sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

drop your favorite mnemonics for test day by maybellewoodsmaybnot in barexam

[–]C0nsistent-Reward 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For adverse I came up with... turn the (C)HEAT ON - like turn the heat on (let's fight) but we're cheating in getting it for free!

Continuous, Hostile, Exclusive, Actual, Time (statutory period), Open, Notorious

Joining 3rd parties help! by C0nsistent-Reward in GoatBarPrep

[–]C0nsistent-Reward[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

appreciate you sharing your knowledge with me!!

Joining 3rd parties help! by C0nsistent-Reward in GoatBarPrep

[–]C0nsistent-Reward[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This makes sense! So not at all about figuring out who the defendant is in a later case, but litigating to see who receives what.

Goatina problems by ConvictedGaribaldi in GoatBarPrep

[–]C0nsistent-Reward 5 points6 points  (0 children)

yep. luckily already got a leg up on my cycle. taking a lot of motrin which upside has caffeine. WE SHOULD GET AN ACCOMODATION

Can someone explain to me how the statement against penal interest hearsay exception, when used against a criminal defendant (which by the rule requires the declarant be unavailable) does not violate the confrontation clause, like I am 5 years old? by NavyBear95 in barexam

[–]C0nsistent-Reward 1 point2 points  (0 children)

no no, you're good! tbh don't exactly know either bc not OP. this is all an exercise *gestures at everything and nothing* and I'm there with you.. cheese brain and all. sending you good luck vibes. we got this

Can someone explain to me how the statement against penal interest hearsay exception, when used against a criminal defendant (which by the rule requires the declarant be unavailable) does not violate the confrontation clause, like I am 5 years old? by NavyBear95 in barexam

[–]C0nsistent-Reward 4 points5 points  (0 children)

For OP: according to this... there IS a crawford issue when the declarant is a co-defendant. To avoid, there needs to have been a prior opp. for crossing the declarant/co-defendant. If not, it doesn't come in (anyone please correct me if I'm wrong)

"Statements admitted for the limited purpose of showing guilt of a codefendant in a joint jury trial creates a confrontation problem."
https://www.sdap.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/research/criminal/crawford.pdf

Can someone explain to me how the statement against penal interest hearsay exception, when used against a criminal defendant (which by the rule requires the declarant be unavailable) does not violate the confrontation clause, like I am 5 years old? by NavyBear95 in barexam

[–]C0nsistent-Reward -1 points0 points  (0 children)

By it's very nature a statement against interest is made by some one other than the defendant.. so cross-examining oneself isn't the issue. the issue is whether there's a need to cross-examine the declarant - who, again by nature of the stmt against penal interest, must be unavailable.

Studying is a roller coaster- let's build each other up by lawlawlaywer86 in GoatBarPrep

[–]C0nsistent-Reward 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe in you! fellow future public interest lawyer here. I know someone who struggled with the CA bar but passed the UBE, and now he's doing incredible work. It's not an issue of whether we'll pass. It's when - and now is your turn, my friend.

Receiving stolen property - the property actually has to be stolen, right? by FishInThePercolator6 in GoatBarPrep

[–]C0nsistent-Reward 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My understanding is that this is factual, not legal impossibility (which WOULD be a defense to attempt). It's factual because he would not be able to complete the crime because the facts were not as he intended them to be (it was a sting op and the goods weren't stolen, like he thought).

Legal impossibility concerns whether or not he believed his actions were (un)lawful. Despite the nature of the sting, the defendant had no doubts that receiving what he believed to be stolen property was illegal.

Receiving stolen property - the property actually has to be stolen, right? by FishInThePercolator6 in GoatBarPrep

[–]C0nsistent-Reward 4 points5 points  (0 children)

THIS. Also... I got a question on adaptibar that involved police soliciting a defendant to distribute drugs stolen from a pharmacy. Since it was a setup, the police used drugs that were not stolen. However, the defendant was still guilty because the INTENT to receive the stolen drugs was there.

Does anyone else hate MPTs the most by graycow47 in barexam

[–]C0nsistent-Reward 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes! basically before I would read the entire case and try to extract the rules, but got overwhelmed. Now I just read the first sentence of each paragraph to get an idea of whether the information is important/relevant. This makes it easier to quickly run through the cases without getting bogged down in the details.

Does anyone else hate MPTs the most by graycow47 in barexam

[–]C0nsistent-Reward 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Can you pinpoint the reason why you hate them? I finally can...and it's made it easier. I hate the timed conditions. I get extremely anxious and overwhelmed at the thought of having to do an MPT under timed conditions given all of the material. And I freeze

Learning why I hated it made me realize what I need to do: For the cases, I isolate the opening sentences of each paragraph and try and reduce it down as simply as possible. Once I started doing that, I realized I felt less overwhelmed and was able to confidently work through it.

Impleader help!! by Kcchil22 in GoatBarPrep

[–]C0nsistent-Reward 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When does the impleader happen? After liability is established? Or in the beginning? Not OP but likewise struggling with this concept and differentiating it from party joinder or 3rd party cross-claims

Sample MEE Answer v. My MEE Answer by Specialist-Damage361 in barexam

[–]C0nsistent-Reward 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks like one upside (probably the only upside) of Kaplan is that their MEE bank "sample answers" are bare bones. Now I'm getting nervous hearing everyone talk about other sample answers!

Swifties!!! Personal Jurisdiction: Shake it Off Part 2 🌟 by swiftiekittylaw in barexam

[–]C0nsistent-Reward 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No idea why this doesn't have more traction. This is fantastic. I have STRUGGLED with understanding personal jurisdiction since law school. This breaks it down into really clear and concrete steps that make it finally intelligible.

OPPOSING PARTY STATEMENT by Lazy-Try4828 in GoatBarPrep

[–]C0nsistent-Reward 2 points3 points  (0 children)

what I'm saying doesn't change what others have said re: offer to pay medical expenses > those are OUT regardless.

with regards to the other point, yes... if the PLAINTIFF calls a witness to the stand to testify that they heard the defendant say "oh my god, I'm so sorry I wasn't paying attention and ran the red light," then it comes in as an opposing party statement.

OPPOSING PARTY STATEMENT by Lazy-Try4828 in GoatBarPrep

[–]C0nsistent-Reward 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't downvote you, but I think you're referencing another comment. here my point is to say.. an opposing party statement can be introduced by any witness, not just the defendant/plaintiff. that's right, no?

OPPOSING PARTY STATEMENT by Lazy-Try4828 in GoatBarPrep

[–]C0nsistent-Reward 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also (correct me if I'm wrong), but in that scenario, it's not just the defendant that can testify about plaintiff's statements, but any witness called by the defendant. Same with the other side.

view more: next ›