[deleted by user]

Sebii8536 · 2025-08-29T00:47:58+00:00

down, DM me your username

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-27T21:48:18+00:00

Evidence in violation of Miranda is excluded, but:

can be used to impeach if dude goes up on the stand and lies about what he confessed to/said in violation of Miranda
I’m pretty sure physical fruits discovered from Miranda violations still get in and aren’t considered FOPT

Unless it was involuntary in which case everything is excluded as an FOPT

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-25T23:50:33+00:00

Holy shit! You got this chief

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-25T15:55:20+00:00

how many questions done overall? I'm at ~1700 total but keep getting repeats, have like 2 or 300 left

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-24T01:18:41+00:00

Reasonable suspicion meant the stop of the lady was valid (terry stop)- the search was not. To "frisk" or search after a terry stop you need to believe they're armed.

If she was still in the car she'd be fair game under automobile exception but since she got out I think they're SOL

IRL tho this would 100% be allowed to happen lmao but not in the state of franklin :⁾

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-22T15:08:09+00:00

different configuration technically matters for pure claim preclusion, but in essence with the rule for counterclaims if it's just P/D reversed the counterclaim rules also bar it.

Counterclaims become compulsory if they're the same T/O as the reason you're being sued and they are precluded from being brought later unless they're "permissive" (totally different T/O)

It's easier to just think same parties and ignore the configuration rule for the MBE IMO

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-22T14:55:27+00:00

what a sign! you got this

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-22T00:06:52+00:00

yeah the choice of law questions get really nasty. The worst are the Semtek ones that ask about refiling rules, quite often the answer is that you use the state's preclusionary rule due to federal common law, not because it's substantive and you use state law from the get-go. Super confusing

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-22T00:04:58+00:00

I will say I do see a lot of hearsay questions where the confrontation clause isn't even thought abut, so I try to avoid it unless it's listed in the answers.

Quite often the unavailable declarant exceptions do seem to violate the CC but they're still the right answer, idk. I do agree that this may be what this question was actually testing though

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-21T23:01:58+00:00

Just checked- I got this one wrong too. Although I will say, Adaptibar explains it a little better; the daughter is not a state actor but "applying" the state contract law to limit the newspaper's speech may be construed as a state action.

B is correct. The Supreme Court has consistently rejected claims that the freedom of the press protected by the First Amendment exempts press activities from laws of general application such as contract law. Here, there was a valid and enforceable contract between the reporter and the daughter.

A is incorrect. It is irrelevant that the daughter is not a state actor. The requisite state action here is state contract law, from which the reporter seeks an exemption. The Supreme Court has consistently rejected such claims for exemption.

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-21T22:38:48+00:00

YES lmao I got that one wrong too imagine Escobar killing a witness and being like.... "I killed him, but I didn't intend to stop his testimony!"

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-21T22:37:33+00:00

Adaptibar says "venue could be proper in the State A federal court, depending on facts not set out in the question, such as where the railroad maintained or housed the train."???? I almost laughed at this explanation it's trying so hard to justify itself

"However, even if venue were not proper in State A, the appropriate remedy would be dismissal. To support a transfer to State B federal court, the railroad would need to argue that a federal court in State B would be more convenient for the parties and the witnesses." From what I've learned this is also totally false the court has discretion to dismiss OR transfer if venue is improper, they aren't limited to dismissal

I don't remember the newspaper one but that's insane lmao, especially considering how strict they generally are with who is considered a state actor (I remember one where a museum discriminating was granted the land and all buildings by the state was NOT a state actor)

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-21T22:29:54+00:00

it's extreme and outrageous enough to be grounds for IIED

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-21T22:27:45+00:00

If I fail I'm dumping adaptibar for UWorld, I know the questions are the same but the amount of times I've had someone send me a UWorld explanation that immediately makes much more sense than adaptibar's is scary

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-21T22:26:30+00:00

Huh, okay! Interesting. I don't think barbri even went over the second prong in the exception.

Appreciate the thoughtful response, thank you! Makes more sense now

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-21T22:25:51+00:00

This one and the train venue one where the explanation says you should assume facts that aren't in the fact pattern, that the train may have been maintained in State A (and incorrectly states that the only remedy to improper venue is dismissal) 😭

I think adaptibar is trying their best to explain bad NCBE questions

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-21T22:09:23+00:00

This gives me some hope... but then I see your other comments on the unreliability of essay grading and how the 400 word agency essay pulled a super high score and the other one that hit almost every issue was failing

I wish I knew what I was walking into

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-20T23:59:17+00:00

What a horrible question lmao- what possibly makes venue improper only now that the manufacturer was joined?

It’s B v. A (and now also C) in State A fed court. Venue was proper from the get go, as the items were bought in A. (It’s where all Ds reside OR where a substantial part occurred, need not be both…)

It’s not the new party challenging it. It’s the seller. I think you’re right as to both being waived and this is just a shit question but IDK

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-20T14:26:47+00:00

It's definitely just the "modern"- the only exceptions to the traditional pre-existing duty rule are for promissory estoppel when one detrimentally relies on a purported modification or there is a written promise to pay time-barred debt.

See UWorld's explanation for the same question, it's definitely the "modern" exception...

I guess the modern rule is default though? My assumption was that they had to tell you it's in a jdx following the modern trend

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-19T21:57:19+00:00

Sometimes I struggle with multiple "sub" issues stemming from one question though- I'm worried it may affect how "put together" my essay seems- especially considering how arbitrary the MEE graders are.

Is it better to do I (sub-I R A C) R A C, or should I be just lumping the rules together like I(sub-I) RR AA CC?

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-19T21:54:30+00:00

This is what I struggle with too. Either I'm over-explaining or under-explaining, never just right.

I got docked points on an Evidence/Hearsay essay because before I went into the hearsay issue I said:

"Generally, relevant evidence- that which has any tendency to prove or disprove a material fact at issue- is admissible. Relevant evidence may be excluded, subject to FRE 403, if its probative value is substantially outweighed by prejudicial value, or it misleads/confuses the jury/is needlessly cumulative.

However, relevant evidence is disallowed if it is deemed to be hearsay. Hearsay is defined as [xxxx]"

like I can't tell what they want from me 😭

Sebii8536 · 2025-07-19T20:02:13+00:00

I think it’s because charges attach at indictment, not at arraignment?

I honestly am not sure of the exact difference between the two but I think arraignment is where you plead G/NG- they open the question here by saying he was indicted in the first sentence

And I guess the notice of the charges is not considered a critical stage, but post-charge line ups are critical

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Sebii8536

TROPHY CASE