Law: Soo…. Break? (AKA Crim Summary)

January 14, 2008

For any of you not in the A-Li exam room for my section, I have this not-so-happy habit… I tend to finish my exam and go “Soooo……… X” where X is the next exam.  Today I was sitting in my room as I printed out my Crim Take home, looked around and went Soooo…… then realized, there was no X.  END OF 1L FINALS, HOW SWEET YOU ARE! 

Before what I hope will be a series of posts about how glad I am to be done with this the semester, I wanted to summarize my crim law test.

The test had three parts, weighted 40%, 30%, 30%.  I missed the page limit on the two 30% questios and thought it was “2 pages” when it was actually “2 pages and 18 lines”  Oops.  Danny MPC you are a wierdo. 

 Question 1 was a straight up issue spotter involving a lot of what you would expect, people doing lots of illegal things.  I felt like there were some big issues, some smaller issues, and almost certainly a few issues that I missed, but it was a lot better than I feared.  Remember, the curve kicks all butts. 

The second question was a case where I read the fact pattern and went “man, if I were this guys lawyer I would argue vagueness.”  Then the prompt was “discuss if this is void for vagueness.”  At least I know I could provide this guy effective representation.  I think I did an ok but not great job.  I didn’t differentiate on its face from as applied, but other than that I think I hit all of the hot buttons. (I hope).  As a side note, I thought this question would have been a lot more interesting if it just said “discuss what arguments you would make if you were his lawyer and if the would be successful,” but alas, Danny M. PC did not feel thats how it should be.

The third part was a nutjob policy question where we were supposed to take a stance on a quote saying we should do with non-capital sentencing what we did with capital.  I couldn’t think of anything smart so I rambled on about determinate dentencing, Woodson, and a few small things.  I did get to use the word “binary” which made me laugh. 

As a small aside, I skipped torts a lot at the end of last semester (oops).  Apparently one of the days I was gone, he made a joke saying don’t be funny on exams, but if you must, at least be creative.  He then said, if you can work (But see, Mabury v. Madison) into an answer, thats pretty well done.  That has become a new goal for law school, I’ll let you know how it goes.

Finally, one of my friends down here has had a goal, so I’m going to open it up to any of you that may know me and want to post in the comments or email.  He wants a fact pattern where an intelligent response could, at some point, parse the question “Is it rape, or is it mail fraud?”  Go.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: