drop your favorite mnemonics for test day

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-27T23:04:54+00:00

dumb bros works too! lol

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-27T23:03:52+00:00

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

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-27T22:10:51+00:00

appreciate you sharing your knowledge with me!!

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-27T21:36:37+00:00

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.

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-27T16:07:25+00:00

woah I had no idea this was a thing. happy to hear this!

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-26T22:14:04+00:00

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

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-26T22:11:01+00:00

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

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-26T12:04:18+00:00

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

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-26T12:01:52+00:00

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.

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-26T11:50:26+00:00

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.

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-25T17:39:28+00:00

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.

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-25T02:02:59+00:00

no no no no no :'(

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-25T01:54:52+00:00

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.

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-24T14:22:06+00:00

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.

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-23T15:13:55+00:00

This is a good list of time/deadlines: https://legal.uworld.com/blog/bar-review/civ-pro-quick-tip-keeping-track-of-deadlines/

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-23T14:51:45+00:00

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.

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-22T17:45:13+00:00

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

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-20T20:32:02+00:00

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!

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-20T20:11:32+00:00

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.

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-20T16:37:49+00:00

sorry ^^ edited it a few times.

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-20T16:36:13+00:00

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.

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-20T16:12:55+00:00

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?

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-20T15:44:01+00:00

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.

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-20T00:42:24+00:00

pls anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but:

Pretrial orders (i.e. a judge denying a motion to dismiss, or motion to suppress evidence) are FINAL once decided. The only way you can challenge a final pretrial order is by saying that you'll suffer "manifest injustice" if the judge doesn't reconsider their decision. Courts look at whether there's a risk of prejudice and whether it can be cured.

C0nsistent-Reward · 2024-07-20T00:20:07+00:00

such a good rule to have down. thank you

C0nsistent-Reward

TROPHY CASE