Does anyone have useful mnemonics, suggestions, mental pictures, etc. to help memorize the Rules of Evidence? I have Critical Pass cards and Emanuel's Strategies & Tactics (6th Ed), but I'm still getting killed on Evidence. As Emanuel's points out, Evidence is very mechanical and based on strictly FRE with limited exceptions of common law application like when contradiction is applicable. So, on the one hand, it should be easy points, but on the other hand, with all the rules, exceptions, when they apply (civil and/or criminal), who is testifying, and the overall court balancing "when justice requires," Evidence can be tricky.
How are some of you approaching it? Thanks!
MBE Evidence Strategies Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 7:10 pm
Re: MBE Evidence Strategies
A lot of it really is just memorization.
I like acronyms alot so Themis' "Miami Kopps" for Prior Bad Acts works pretty well for me.
I've also got a sentence phrase for the hearsay exceptions where unavailability required (since if you can remember those you basically don't need to memorize the ones where availability is required) but it's very lewd which is why I remember it but probably am not allowed to post it here.
For all those subjects where there is the phrase "probative value substantially outweighs" yada yada I like to categorize as either "favors exclusion" or "favors admission". That's because the issue comes up so often in various contexts and the wording is so similar that its easy to confuse those. If you just remember whether exclusion is favored or not you can just reason from the language that is presented.
I like acronyms alot so Themis' "Miami Kopps" for Prior Bad Acts works pretty well for me.
I've also got a sentence phrase for the hearsay exceptions where unavailability required (since if you can remember those you basically don't need to memorize the ones where availability is required) but it's very lewd which is why I remember it but probably am not allowed to post it here.
For all those subjects where there is the phrase "probative value substantially outweighs" yada yada I like to categorize as either "favors exclusion" or "favors admission". That's because the issue comes up so often in various contexts and the wording is so similar that its easy to confuse those. If you just remember whether exclusion is favored or not you can just reason from the language that is presented.
-
- Posts: 365
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:44 am
Re: MBE Evidence Strategies
Would you mind sharing it in an email? My email is franconj@icloud.com. Thank you!Findedeux wrote:A lot of it really is just memorization.
I like acronyms alot so Themis' "Miami Kopps" for Prior Bad Acts works pretty well for me.
I've also got a sentence phrase for the hearsay exceptions where unavailability required (since if you can remember those you basically don't need to memorize the ones where availability is required) but it's very lewd which is why I remember it but probably am not allowed to post it here.
For all those subjects where there is the phrase "probative value substantially outweighs" yada yada I like to categorize as either "favors exclusion" or "favors admission". That's because the issue comes up so often in various contexts and the wording is so similar that its easy to confuse those. If you just remember whether exclusion is favored or not you can just reason from the language that is presented.