evidence for law school & the bar exam · pdf fileyour mees (6), mpts (2) and hawaii legal...

Evidence for Law School & the Bar Exam

� What do the Qs reveal about issues and structure?

� Find trigger facts in the fact pattern:◦ Quotes

◦ Dates◦ Dates

� Read exactingly◦ Careful

◦ Suspicious

� Mark up and outline

1. Should the judge have permitted the Prosecutor to question Witness about Witness’s written statement and admitted the copy of the statement to impeach Witness’s credibility? Explain.

2. Should the judge have admitted Witness’s written 2. Should the judge have admitted Witness’s written statement to prove that Defendant was in City Park and attacked Victim? Explain.

3. Should the judge have admitted Buddy’s testimony to prove Defendant’s character? Explain.

� Effective issue statements should:� Situate the reviewer in the discussion

� Indicate the applicable legal rule and relevant facts

� Issue statements can be in the form of a conclusion or a question

� Issue statements can be a structured as a heading or a topic sentence

� Is Witness’s written statement admissible when Witness’s claim to have no memory of the Defendant appears to be feigned.

-or--or-

� Judge improperly disallowed Prosecutor to question Witness and enter prior inconsistent statement into evidence because Witness’s claim to have no memory of the Defendant appears to be feigned.

� Make your rule statements clear and concise; they should roll off your tongue (or fingers, when writing)

� Memorize rules statements that are � Memorize rules statements that are expandable and interconnected

� Memorize rules in conjunction with key trigger facts

Hearsay

� An out of court statement is hearsay and is not admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted. A prior inconsistent statement is not hearsay if it was made under penalty of perjury hearsay if it was made under penalty of perjury in a judicial proceeding. A prior statement of Identification is not hearsay

Prior Inconsistent Statement (for Impeachment)� Impeachment is always relevant to the probative

value of a witness’s testimony. Any witness is subject to impeachment by all parties. A prior out-of-court statement is admissible provided it is (1) relevant and (2) inconsistent with subsequent testimony. Lack of memory may be inconsistent, especially if the judge memory may be inconsistent, especially if the judge finds it is feigned.

Extrinsic Evidence of Prior Inconsistent Statement � As a matter of policy, courts disfavor extrinsic

evidence for impeachment. However, inconsistent prior written statements may be introduced if witness allowed to explain or deny the statement.

� How would you precisely and concisely state the rules applicable to the second and third questions?

� Read and mark up passage to identify all relevant facts

� Analysis should structurally mirror the structure of the rule being analyzed, i.e. a structure of the rule being analyzed, i.e. a three-part rule should

� Explicitly connect facts to the legal rules to which they apply

� Witness’s prior statements are inconsistent with her current claim that she has no memory of events. Her claim that she has never even seen defendant tends to show that her loss of memory may be feigned. Her her loss of memory may be feigned. Her earlier statement that everyone was afraid of defendant also suggests that she may be lying because she is afraid to testify.

� Witness’s prior statements are inconsistent with her current claim that she has no memory of events. Her claim that she has never even seen defendant tends to show that her loss of memory may be feigned. Her her loss of memory may be feigned. Her earlier statement that everyone was afraid of defendant also suggests that she may be lying because she is afraid to testify.

� Avoid overlong sentences and use many, short paragraphs

� Divide rule statement and analysis into separate paragraphs

� Use signifier words to highlight the structure � Use signifier words to highlight the structure of your discussion:◦ “Here”, “In the present case”, “On the given fact”,

“thus”, “therefore”

� Make your analytical connections and conclusion painfully explicit

◦ Realistic Planning

◦ Diligence & Perseverance

◦ Test-Taking Skills

� Multiple Choice (LSAT)

� Content Essays (Law school exams)

Performance Essays (LP, externships, etc.)� Performance Essays (LP, externships, etc.)

◦ Self-efficacy (Confidence/Stress)

� 200 multiple choice questions� Two 100-question three-hour sections� 1.8 minutes/question average� Day Two of the Hawaii bar◦ Evidence, Real Property, Contracts, Criminal Law & ◦ Evidence, Real Property, Contracts, Criminal Law &

Procedure, Torts, Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure

� Tests minute details of law

� 6 content area essays� 6 essays (plus PR) in four hours combined� Roughly 36 minutes/essay� Day One of the Hawaii Bar Exam(AM)◦ Agency and Partnership, Corporations and Limited Liability ◦ Agency and Partnership, Corporations and Limited Liability

Companies, Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law, Contracts, Criminal Law and Procedure, Evidence, Family Law, Federal Civil Procedure, Real Property, Torts, Trusts and Estates, Secured Transactions, and Wills

� Tests both broad concepts and details

� Two 90-minute, closed-universe performance essays (administered separately)

� Day One of the Hawaii bar (PM)

� Variety of forms: memo, brief, settlement � Variety of forms: memo, brief, settlement letter, cause of action, jury instructions, etc.

� Test of writing and analysis skill, not legal knowledge

� 15 multiple choice questions

� Allocate 15-20 minutes of the MEE block

� Day One of the Hawaii bar (AM)

� First thing you finish on the exam

First (and last) thing you finish in your study � First (and last) thing you finish in your study plan

� Limited to Federal Rules (we think)

Your score on the bar is composed of

� Your MBE scaled score (50% of your total score)

� Your MEEs (6), MPTs (2) and Hawaii legal ethics scaled scores (50% of your total score; each component represents 5.5% of your total score)

� MBE answers are objectively scored by NCBE

� MEE and MPT are subjectively assessed by Hawaii Bar Examiners

� If your Total Scale Score is 134 or higher, you pass.

Richardson 1st Time All UH Takers� 2017: 74% 74%

� 2016: 68% 64%

� 2015: 76% 70%

� 2014: 69% 66%

� 2013: 83% 78%� 2013: 83% 78%

� 2012: 75% 71%

� 2011: 75% 69%

� 2010: 75% 70%

� 2009: 91% 85%

� 2008: 85% 78%

� 2007: 85% 79%

� 2006: 83% 77%

� 2005: 89% 81%

� 2004: 73% 68%

� Unrealistic/Ineffective Study Strategy

� Working During Bar Study

� Financial Pressure

� Health Issues

� Family & Other Personal Demands

� Stress

� Take classes covered on the Bar Exam

� View your classes through a Bar Exam lens◦ Practice memorization

◦ Study with Bar Exam questions

◦ Hone your IRAC◦ Hone your IRAC

� Identify your soft knowledge areas now and start addressing them

� Practice legal writing and analysis in different formats

� Vary your study methods, location, schedule

� Don’t try to “win” the bar

� Slow down, don’t stop

Set attainable goals, and reward yourself� Set attainable goals, and reward yourself

� Focus on process, not product

� Prepare your family and friends

� Maintain relationships

� Maintain a (Relatively) Healthy Diet

� Get Sufficient Sleep

� Take frequent (Short) Breaks

� Move

Exercise Regularly� Exercise Regularly

� Maintain Relationships

Questions?

lskillin@hawaii.edu

956-3000

MAHALO!!!MAHALO!!!