't invoke Double Jeopardy protection when the defendant is charged with rape and felony murder?

[IronCobra]

Has anyone else done the evidence/crimes practice essay (ID 4090)? Really frustrated with the format of the questions. They were all phrased in a way that made it seem like they were purely asking about the issues from an FRE perspective, but then the model answer has a bunch of Miranda analysis as well. The questions should have been a little more specific that they wanted both an FRE and Miranda analysis....

[Fireworks2016]

Can someone explain the question where rape resulted in the victim getting a hemorrhage that lead to death doesn't invoke Double Jeopardy protection when the defendant is charged with rape and felony murder?

IIRC, it's because you can prosecute more serious crimes if the triggering event had not occurred at the time of the first trial. Therefore because she had not died until after the rape conviction, D can still be prosecuted for felony murder.

[Fireworks2016]

Has anyone else done the evidence/crimes practice essay (ID 4090)? Really frustrated with the format of the questions. They were all phrased in a way that made it seem like they were purely asking about the issues from an FRE perspective, but then the model answer has a bunch of Miranda analysis as well. The questions should have been a little more specific that they wanted both an FRE and Miranda analysis....

Literally just finished that and came to complain about it. I had no idea based on the phrasing of the prompts that I was supposed to go way deep on Miranda issues. Especially for like the last statement/part of the prompt.

[gotsomequestions]

i got killed on the mixed mbe pq set 9. anyone else have trouble with this set?

It was definitely harder than the other sets. I have been getting 69-74% on the sets and ended that one at 63%. I remember a lot of the questions testing unfamiliar nuances.

relieved to hear i'm not alone.

Yes, Mixed MBE set 9 was hard. I started off badly and fought my way to 60% when the "goal" of course was 70%. That set tested a ton of unfair nuances that I don't think will be in the actual exam.

I did well on 9 and got killed by 11. I did take 11 completely exhausted late a night, but still.

3: 62%, 4: 70%, 5: 64%, 6: 62%, 7: 68%, 8: 76%, 9: 70%, 10: 76%, 11: 56%.

FWIW, got 144/200 on the full MBE.

[MelaPela]

i got killed on the mixed mbe pq set 9. anyone else have trouble with this set?

It was definitely harder than the other sets. I have been getting 69-74% on the sets and ended that one at 63%. I remember a lot of the questions testing unfamiliar nuances.

relieved to hear i'm not alone.

Yes, Mixed MBE set 9 was hard. I started off badly and fought my way to 60% when the "goal" of course was 70%. That set tested a ton of unfair nuances that I don't think will be in the actual exam.

I did well on 9 and got killed by 11. I did take 11 completely exhausted late a night, but still.

3: 62%, 4: 70%, 5: 64%, 6: 62%, 7: 68%, 8: 76%, 9: 70%, 10: 76%, 11: 56%.

FWIW, got 144/200 on the full MBE.

Looks like you'll definitely pass!

[Hahalollawl]

The final review outline for Evidence says that extrinsic evidence of a specific act is not allowed to impeach a witness's character for truthfulness. A little later it says contradictory evidence can be used to impeach if it contradicts witness's testimony, including contradictory material extrinsic evidence. How are these consistent? Is it trying to say that the contradictory extrinsic evidence can be used to impeach the witness for everything but a specific act related to character for truthfulness?

[MelaPela]

The final review outline for Evidence says that extrinsic evidence of a specific act is not allowed to impeach a witness's character for truthfulness. A little later it says contradictory evidence can be used to impeach if it contradicts witness's testimony, including contradictory material extrinsic evidence. How are these consistent? Is it trying to say that the contradictory extrinsic evidence can be used to impeach the witness for everything but a specific act related to character for truthfulness?

Here's what I understand from Critical Pass:

1. You can use extrinsic evidence of a contradictory statement the witness made to impeach them. So, if witness testifies and says "I saw John Doe at the bar," but previously had said to his friend Jane, "I did not see John Doe at the bar," the statement to Jane is extrinsic evidence that can be used to impeach.

2. You can also impeach a witness on cross-examination about any prior misconduct (a specific act) that relates to his or her truthfulness (e.g. evidence that he lied to employer about his college degree shows that he's not truthful). This isn't necessarily a contradictory statement, but just some act that shows his untruthfulness. In this case, though, extrinsic evidence is not allowed. The questioning attorney can only ask the witness about his prior untruthful misconduct and has to take whatever the witness says as truth.

Hope this helps!

[ernie]

Anyone else skipping or skimming the FROs and relying mainly on the MEE Workshop handouts for memorizing BLL for the MEE? This is what I'm doing, not sure if this is wise or not.

[ernie]

My thinking is that even the FROs have too much BLL for me to really remember, the workshop handouts seem so much more manageable.

[Samarcan]

Anyone else skipping or skimming the FROs and relying mainly on the MEE Workshop handouts for memorizing BLL for the MEE? This is what I'm doing, not sure if this is wise or not.

I'm doing the exact same thing. I'm looking over the brief ~10-pager Ide-Don MEE lecture outline for the MEE-only subjects like Trusts or Wills or Corporations. Seems like they have the main topics and from what others say you can kind of BS or write your way to a decent essay score with those main topics. I'm also relying on him when he says certain topics are likely not gonna be tested on the MEE because they usually arent.

Someone do please correct me if this is wrong and we really need to look at the main outlines for the MEE topics!!

[RLowry23]

Anyone else skipping or skimming the FROs and relying mainly on the MEE Workshop handouts for memorizing BLL for the MEE? This is what I'm doing, not sure if this is wise or not.

I'm doing the exact same thing. I'm looking over the brief ~10-pager Ide-Don MEE lecture outline for the MEE-only subjects like Trusts or Wills or Corporations. Seems like they have the main topics and from what others say you can kind of BS or write your way to a decent essay score with those main topics. I'm also relying on him when he says certain topics are likely not gonna be tested on the MEE because they usually arent.

Someone do please correct me if this is wrong and we really need to look at the main outlines for the MEE topics!!

What are these IDE-DON things ppl keep talking about...

[gatorfan163287]

Anyone else skipping or skimming the FROs and relying mainly on the MEE Workshop handouts for memorizing BLL for the MEE? This is what I'm doing, not sure if this is wise or not.

I'm doing the exact same thing. I'm looking over the brief ~10-pager Ide-Don MEE lecture outline for the MEE-only subjects like Trusts or Wills or Corporations. Seems like they have the main topics and from what others say you can kind of BS or write your way to a decent essay score with those main topics. I'm also relying on him when he says certain topics are likely not gonna be tested on the MEE because they usually arent.

Someone do please correct me if this is wrong and we really need to look at the main outlines for the MEE topics!!

What are these IDE-DON things ppl keep talking about...

The lectures by this ball fondler.

http://i.imgur.com/XOivbzt.png

[whats an updog]

whoa whoa whoa, chris is a champ

Anyone else skipping or skimming the FROs and relying mainly on the MEE Workshop handouts for memorizing BLL for the MEE? This is what I'm doing, not sure if this is wise or not.

I'm doing the exact same thing. I'm looking over the brief ~10-pager Ide-Don MEE lecture outline for the MEE-only subjects like Trusts or Wills or Corporations. Seems like they have the main topics and from what others say you can kind of BS or write your way to a decent essay score with those main topics. I'm also relying on him when he says certain topics are likely not gonna be tested on the MEE because they usually arent.

Someone do please correct me if this is wrong and we really need to look at the main outlines for the MEE topics!!

I think that this is fine so long as you're doing the practice essays and reading the model answers. The model answers (in my opinion) give a really good look at how you can attack various issues.

[TXBar2017]

i got killed on the mixed mbe pq set 9. anyone else have trouble with this set?

It was definitely harder than the other sets. I have been getting 69-74% on the sets and ended that one at 63%. I remember a lot of the questions testing unfamiliar nuances.

relieved to hear i'm not alone.

Yes, Mixed MBE set 9 was hard. I started off badly and fought my way to 60% when the "goal" of course was 70%. That set tested a ton of unfair nuances that I don't think will be in the actual exam.

I did well on 9 and got killed by 11. I did take 11 completely exhausted late a night, but still.

3: 62%, 4: 70%, 5: 64%, 6: 62%, 7: 68%, 8: 76%, 9: 70%, 10: 76%, 11: 56%.

FWIW, got 144/200 on the full MBE.

Are you me? We seem to be having a similar variance, I came here and registered just to see if other people thought PQ11 was harder too. Assuming each PQ is the same for everyone, that one had a lot of weirdly worded Q's and odd fact patterns. Like WTF as to the frat house mattress battery question, even though the average says that was supposed to be an easy one.

PQ9: 66%
PQ10: 74%

SMBE: 151/200

PQ11: 68%

[bill_swerski]

i got killed on the mixed mbe pq set 9. anyone else have trouble with this set?

It was definitely harder than the other sets. I have been getting 69-74% on the sets and ended that one at 63%. I remember a lot of the questions testing unfamiliar nuances.

relieved to hear i'm not alone.

Yes, Mixed MBE set 9 was hard. I started off badly and fought my way to 60% when the "goal" of course was 70%. That set tested a ton of unfair nuances that I don't think will be in the actual exam.

I did well on 9 and got killed by 11. I did take 11 completely exhausted late a night, but still.

3: 62%, 4: 70%, 5: 64%, 6: 62%, 7: 68%, 8: 76%, 9: 70%, 10: 76%, 11: 56%.

FWIW, got 144/200 on the full MBE.

Are you me? We seem to be having a similar variance, I came here and registered just to see if other people thought PQ11 was harder too. Assuming each PQ is the same for everyone, that one had a lot of weirdly worded Q's and odd fact patterns. Like WTF as to the frat house mattress battery question, even though the average says that was supposed to be an easy one.

PQ9: 66%
PQ10: 74%

SMBE: 151/200

PQ11: 68%

I agree that Themis's PQ are getting extraordinary difficult in the later practice sets. Moreover, as an adaptibar user, I generally find Themis to be harder overall. I have a 75% on adaptibar w/over 1100 questions, but only a 69% for Themis after 1700 questions (SMBE: 152/200)

I usually just treat Themis PQs as a way to learn nuances of the law, just in case it comes up on the bar. However, I really doubt not reaching their "goal" in some of the practice tests is reflective of how I (or anyone else) will do on the actual bar.

Also, there is no way I can ever write out an MEE essay like Themis's model answers (nor do I think it's necessary to pass; so I hope )

[Samarcan]

A question I have been struggling with: Themis says that in a criminal case, a defendant can introduce specific prior acts/conduct if they are inconsistent with a character trait that is an essential element of the crime charged. Critical Pass flashcards (card #6, for anyone curious) says that a criminal defendant can only introduce his own good character, even when pertinent to the charged crime, by reputation or opinion testimony not specific instances.

Is this an inconsistency, or am I missing a nuance? Please help clarify if you can!

[whats an updog]

A question I have been struggling with: Themis says that in a criminal case, a defendant can introduce specific prior acts/conduct if they are inconsistent with a character trait that is an essential element of the crime charged. Critical Pass flashcards (card #6, for anyone curious) says that a criminal defendant can only introduce his own good character, even when pertinent to the charged crime, by reputation or opinion testimony not specific instances.

Is this an inconsistency, or am I missing a nuance? Please help clarify if you can!

Where are you seeing in Themis that it's okay to introduce specific acts? In the Evidence outline (page 11 of MBE Outline, page 12 of CA outline), it says that a defendant can only prove their own good character by reputation testimony or opinion testimony.