I don't understand some things:
1. People keep saying they are, for example, now getting "60% in torts" or "80% in con law". How do they know this? Where are the percentages coming from? I used the Study Smart program to do the Barbri questions--but it keeps track of my progress from the beginning--so my average is pretty low because it includes some really low early scores. How do I know what I'm getting now? (There is probably some obvious answer but I'm too frazzled to see it).
2. No matter how many times I look at the rules for Character evidence--i just cant seem to get it down. I know in civil cases character evidence comes in in all 3 forms if character is at issue (defamation). i know the defendant can admit reputation or opinion of his own good or the victim's bad character and the P can then rebut with like evidence. i know felony convictions are at the Judge's discretion and convictions in the last 10 years involving dishonesty are coming in regardless--but only to impeach credibility. and specific acts of dishonesty can be asked about but not proven with extrinsic evidence. oh--and character evidence can come in for MIMIC. and apparently you can impeach the witness' credibility too. Its all the other character stuff that i dont understand.
3. Why is involuntary intoxication a defense for specific intent crimes but not intentional torts?
7 days!
:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I HATE CHARACTER EVIDENCE!!! I don't get it either. Whatever. I think people are probably getting their percentages from either doing the sets individually and just dividing to get their scores. Otherwise I have no idea. I prefer not to compare myself, so I don't ask. :)
And my reasoning for intoxication being a defense for intentional torts is that if you're THAT drunk you can't form intent. But, since everything else is a negligence standard, by being THAT drunk, you're negligent? That's probably totally wrong, but that's how I think of it.
Post a Comment