Preparing for the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE)

[Pages:21]Preparing for the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE)

Workshop Objectives

1. Participants will reinforce their substantive knowledge of Evidence.

2. Participants will increase their understanding of the format and subject area content of the MBE.

3. Participants will increase their understanding of key skills necessary to study and prepare for the Bar Exam.

Multistate Bar Exam

Content & Format

200 multiple choice questions Two 100-question three-hour sections 1.8 minutes/question average Day Two of the Hawaii bar Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Contracts, Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Real Property, and Torts The MBE tests minute details of law - the exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions

Memorization is key!

PullCo sued Davidson, its former vice president, for return of $230,000 that had been embezzled during the previous two years. Called by PullCo as an adverse witness, Davidson testified that his annual salary had been $75,000, and he denied the embezzlement. PullCo calls banker Witt to show that, during the two-year period, Davidson had deposited $250,000 in his bank account.

Witt's testimony is (A) admissible as circumstantial evidence of Davidson's guilt. (B) admissible to impeach Davidson. (C) inadmissible, because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. (D) inadmissible, because the deposits could have come from legitimate sources.

Defendant is charged with murder in connection with a carjacking incident during which Defendant allegedly shot Victim while attempting to steal Victim's car. The prosecutor calls Victim's four-yearold son, whose face was horribly disfigured by the same bullet, to testify that Defendant shot his father and him.

The son's testimony should be (A) admitted, provided the prosecutor first provides evidence that persuades the judge that the son is competent to testify despite his tender age. (B) admitted, provided there is sufficient basis for believing that the son has personal knowledge and understands his obligation to testify truthfully. (C) excluded, because it is insufficiently probative in view of the son's tender age. (D) excluded, because it is more unfairly prejudicial than probative.

Defendant is on trial for extorting $10,000 from Victim. An issue is the identificationof the person who made a telephone callto Victim. Victim is prepared to testifythat the caller had a distinctive accent like Defendant's, but that he cannot positively identify the voice as Defendant's. Victim recorded the call but has not brought the tape to court, although its existence is known to Defendant.

Victim's testimony is (A) inadmissible, because Victim cannot sufficiently identify the caller. (B) inadmissible, because the tape recording of the conversation is the best evidence. (C) admissible, because Defendant waived the "best evidence" rule by failing to subpoena the tape. (D) admissible, because Victim's lack of certainty goes to the weight to be given Victim's testimony, not to its admissibility.

Deeb was charged with stealing furs from a van. At trial, Wallace testified she saw Deeb take the furs. The jurisdiction in which Deeb is being tried does not allow in evidence lie detector results. On cross-examination by Deeb's attorney, Wallace was asked, "The light was too dim to identify Deeb, wasn't it?" She responded, "I'm sure enough that it was Deeb that I passed a lie detector test administered by the police." Deeb's attorney immediately objects and moves to strike.

The trial court should (A) grant the motion, because the question was leading. (B) grant the motion, because the probative value of the unresponsive testimony is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. (C) deny the motion, because it is proper rehabilitation of an impeached witness. (D) deny the motion, because Deeb's attorney "opened the door" by asking the question.

Passenger is suing Defendant for injuries suffered in the crash of a small airplane, alleging that Defendant had owned the plane and negligently failed to have it properly maintained. Defendant has asserted in defense that he never owned the plane or had any responsibility to maintain it. At trial, Passenger calls Witness to testify that Witness had sold to Defendant a liability insurance policy on the plane.

The testimony of Witness is

(A) inadmissible, because the policy itself is required under the original document rule. (B) inadmissible, because of the rule against proof of insurance where insurance is not itself at issue. (C) admissible to show that Defendant had little motivation to invest money in maintenance of the airplane. (D) admissible as some evidence of Defendant's ownership of or responsibility for the airplane.

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download