| Reply To Topic |
Topic: Advice for first time CBX takers |
| : |
|
Posted By LYFSAKIK on 24 Nov 2009 03:36 PM
That is terrific advice. Thanks for sharing.
From: |
| Username: |
|
|
|
| Subject: |
|
: Advice for first time CBX takers |
|
| Message: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Topic Review |  | |
Author: Laptop or Handwrite [21309]
 |
| 26 Nov 2009 02:25 PM |
|
MAP (Mike),
Did you do the July 08 bar on laptop or did you handwrite?
Thank You.
MP |
|
|
|
|
Author: Hello [21309]
|
| 25 Nov 2009 04:52 PM |
|
Thanks newt for sharing the sources from where we can reorded lectures.
Happy Thanksgiving to all.
I was touched when I read that (mike)"I get to celebrate Thansgiving after several years" Enjoy Mike!!! |
|
|
|
|
Author: mashenkap [21309]
|
| 25 Nov 2009 04:23 PM |
|
To: Mike (MAP)
Thank you so much for excellent advice.
Happy Thanksgiving!!
MP |
|
|
|
|
Author: LYFSAKIK [15] 
|
| 25 Nov 2009 02:58 PM |
|
Bravo, Mike! Happy Thanksgiving!
From: |
|
|
|
|
Author: MAP, Esq. [21309]
|
| 25 Nov 2009 02:51 PM |
|
Thanks for all the nice posts (after posting I saw some pretty harsh ones!). You're all quite welcome.
Yes, I took the July 2008 bar exam. Took it in Ontario during the earthquake. I'm a native so it didn't freak me out, but the guy next to me dived under the table.
Yes, I took time off. I took the week before the Bar off to wind up my studying and the week of the Bar off too of course. I studied when I got home from about 6:00 p.m till 11:00. I worked full time (in a law office) all the time I studied for and took the Bar Exam.
This time last year I sunk into the deepest depression I've ever been in, after I got my results. I had worked so hard - I had planned on taking the Feb 08 Bar Exam after failing the July 07 Bar, then decided I needed more time. So I skipped the Feb 08 exam and took the July Bar instead. Which means I studied for 8 months solid! And still it wasn't enough! Now, one year later, I'm an attorney and get to enjoy Thanksgiving for the first time in years. All I can say is what one of the partners used to tell me (rumor has it he took it 13 times!), once you're past it there's no looking back!
Good luck and happy Thanksgiving.
Mike |
|
|
|
|
Author: newt [21309]
|
| 24 Nov 2009 11:02 PM |
|
You can get a full set of MBE-topic CD/MP3 lectures from Kaplan/PMBR. A used set typically sells for under 150 dollars!
Also Flemings Fundamentals of Law has recorded lectures for ALL CBX subjects. Jeff Fleming is Cal-specific and I highly recommend his recored lectures and his outlines for self-study. (go to lawprepare.com)
There are also recoreded lectures available from "Sum and Substance" and "Law School Legends." Note that some of the Barbri "superstar" speakers are featured in the latter recordings!
Don't pay barbri for lectures when you can just build your own iPod and study on your own schedule, and re-play the lecture (or portions thereof) as many times as you want, wherever you want.
Check eBay and Craigslist for used copies if you are trying to save money. |
|
|
|
|
Author: Cocoinli [2]
|
| 24 Nov 2009 10:55 PM |
|
| MAP, thanks for the best advice. Your posting is really helpful. BTW, did you take any days off from work to prepare for CBX? |
|
|
|
|
Author: Thank you, MAP [21309]
|
| 24 Nov 2009 08:14 PM |
|
| thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Author: Hello [21309]
|
| 24 Nov 2009 07:52 PM |
|
| @ newt - You mentioned that we can get barbri MP3/cd from other source. Where can we get those? Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Author: hmm [21309]
|
| 24 Nov 2009 07:49 PM |
|
| Great advice. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Author: anon [21309]
|
| 24 Nov 2009 05:33 PM |
|
Posted By on 24 Nov 2009 01:58 PM
I passed the Feb 09 CBX after several tries. If I had to do it all over again I would skip the BarBri lectures (total WASTE of precious time and money) and buy the books instead. You need the books to memorize the black letter law but you don’t need to be sitting in class to watch their videotaped lectures. Knowing the MBEs is CRITICAL.
You should be shooting for at least 80% (correct answers) on your practice tests because I guarantee you the real thing will be much harder. I believe I passed because I finally forced myself to write out flash cards for those MBE questions I was always “fuzzy” on (like the difference between factual impossibility and legal impossibility) and memorized the elements. You must know those COLD because the MBE doesn’t come straight out and ask you questions about the law. The questions are much more nuanced than that. If you don’t know the rules you will fail it, plain and simple.
Regarding the essays, short, concise answers are best. State the rule right away, then get into your analysis. One of the lawyers I work with used to be a grader for the Bar. She told me the Bar feels this way: They are giving anybody who passes the ability to hang up a shingle and practice. So they want to see that the applicant will literally be able to tell some Joe off the street with a legal problem: 1) what his problem is (i.e., quickly summarize the issue); 2) what the law says about his problem (i.e., the applicable law and rule); 3) how the law may or may not apply to his problem (i.e., analysis); and 4) how a court would probably decide the issue. It’s that simple. In your essay answers, pretend you’re talking to the persons in the exam question. That’s what I did this last time and it paid off.
Finally, regarding the PTs (which I despise), I suggest going to the Bar website and downloading a bunch of the exams and model answers. Review them, get a feel for the different types of assignments (i.e., client letters, Memorandum of P’s and A’s, etc.) and the various answers to each. I really don’t know what else to say, the PT is a nightmare. Organization is key. That, and knowing what issues to avoid in your answer, because, unlike the essays, just because they’re there does not mean the Bar wants you to discuss them. Quite the opposite. The Bar wants to see that you know how to cut through the extraneous stuff. Trust me, that will come in handy when talking to prospective clients, who want to tell you everything but what you really need to know to evaluate their case. In the real world, you have much more than 3 hours to do a rush assignment, (usually a day), but no one said the Bar Exam is the real world. I can tell you this though, in practice, organization in the midst of chaos is critical to keeping your head, and your job. Maybe that’s what the examiners are testing in the PT. I don’t know, I don’t care, because I NEVER have to take it again!
Hope this helps. Good luck to all.
good advice- thanks
did you take july 08?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: newt [21309]
|
| 24 Nov 2009 04:34 PM |
|
| I really like your post - listen up people - Barbri books are excellent, but why pay for the lectures? you can get those on MP3/CD from other sources. I also like the comment about writing short essay answers - you are right on - its bascially an issue spotting excercise followed by a very short, concise analysis. If you like this post, and are interested in self-study, check out californiabarexamtutor.com. |
|
|
|
|
Author: LYFSAKIK [15]
|
| 24 Nov 2009 03:36 PM |
|
That is terrific advice. Thanks for sharing.
From: |
|
|
|
|
Author: MAP, Esq. [21309]
|
| 24 Nov 2009 02:28 PM |
|
I got the names mixed up on this answer. Hope it wasnt' too confusing and you still get the gist of the style to use.
MAP |
|
|
|
|
Author: MAP, Esq. [21309]
|
| 24 Nov 2009 02:20 PM |
|
Sure, here's an answer I did for the attorney I mentioned in my post (the bar grader). She tutored me for the Feb. 09 CBX. It's from the July 04 exam and it's an evidence question. Evidence questions are different from other subjects in that you have to run through the list of admissibility, competence, etc. so they tend to be longer. You end up with less time for analysis.
In my post I also forgot to say don't waste time if you really can't find an "on the other hand, . . . " argument. Just use a fact from the question (put it in quotes) and say why the fact shows the law does or doesn't apply.
Here you go:
1. Tom’s testimony
Relevance
In order to be admissible, evidence must be logically relevant and legally relevant. Evidence is logically relevant if it tends to prove or disprove a fact of consequence. In California, the fact must be in dispute. Evidence is legally relevant if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing of issues, misleading the jury, or waste of time.
Here, Tom’s testimony tends to prove that Daniel intentionally attacked Victor with gasoline instead of “accidentally” spilling it on him because he talked about “burning” him before the incident occurred. Therefore, the testimony is logically relevant. Because the evidence is so probative, it will not waste the jury’s time to hear it and is therefore legally relevant.
Competence
Evidence must be competent. If a witness is testifying, he must have firsthand knowledge of what he is testifying about. Here, Tom was the recipient of Victor’s statement so he has first hand knowledge.
Hearsay
Hearsay is a statement made by an out of court declarant offered for its truth. Hearsay is generally inadmissible because the veracity of the declarant cannot be determined. Here, the statement was made by Victor to Tom before the attack and therefore was made out of court. It is being offered to show that Daniel threatened Victor. Therefore, the statement is hearsay and will be inadmissible unless an exception or exemption applies.
Here, the statement is hearsay within hearsay. In such cases, both “layers” must be examined. Both layers must be admissible as an exception or as non-hearsay in order to be admissible. Here, the inner layer is Daniel’s threat to Tom. As discussed above, the statement is hearsay. However, the statement might be admissible as an exception. Here, the statement might be a statement against interest. Such statements are admissible exceptions. However, under such an exception, the declarant must be unavailable for trial. Because Tom is clearly at trial, he is not unavailable and the exception does not apply. The statement might also qualify as non-hearsay to show the defendant’s state of mind with respect to his intent. Here, the statement shows that Victor intended to attack Daniel with gasoline.
The outer layer of the hearsay statement is Victim’s statement to Tom (in which he repeated Daniel’s threat). That statement was made out of court. It is being offered to show that Daniel had threatened Victim. Therefore, it is hearsay. However, if the statement is instead being offered to show the effect on the listener, instead of for its truth, the statement will be admissible as non-hearsay. Here, Daniel “complained” to Tom about Daniel’s threats which shows that he was troubled by the threats, which shows their effect. Therefore, the statement is admissible as non-hearsay to show the effect on Daniel.
Accordingly, the court should have admitted the evidence.
2. Victor’s testimony
Relevance
The testimony is logically relevant because it casts doubt on Victor’s testimony that he was “frightened” by the flames. People who are frightened generally don’t laugh at what is frightening them. Furthermore, it shows that Victor followed through with his threat to “burn” Victim, thus making Tom’s testimony more likely. The evidence is legally relevant because it is probative and will not confuse the jury.
Competence
Victor witnessed Daniel laughing and running out of the shop. Therefore, he is a competent witness.
Hearsay
It’s doubtful that Victor’s laughing was a “statement” for the purposes of the hearsay rule. Therefore, hearsay is not an issue here.
Given the above, the evidence should have been admitted.
3. Judicial notice
Judicial notice is proper where the fact notices is notorious or when it is capable of being accurately verified. Here, most people know that gasoline is highly flammable so the fact is notorious. In civil trials, the jury must accept as true a judicially noticed fact; in criminal trials, the jury may but is not required to accept the fact as true. Because most people know gasoline is flammable the court properly took judicial notice here.
4. Cross-examination of Daniel
Leading question
A leading question is one that suggests an answer. Here, the prosecutor asked a leading question that assumed or suggested the answer (“Isn’t it true...?). Such questions are permitted on cross-examination, and the question was therefore not improper.
Facts not in evidence
There are no facts to indicate that the lighter found at the garage had any initials on it. Physical evidence must be authenticated, i.e., it must be shown to be what a party is claiming it is. Here, the prosecutor is claiming that the lighter had Daniel’s initials on it and therefore belonged to him. The facts don’t suggest that the lighter has been entered as an exhibit. Therefore, it has not been authenticated. Accordingly, the prosecutor is improperly assuming facts not in evidence and his question was improper.
5. Jury’s conduct
Jurors are not permitted to communicate with anyone or deliberate regarding the case when they are not in deliberation. The two jurors violated this rule when they discussed the truck’s clearance because they did so during a “break” in deliberations. The jurors’ “experiment” was improper because it does not necessarily accurately reflect how gasoline would spill. What the jurors should have done is request the judge to allow them to conduct the experiment in the actual garage where the incident occurred, using gasoline instead of water. Instead, the jurors made a decision based not upon the evidence but upon conjectural speculation. As such, the jurors’ conduct was improper.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: mashenka [21309]
|
| 24 Nov 2009 02:08 PM |
|
Hello,
You mentioned "short, concise answers are the best" for the essays. How short and concise? How many pages per essay did you write/type?
Thank You.
MP |
|
|
|
|
Author: MAP, Esq. [21309]
|
| 24 Nov 2009 01:58 PM |
|
I passed the Feb 09 CBX after several tries. If I had to do it all over again I would skip the BarBri lectures (total WASTE of precious time and money) and buy the books instead. You need the books to memorize the black letter law but you don’t need to be sitting in class to watch their videotaped lectures. Knowing the MBEs is CRITICAL.
You should be shooting for at least 80% (correct answers) on your practice tests because I guarantee you the real thing will be much harder. I believe I passed because I finally forced myself to write out flash cards for those MBE questions I was always “fuzzy” on (like the difference between factual impossibility and legal impossibility) and memorized the elements. You must know those COLD because the MBE doesn’t come straight out and ask you questions about the law. The questions are much more nuanced than that. If you don’t know the rules you will fail it, plain and simple.
Regarding the essays, short, concise answers are best. State the rule right away, then get into your analysis. One of the lawyers I work with used to be a grader for the Bar. She told me the Bar feels this way: They are giving anybody who passes the ability to hang up a shingle and practice. So they want to see that the applicant will literally be able to tell some Joe off the street with a legal problem: 1) what his problem is (i.e., quickly summarize the issue); 2) what the law says about his problem (i.e., the applicable law and rule); 3) how the law may or may not apply to his problem (i.e., analysis); and 4) how a court would probably decide the issue. It’s that simple. In your essay answers, pretend you’re talking to the persons in the exam question. That’s what I did this last time and it paid off.
Finally, regarding the PTs (which I despise), I suggest going to the Bar website and downloading a bunch of the exams and model answers. Review them, get a feel for the different types of assignments (i.e., client letters, Memorandum of P’s and A’s, etc.) and the various answers to each. I really don’t know what else to say, the PT is a nightmare. Organization is key. That, and knowing what issues to avoid in your answer, because, unlike the essays, just because they’re there does not mean the Bar wants you to discuss them. Quite the opposite. The Bar wants to see that you know how to cut through the extraneous stuff. Trust me, that will come in handy when talking to prospective clients, who want to tell you everything but what you really need to know to evaluate their case. In the real world, you have much more than 3 hours to do a rush assignment, (usually a day), but no one said the Bar Exam is the real world. I can tell you this though, in practice, organization in the midst of chaos is critical to keeping your head, and your job. Maybe that’s what the examiners are testing in the PT. I don’t know, I don’t care, because I NEVER have to take it again!
Hope this helps. Good luck to all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Forums 4.1
|
 |
|
Books for Sale
|
|
|
|
Title: Adaptibar MBE Review
Price: $370.00
State: CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: 2009 Complete Set (New Blue Cover Edition) + Video + Outlines and Flash Cards
Price: $650.00
State: Illinois
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: 2008-2009 NY Micromash Materials - Complete Set
Price: $450.00
State: VA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: Barbri etc
Price: $1.00
State: CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: AUDIO LECTURES Wills/ Trusts CRIM LAW< CRIM PROC< PROF RESP
Price: $1.00
State: CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Click here for more..
|
|
|
|
|