Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017 Forum

[logicspeaks]

One thing that's helped me is to completely ignore, even physically cover if I have to, the answer choices. Think through the problem, figure out what the correct answer should look like, and then I finally look at the answers.

[2014applicant]

What are people's perception of Practice Exam 4? I scored 77%, but I also felt like there were still a lot of extremely difficult/gotcha questions sprinkled throughout.

I was expecting to do better than I did since I've improved substantially on the mixed PQ sets since we did the last exam. Only scored 2% higher on this than the last exam ... frustrating.

[uceoledinbdnrn]

What are people's perception of Practice Exam 4? I scored 77%, but I also felt like there were still a lot of extremely difficult/gotcha questions sprinkled throughout.

Yes. Overall not that bad but a lot of the harder ones seemed really unfair.

Also seems super unfair to put a question about partial comparative negligence at exactly 50%.

[uceoledinbdnrn]

Anyone have any solid tips for improving MBE scores? A different approach to questions? I've been trying to read the call before anything. Are you guys following what the MBE lecturers said with how to approach for each subject?

One idea that I really liked and have partially adopted is using flash cards to write the rule of every question you get wrong and then reviewing those.

[champloo]

Anyone have any solid tips for improving MBE scores? A different approach to questions? I've been trying to read the call before anything. Are you guys following what the MBE lecturers said with how to approach for each subject?

One idea that I really liked and have partially adopted is using flash cards to write the rule of every question you get wrong and then reviewing those.

i did something similar but im an excel junkie so did it on excel instead of flashcards

[gotsomequestions]

What are people's perception of Practice Exam 4? I scored 77%, but I also felt like there were still a lot of extremely difficult/gotcha questions sprinkled throughout.

I got 72%. Feeling fine. Made some really really dumb reading errors that cost me like 3 questions. There were definitely some very difficult/tricky ones though.

[Mr. Blackacre]

I'm late on my bar review so I took practice exam 3 today. Could someone explain to me how this isn't bar examiners not knowing how hockey works? This question makes no sense to me.

Question Text:

A man played in a recreational ice hockey league that had a well-known reputation for aggressive play. The games often became quite physical, and injuries were common. In one game, the man scored the winning goal as time expired in the game. After the referee had blown his whistle, ending play, the man launched into a particularly exuberant celebration. An opposing player, angered by the celebration, hit the man on the forearm with a hockey stick, but did not intend to cause serious injury. The man collapsed in pain; tests later revealed that he suffered a severe forearm fracture as a result of the incident. If the man sues the opposing player for battery, will the man prevail?

Answer Choices:
Yes, because the opposing player’s conduct was willful and wanton.
Yes, because the opposing player intended to bring about a harmful or offensive contact.
No, because the man impliedly consented to rough play.
No, because the opposing player did not intend to break the man’s arm.

Learner Selected Answer:
No, because the man impliedly consented to rough play.

Correct Answer:
Yes, because the opposing player intended to bring about a harmful or offensive contact.

Rationale:
Answer choice B is correct. Here, the man is clearly the victim of a battery; the only question is whether his implied consent serves as a defense. Consent is implied in situations where rough contact is common; a hockey game certainly qualifies, particularly given this league’s reputation. However, the battery in question was not routine contact; the goal had already been scored and play had ended. Consequently, the contact fell outside the scope of implied consent, making answer choice C is incorrect. Answer choice A is incorrect because willful and wanton conduct is a requirement for obtaining punitive damages, but is not necessary to establish a battery claim. Answer choice D is incorrect because the intent required for a battery is the intent to bring about a harmful or offensive contact; whether the defendant intended the specific outcome is irrelevant.

[Fireworks2016]

I'm late on my bar review so I took practice exam 3 today. Could someone explain to me how this isn't bar examiners not knowing how hockey works? This question makes no sense to me.

[/quote]


A slash that breaks somebody's arm during a stoppage in play is definitely a battery (at least for purposes of the bar). It'd be different if it was during play IMO.

[uceoledinbdnrn]

yeah, that question had me worked up for a while. It's a good thing i didn't grow up playing hockey with egg-shell players.

Basically the bar examiners love rules. If they could marry rules they would, but they won't because it's against the rules. If you get a sports question, it's safe to assume that anything outside the rules is not included in the implied consent even if that doesn't track real life at all.

[twenty]

If you feel like you are hitting IRAC well + spotting the issues + getting the rules right, you're fine. Easier said than done, I know, but don't let it freak you out.

[robin600]

If you feel like you are hitting IRAC well + spotting the issues + getting the rules right, you're fine. Easier said than done, I know, but don't let it freak you out.

I mean I feel I'm getting most of the issues, at least all the major issues, but sometimes I miss a few minor things here and there which is probably expected but my grader freaks out. Hoping it's ok to miss an issue and still be OK, as long it's not a major issue.

[ernie]

So do some people get essays graded out of 100, and can they see their percentile rank?

I'm in NY and don't see rank, and am graded out of 6.

[Slytherpuff]

So do some people get essays graded out of 100, and can they see their percentile rank?

I'm in NY and don't see rank, and am graded out of 6.

If you click on "Graded Essays" in the Course Progress bar instead of the side menu, you see your score out of 100 and what the average Themis score was.

[gotsomequestions]

Anyone else think the graded essay on Wills was ridiculous?

[ernie]

So do some people get essays graded out of 100, and can they see their percentile rank?

I'm in NY and don't see rank, and am graded out of 6.

If you click on "Graded Essays" in the Course Progress bar instead of the side menu, you see your score out of 100 and what the average Themis score was.

Oh wow. Thanks. Not very intuitive!

[sasquatchsam]

What are people's perception of Practice Exam 4? I scored 77%, but I also felt like there were still a lot of extremely difficult/gotcha questions sprinkled throughout.

I got 72%. Feeling fine. Made some really really dumb reading errors that cost me like 3 questions. There were definitely some very difficult/tricky ones though.

I thought it was noticeably more difficult than the prior practice exams and certainly harder than the mixed question sets. I only got a 69% but I averaged 75% on Practice Exam 3 and have been getting 74-84% consistently on the mixed mbe questions since.

[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.

[villanovajew]

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.

[Slytherpuff]

Finally feeling confident that I'm going to hit a 75% completion rate - I'm at 70% so the end is in sight. I still need to tackle Practice Exam 4, 250+ more MBE questions, and a million more essays to feel good about my chances of passing though.

[ernie]

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

[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?

[Mr. Blackacre]

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.

FYI this is from dicta in Herring v. United States. Feels weird when SCOTUS actually says something defendant-friendly, doesn't it?

[uceoledinbdnrn]

FYI this is from dicta in Herring v. United States. Feels weird when SCOTUS actually says something defendant-friendly, doesn't it?

I feel like the way they structured the answers was super obnoxious. I got it right because for some reason that case has stuck with me over two years, but I spent a good 2 or 3 minutes looking at those answer choices and thinking to myself that the real right answer wasn't in there. By normal bar exam rules the "right answer" shouldn't have been right because you can imagine a fact pattern (Herring v. US) where it's wrong.

I guess it is what it is but gotchya questions like that where the right answer is wrong and/or incomplete are annoying AF.

[uceoledinbdnrn]

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?

You absolutely should take the bar and you're not in a bad place. Don't worry about your Themis percentile and don't worry about getting a 60%- that's pretty damn close to where you need to be.

[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.