Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017 Forum

[cal.trask]

Yeah I think some of the Qs are fishy too villanova. Q77 bothers me, isn't this basically the facts of Strieff?

I'm thinking that since Streiff was decided in 2016 the rule just doesn't apply at least to these questions.

Super fun though that the bar examiners apparently are asking multiple choice questions about open questions of law that the 9 most important lawyers in the country consistently split on.

I'm pretty sure I've had another question from themis go the other way, applying strieff, and the outline itself cites strieff. These may be antiquated MBE questions though.

[uceoledinbdnrn]

Yeah I think some of the Qs are fishy too villanova. Q77 bothers me, isn't this basically the facts of Strieff?

I'm thinking that since Streiff was decided in 2016 the rule just doesn't apply at least to these questions.

Super fun though that the bar examiners apparently are asking multiple choice questions about open questions of law that the 9 most important lawyers in the country consistently split on.

I'm pretty sure I've had another question from themis go the other way, applying strieff, and the outline itself cites strieff. These may be antiquated MBE questions though.

Like I said, not annoying at all.

They don't give us a hard cut-off date after which they won't apply new law, do they (not that I would have recognized that fact pattern nor would I have known what side of the cut-off it was).

[cal.trask]

I'm just going to assume that they didn't bother updating that question between last year and this year.

[Mullens]

So apparently the MC exams lock you out when the time limit hits. Had something major come up so had to stop for a bit but didn't close it because of the warning they give beforehand that they'll need to manually open it back up for you.

Went 52/79 so about 66%.

Not awful but 10% under my last 200+ PQs.

Anyone know how I can do the questions I didn't get to? Otherwise I'll have to review them with the answer already highlighted.

Do you have them in hard copy in the MBE Practice Exams book?

[uceoledinbdnrn]

In the answer to Question ID#5988, they say that "An action in restitution is based on the restoration to the plaintiff of the benefit conferred on the defendant."

I thought this was the definition of disgorgement and that restitution damages are about making the plaintiff whole? I ended up at the same answer but got there for a very different reason.

[Bobzilla]

So apparently the MC exams lock you out when the time limit hits. Had something major come up so had to stop for a bit but didn't close it because of the warning they give beforehand that they'll need to manually open it back up for you.

Went 52/79 so about 66%.

Not awful but 10% under my last 200+ PQs.

Anyone know how I can do the questions I didn't get to? Otherwise I'll have to review them with the answer already highlighted.

Do you have them in hard copy in the MBE Practice Exams book?

Thanks. Yeah I realized it as soon as I sent them a message to open the test back up. I felt way more comfortable doing the questions out of the book too, wish I had done that for the previous exams. Ended up with a 67% so could've been worse.

[jennifer_42]

This is by far the worst experience of my life. I am wondering if I should do the exam...9 days away and I am at 49% for Themis, I failed the exam I got 60 % combined, in a worse place for California day. Is it still possible?

Absolutely it is possible. Remember, they're looking for minimal competency, not brilliance.
Basically, all you have to do is just not get the equivalent of an F. The fact that you're here means you finished law school, which is pretty challenging all on its own. Take heart. You got this. And in case you still have lingering doubts, think of it this way: you already paid to take the exam, and it's not refundable. You might as well go as not, right? And you spent the last two months in this hell here with us -- do you really want to do this again? No, I didn't think so.

Stop the stinkin thinkin that is trying to get you to quit. Just do it as if you were the person who is going to pass.

https://youtu.be/ReDWEGDioDA?t=1m24s

[Samarcan]

So apparently the MC exams lock you out when the time limit hits. Had something major come up so had to stop for a bit but didn't close it because of the warning they give beforehand that they'll need to manually open it back up for you.

Went 52/79 so about 66%.

Not awful but 10% under my last 200+ PQs.

Anyone know how I can do the questions I didn't get to? Otherwise I'll have to review them with the answer already highlighted.

Do you have them in hard copy in the MBE Practice Exams book?

Thanks. Yeah I realized it as soon as I sent them a message to open the test back up. I felt way more comfortable doing the questions out of the book too, wish I had done that for the previous exams. Ended up with a 67% so could've been worse.

Maybe I'm missing something but isn't a 67% on the MBE portion pretty good? I've consistently been scoring in the low-to-mid 60%s. I had thought that would be good enough for the MBE!!

[Slytherpuff]

67% is autopass territory!

[Hahalollawl]

Is there a reason the Torts final review outline distinguishes between "Private figure/matter of public concern" and "Private figure/not matter of public concern" if both appear to require the same level of fault (at least negligence)? Or is there something different between "at least negligence" and "either negligence or actual malice"? Seems like they could have just said for public figures there needs to be actual malice while negligence is enough for private figures...

[cal.trask]

67% is autopass territory!

That depends on your state I think.

[Slytherpuff]

67% is autopass territory!

That depends on your state I think.

Oops you're right - okay it's definitely autopass territory for 50% MBE states

[star fox]

I'm getting frustrated. Just took Practice Exam 4 and got a 62%, which is what I got on the last practice exam. Definitely feel like a few of these questions were ridiculously nuanced, but maybe the bar exam will be similar? This one of the most ridiculous ones in my opinion.... one of the ones where 79% of people picked the wrong answer and only 8% picked the correct answer.

Question 410

A police detective saw a notorious convicted felon who had been released from prison at a local mall. The detective contacted the local police department office to see if there were any outstanding arrest warrants for the felon. A clerk in the office correctly stated that the police database revealed an outstanding arrest warrant for the felon. Unbeknownst to either the detective or the clerk, another police officer had intentionally altered the expiration date of the arrest warrant in the police database, extending the date in order to lay the groundwork for a future arrest of the felon. Acting on the clerk's statement, the detective arrested the felon. A search of the felon uncovered a gun. The felon was charged with possession of a weapon by a felon. The felon's attorney sought to dismiss the charge against his client, contending that the seizure of the gun was unconstitutional and therefore had to be excluded as evidence. Should the court exclude the gun as evidence and dismiss the charges?

[+] Spoiler

Answers:

No, because the gun was seized during a search incident to an arrest.
You Selected: No, because the detective acted in good faith reliance on the clerk's information that a valid arrest warrant existed.
Yes, because a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures requires the suppression of the seized evidence.
Correct Answer: Yes, because the arrest warrant had expired.

Rationale:

Answer choice D is correct. The gun was seized during an illegal arrest since the warrant for the felon's arrest had expired. As a consequence, exclusion of the gun from the felon's trial for the gun possession charge was mandated. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the gun was seized incident to the felon's arrest, the arrest was illegal because the arrest warrant had expired. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although the good faith reliance exception to the exclusion of evidence seized pursuant to a defective warrant can apply even where that reliance is caused by isolated police negligence, it does not apply to deliberate police misconduct. Here, although neither the officer who effected the arrest nor the clerk who informed the officer about the warrant was aware of the misconduct, the deliberate misconduct is attributable to a police officer. Answer choice C is incorrect because an unconstitutional search or seizure does not require a court to apply the exclusionary rule. Instead the rule is applied where it serves to deter future constitutional violations.

There's a reason it's all the way to the right on the difficulty bar dude.

[yeslekkkk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQQNZP1duaQ

[jellybelly13]

This is by far the worst experience of my life. I am wondering if I should do the exam...9 days away and I am at 49% for Themis, I failed the exam I got 60 % combined, in a worse place for California day. Is it still possible?

Absolutely it is possible. Remember, they're looking for minimal competency, not brilliance.
Basically, all you have to do is just not get the equivalent of an F. The fact that you're here means you finished law school, which is pretty challenging all on its own. Take heart. You got this. And in case you still have lingering doubts, think of it this way: you already paid to take the exam, and it's not refundable. You might as well go as not, right? And you spent the last two months in this hell here with us -- do you really want to do this again? No, I didn't think so.

Stop the stinkin thinkin that is trying to get you to quit. Just do it as if you were the person who is going to pass.

https://youtu.be/ReDWEGDioDA?t=1m24s

I appreciate these words so much. I will give it more than my best. I wish you all the best as well. Once again thanks for expressing your humanity!.

[champloo]

is there reason why themis doesn't allow us to back and change an answer in the pq sets? all these restrictions are starting to get annoying

[SeewhathappensLarry]

67% is autopass territory!

That depends on your state I think.

What's autopass territory for a 45% MBE state?

[whats an updog]

67% is autopass territory!

That depends on your state I think.

Oops you're right - okay it's definitely autopass territory for 50% MBE states

Also depends on your cut score and the way its calculated. The bigwigs over at the AUTOPASS thread don't seem to think there is a strong AUTOPASS for California, even though MBE is 50% now. But idk

[Fireworks2016]

Apparently I still don't understand larceny by trick. Can someone explain how Question A is False Pretenses while Question B is larceny by trick?


A:

[+] Spoiler

A beautiful woman preyed upon lonely, desperate men looking for love on the Internet by getting a potential suitor to fall in love with her and then propose marriage to her. After a suitor would propose to her and give her an engagement ring, the woman would have a replica of the engagement ring made at a fraction of the cost of the real one. Shortly thereafter, the woman would break off the engagement, return the knock-off version of the engagement ring to the duped suitor, and then sell the real engagement ring for a sizeable profit. After scamming her most recent suitor, the suitor tried to return the knock-off ring to a high-end jewelry store the same day that he was dumped. The jewelry store marked all of their rings with a very specific insignia that could not be replicated. Once they realized that the ring was a knock-off, they called the police and the woman was arrested.

If the woman is guilty of any crime, she is most likely guilty of:

B:

[+] Spoiler

One night, the owner of a motorcycle entertained a friend at the owner’s apartment. The friend talked the owner into agreeing to sell the motorcycle to the friend. The friend promised to the pay the owner $2,000 in a week when he was paid by his employer at which time the owner promised to give the friend the title to the motorcycle. The owner was unaware that the friend had been fired from his job and that the friend intended to ride the motorcycle across the country and never return or pay the purchase price. The owner, relying on his friend’s promise, gave the friend the keys to the motorcycle. The friend followed through with his intentions.

With which of the following crimes can the friend properly be charged?

In both cases, I see someone tricking another into giving them something, and then them selling it. Am I just an idiot incapable of understanding nuance?

[jennifer_42]

I appreciate these words so much. I will give it more than my best. I wish you all the best as well. Once again thanks for expressing your humanity!.

We're all in this together. Hang in there. All of us with a tendency to overthink things gotta watch out for behaviors and patterns that will psych ourselves out of the running before the graders ever get a chance.

[quirky]

Apparently I still don't understand larceny by trick. Can someone explain how Question A is False Pretenses while Question B is larceny by trick?


A:

[+] Spoiler

A beautiful woman preyed upon lonely, desperate men looking for love on the Internet by getting a potential suitor to fall in love with her and then propose marriage to her. After a suitor would propose to her and give her an engagement ring, the woman would have a replica of the engagement ring made at a fraction of the cost of the real one. Shortly thereafter, the woman would break off the engagement, return the knock-off version of the engagement ring to the duped suitor, and then sell the real engagement ring for a sizeable profit. After scamming her most recent suitor, the suitor tried to return the knock-off ring to a high-end jewelry store the same day that he was dumped. The jewelry store marked all of their rings with a very specific insignia that could not be replicated. Once they realized that the ring was a knock-off, they called the police and the woman was arrested.

If the woman is guilty of any crime, she is most likely guilty of:

B:

[+] Spoiler

One night, the owner of a motorcycle entertained a friend at the owner’s apartment. The friend talked the owner into agreeing to sell the motorcycle to the friend. The friend promised to the pay the owner $2,000 in a week when he was paid by his employer at which time the owner promised to give the friend the title to the motorcycle. The owner was unaware that the friend had been fired from his job and that the friend intended to ride the motorcycle across the country and never return or pay the purchase price. The owner, relying on his friend’s promise, gave the friend the keys to the motorcycle. The friend followed through with his intentions.

With which of the following crimes can the friend properly be charged?

In both cases, I see someone tricking another into giving them something, and then them selling it. Am I just an idiot incapable of understanding nuance?

Larceny by trick is possession but not title. False pretenses is title. A is false pretenses because she gained title to the ring when it was given to her as a gift. B is larceny by trick because he has possession but wouldn't receive title until he paid for it a week later.

[whats an updog]

Apparently I still don't understand larceny by trick. Can someone explain how Question A is False Pretenses while Question B is larceny by trick?


A:

[+] Spoiler

A beautiful woman preyed upon lonely, desperate men looking for love on the Internet by getting a potential suitor to fall in love with her and then propose marriage to her. After a suitor would propose to her and give her an engagement ring, the woman would have a replica of the engagement ring made at a fraction of the cost of the real one. Shortly thereafter, the woman would break off the engagement, return the knock-off version of the engagement ring to the duped suitor, and then sell the real engagement ring for a sizeable profit. After scamming her most recent suitor, the suitor tried to return the knock-off ring to a high-end jewelry store the same day that he was dumped. The jewelry store marked all of their rings with a very specific insignia that could not be replicated. Once they realized that the ring was a knock-off, they called the police and the woman was arrested.

If the woman is guilty of any crime, she is most likely guilty of:

B:

[+] Spoiler

One night, the owner of a motorcycle entertained a friend at the owner’s apartment. The friend talked the owner into agreeing to sell the motorcycle to the friend. The friend promised to the pay the owner $2,000 in a week when he was paid by his employer at which time the owner promised to give the friend the title to the motorcycle. The owner was unaware that the friend had been fired from his job and that the friend intended to ride the motorcycle across the country and never return or pay the purchase price. The owner, relying on his friend’s promise, gave the friend the keys to the motorcycle. The friend followed through with his intentions.

With which of the following crimes can the friend properly be charged?

In both cases, I see someone tricking another into giving them something, and then them selling it. Am I just an idiot incapable of understanding nuance?

This distinction was initially a struggle for me as well, but now I get them mostly right when I across them. Larceny by trick is about possession and larceny by false pretenses is about title. The woman in question A has taken title to the ring. Even if she gives a fake back, she still has title to the original ring. In Question B, the man drove off, never having acquired the title, only the keys. It's a stupid distinction, but just look for whether the person took possession or took title.

[bmmccb223]

For those who have taken PT #4:

[+] Spoiler

The answer for Question 77 (B) is wrong in light of Utah v. Strieff, a 2016 case. Themis didn't update to reflect the change in the law. The correct answer is (C).

[uceoledinbdnrn]

For what it's worth I asked themis about that one and they a: confirmed it was an old question and b: said that the MBE questions used for the bar will have been written in 2015 but if something like that comes up the bar examiners will either accept both answers or just throw it out.

[2014applicant]

I can't understand why C is wrong in this question. I thought there's no double jeopardy if the conviction of the 2nd crime requires proof of an element not included in the other offense. In this case, felony murder would be all the elements of rape, plus a death right? Anybody able to explain?

[+] Spoiler

A man was set up on a blind date with a woman through a mutual friend. After the date, the man raped the woman; he was subsequently convicted of rape by a jury. After the trial, the woman’s injuries from the rape developed into an undetected hemorrhage that caused her death. A grand jury subsequently indicted the man for felony murder of the woman. The man filed a motion to dismiss the indictment because it violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Should the motion to dismiss be granted?

Answers:

Yes, because the second prosecution may result in multiple punishments for the same offense.
Yes, because the man has already been convicted of rape for his conduct.
You Selected: No, because rape and felony murder do not require proof of the same elements.
Correct Answer: No, because the man is being indicted for a more serious crime than his rape conviction.