The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
ITT, we come up with xo bar cards for MBE crim
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:45 AM Author: Nubile halford name the two warrant requirements (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469180) |
 |
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:55 AM Author: Sexy vengeful institution prob cause and particularity (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469285) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:57 AM Author: Nubile halford titcp.
can probable cause be based on an anonymous informant?
what are four things that will presumptively not save a defective warrant under the good faith exception? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:01 AM Author: Bossy Pistol Roommate Yes, as long as anonymous informant has given sufficient accurate verifiable facts as to give rise to probable cause on "totality of the circumstances."
1. So obvious on face of warrant that there couldn't be probable cause
2. Warrant lacking any particularity such that it could not be valid
3. Affadavits relied upon in issuing warrant contained "knowing or reckless" falsehoods
4. Magistrate who issued warrant was biased in favor of prosecution (rare)
Edit: I'll look these up so we have definitive answers |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:02 AM Author: Nubile halford mostly right.
3 is when the cop lies to the judge to get the warrant
4 is when the judge is biased (i.e. gets paid $25 per warrant she issues) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:55 AM Author: pink associate kitchen arrest warrant or search warrant (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469294) |
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:46 AM Author: Nubile halford name the two things that must happen before a D is entitled to a miranda warning (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469186) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:55 AM Author: Sexy vengeful institution custodial interrogation (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469293) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:56 AM Author: Nubile halford titcp. what if the D blurts out "i did it" in the squad car? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469308) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:00 AM Author: Startled idea he suggested then he's fucked. 5th amendment doesn't protect against criminal's own retarded, unsolicited admission. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469360) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:01 AM Author: Nubile halford titcp. key thing to remember for miranda is "custodial" (RP wouldnt feel free to leave) + "interrogiation" (cop says something likely to elicit a respones from D) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469380) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:03 AM Author: Startled idea he suggested next q: what is considered "interrogation" for the purposes of the 5th amendment? if the suspect is gravely religious, and the cop asks off handedly if god would forgive him for not telling us where the body is is that interrogation? any distinction between that and saying, "well i hope no kid accidentally finds the gun and shoots himself"? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469403) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:05 AM Author: Bossy Pistol Roommate Tell us. Seems like you know this well. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469434) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:07 AM Author: Startled idea he suggested the first one is interrogation because the police are using a "vulnerability" of the defendant that they know of to elicit an answer. the second one isn't because there doesn't seem to be any use of a specific vulnerability to elicit a response - it's just a general off-hand remark (at least that's the best line i can draw - i was hoping for a clearer explanation). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469463) |
|
Date: June 8th, 2011 10:47 PM Author: Stimulating legal warrant codepig I realize this thread is a year old, but the distinction lies in the "known vulnerability." With the Christian burial speech, the cops knew D was likely to respond to their statements with an admission of guilt because he professed to be a devout Christian minister. With the gun near the school case, they had no knowledge of, or reason to think, that D was particularly vulnerable to a comment about handicapped children getting hurt. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#18201640) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:05 AM Author: Nubile halford dunno man. i just go by the "would a RP think that they're enticing the D to respond to this query" as my standard in deciding what interrogation is. hopefuly they won't ask such bitchass questions on the exam. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469442) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:12 AM Author: pink associate kitchen yes. we all know brewer v. williams...i'm inclined to think they won't use its exact facts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469533) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:08 AM Author: pink associate kitchen That's fine as long as it was a voluntary statement that was unprovoked by officer coercion (i.e., no questioning [obvs], no talking about how they are going to be going away for a long time/going to get the chair/no manipulating a suspect's known vulnerability to get them to talk/ no using a conversation with another officer in earshot of the suspect to encourage statement by the suspect)...etc. also the patrol car can't take a 'long detour' on the way to the stationhouse [again, obvs]. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469486) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:47 AM Author: Nubile halford describe the act + SOM requirements for: accomplice liability, attempt, solicitation, conspiracy. of the latter 3, which merge into completed crimes? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469203) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:59 AM Author: Sexy vengeful institution accomplice: act is encouraging to commit crime. mental state is intent for crime be committed.
attempt: act is substantial step or dangerous proximity depending on the jurisdiction. mental state is specific intent to commit crime.
solicitation: act is asking to commit criminal offense. mental state is intent for crime to be committed.
conspiracy: act is overt act in furtherance of agreement between 2 or more people. mental state is intent to achieve conspiracy's objective.
solicitation and attempt merge, conspiracy does not |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:00 AM Author: Nubile halford titcp. only thing is that there are really 2 acts in conspiracy: the agreement itself + the "overt act" requirement.
also, DESCRIBE the difference between bilateral and unilateral theories of conspiracy. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:03 AM Author: Sexy vengeful institution bilateral--need 2 people or more.
unilateral--1 guilty mind is enough.
in bilateral approach, can't convict D if co-conspirator is acquitted. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:52 AM Author: Nubile halford when does 6th amendment right to counsel attach? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469252) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:59 AM Author: pink associate kitchen once formal charges have been brought. (arraignment) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469338) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:59 AM Author: Sexy vengeful institution after charging.
note a NY distinction on this. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:53 AM Author: Nubile halford DESCRIBE the crimpro doctrines that rely on the "reasonable suspicion" standard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469258) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:01 AM Author: Sexy vengeful institution not sure what you're asking for, but Terry for stops and for frisks.
for stops, reasonable suspicion criminal activity is afoot
for frisks, reasonable suspicion that D is armed/dangerous
|
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:02 AM Author: Nubile halford titcp. if you frisk the dood, are you allowed to manipulate? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469394) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:04 AM Author: Sexy vengeful institution no. under plain feel, criminality must be immediately apparent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469416) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:04 AM Author: Electric Coral Hissy Fit are you sure for frisks u have to suspect they're armed/dangerous? i'm pretty sure it's just that u have a RS that criminal activity is aftoot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469417) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:05 AM Author: Sexy vengeful institution 100% (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469438) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:06 AM Author: Electric Coral Hissy Fit oh, u were right. u have to have a RS that criminal activity is afoot to stop and question someone.
then, if u have a RS that they're armed/dangerous, you can frisk them. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:06 AM Author: Bossy Pistol Roommate I think a Terry frisk is limited to search for weapons based on need for officer safety. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469459) |
|
Date: July 12th, 2010 9:21 AM Author: iridescent thirsty plaza pozpig this is wrong (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15482719) |
|
Date: June 8th, 2011 10:49 PM Author: Stimulating legal warrant codepig No, you're wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#18201660) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:16 AM Author: pink associate kitchen for a terry STOP there must be reasonably articulable suspicion that crim. activity is afoot.
for a terry FRISK there must be reasonably articulable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous.
keep them separate. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:02 AM Author: Electric Coral Hissy Fit Terry Stop - If you have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is aftoot, police officer may stop a person and ask a few questions (must be brief).
If suspicion persists, you may pat down the person (only pat down the outer clothing) if you have a RS that the person is armed and presently dangerous . If you feel something that you have probable cause to believe is drugs (difficult to prove in most states) or a weapon, such as a gun (easier to show probable cause), you may reach in to the person's pocket and take it out. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:55 AM Author: Nubile halford unreasonable vs. reasonable mistake of fact is a defense to what sorts of MR crimes?
when is mistake of law a defense to a crime?
are factual or legal impossibility defenses to attempt? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:02 AM Author: Sexy vengeful institution 1) unreasonable mistake of fact is only a defense to specific intent crimes. reasonable mistake of fact is a defense to anything but strict liability.
2) generally, never. exception if D reasonably relies on overturned statute/caselaw or advice of one in charge of enforcement (not a personal lawyer, of course)
3) legal is, factual isn't. the latter is not because is not because if facts were as D thought they were he would have committed a crime. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:03 AM Author: Useless odious selfie edit: nm, guy above has better answer (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469414) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:03 AM Author: Nubile halford name the 4 theft offenses & what D ends up with in each. tyty. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469415) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:06 AM Author: Useless odious selfie LEFT:
Larceny (possession)
Embezzlement (conversion)
False pretenses (title)
Trick, larceny by (possession) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:09 AM Author: Sexy vengeful institution larceny- several elements, long and short is trespassory taking and moving of property w/ spec. intent to perm. deprive. obtains possession, not title.
false pretenses- obtains title, not possession, by making present or future representation with intent to defraud (?)
embezzlement- converts property of another already in lawful possession--obtains title.
robbery- larceny + force. obtains possession. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:14 AM Author: Nubile halford robbery isnt really a theft offense. it's better to think of the four "LEFT" theft offenses and then think of burglary and robbery as separate sorts of crimes, imo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469547) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:06 AM Author: Nubile halford name the four types of "malice aforethought" for murder
name the two elements for voluntary manslaughter
name the one element for involuntary manslaughter |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:08 AM Author: Useless odious selfie 1) no idea
2) provocation, objective and subjective
3) negligence |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:10 AM Author: Nubile halford re #1: intent to kill; intent to inflict great bodily harm; reckless indifference ("abandoned and malignant heart" -- i.e. throwing a bomb into a crowded classroom, without the SI to kill anybody in particular but with the substantial certainty that ppl will die); felony murder
#2: adequate provocation + no time to cool off
#3: criminally negligent re substantial & unjustifiable risk |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:10 AM Author: Bossy Pistol Roommate Malice aforethought:
(1) Intent to kill
(2) Intent to cause grave bodily harm
(3) Abandoned and malignant heart - Reckless indifference to human life
(4) Murder in the commission of an inherently dangerous felony |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:10 AM Author: Sexy vengeful institution malice aforethought--(1) intent to kill; (2) serious injury; (3) depraved indiff; (4) felony murder (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469504) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:11 AM Author: Insanely creepy senate 1. intent to kill 2. intent to inflict serious bodily harm 3. substantial certainty to kill or inflict serious bodily harm 4. reckless disregard for life |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:08 AM Author: Nubile halford 3 elements that need to be satisfied before the the law will impose a duty to act on you and will find you criminally responsible for not acting? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469483) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:11 AM Author: Sexy vengeful institution (1) legal duty; (2) knowledge of it; (3) ability to help (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469520) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:09 AM Author: Nubile halford name the 8 "E S C A P I S T" escapes from the warrant requirement (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469488) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:12 AM Author: Useless odious selfie this will be awesome when the answer is posted, but is actually being able to list all 8 helpful? i figure if i get an essay where there was no warrant, it will be pretty clear what exception(s) may apply (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469524) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:12 AM Author: Sexy vengeful institution exigency search incident to valid arrest consent auto plain view inventory special needs terry |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:14 AM Author: Useless odious selfie what's special needs? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469551) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:15 AM Author: Nubile halford effects of govt employees school kids' backpacks and lockers (rsbl suspicion std) probationers' homes at the US border and at airports |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:16 AM Author: Useless odious selfie ah, ok, i had remembered those all separately (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469592) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:16 AM Author: Sexy vengeful institution non-law enforcement need (like sobriety checkpoints or something) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469589) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:13 AM Author: Nubile halford exigent circumstances (hot pursuit of fleeing felon & evanescent evidence) search incident to arrest consent (e.g., rsbl belief in someone's apparent authority -- just think of :D's mom giving the police permission to go down and look around his basement) automobile plain view inventory special needs terry stop & frisk
|
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:16 AM Author: Nubile halford can the police resume questioning after giving a miranda warning and
a) D invokves rt to remain silent
b) D demands a lawyer
?? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:21 AM Author: Useless odious selfie a) yes
b) no |
|
Date: June 8th, 2011 10:53 PM Author: Stimulating legal warrant codepig Everyone note that (b) has changed since last year after Md. v. Shatzer (though probably unlikely to be tested on this year's bar). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#18201692) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:17 AM Author: Nubile halford when does jeopardy attach at:
bench trial jury trial
|
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:21 AM Author: Useless odious selfie bench: when first witness is called
jury: when jury is sworn |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:18 AM Author: Nubile halford search incident to arrest + automobile = PC automobile exception = PC
is that right? you need PC for both? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:24 AM Author: Useless odious selfie for search incident to arrest, you need PC because the arrest needs to be valid for the search to be valid.
for the automobile exception, you need PC that there is contraband in the car |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:26 AM Author: Nubile halford tyft. now can you explain the latest developments re AZ v. Gant? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15469716) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 1:30 AM Author: Useless odious selfie AZ v. Gant is about searching automobiles as part of a search incident to arrest. if D is not restrained & is either still in the car or could return to the car, then you can search the passenger compartment (and containers inside). if D is restrained, you can search the area to which he still has access.
contrasted with the automobile exception, where you can search the entire car if you have PC. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 8:33 AM Author: Flushed arousing giraffe native I'm posting this in here because I generally don't know and need help: What's the difference between a conspiracy and accomplice liability? Or is accomplice liability included within the concept of a conspiracy? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15471556) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:57 PM Author: Flushed arousing giraffe native bump (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15475964) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 7:51 PM Author: pink associate kitchen my understanding is that accomplice liabilty occurs when the actual crime is committed whereas liability for conspiracy attaches once the illegal agreement has been made. so to be found liable as an accomplce for murder an acutal murder had to have taken place (that you assisted in/aided/encouraged) whereas to be found liable for conspiracy to commit murder, the objective of the conspiracy (the murder) need not have taken place, just the agreement. (note: a maj. of states now also req. an overt act in prep.)
oversimplified: i like to think of the accomplice as the 'side-kick' of the principal while the crime is taking place and conspirators as a bunch of people just sitting around talking about what they're going to do. (though,I realize this doesn't take account of accomplice liablity for an accessory before the fact). |
|
Date: July 12th, 2010 9:16 AM Author: Flushed arousing giraffe native thank you! this helps! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#15482705) |
|
Date: June 8th, 2011 8:28 PM Author: Impressive passionate electric furnace (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#18200321) |
|
Date: June 8th, 2011 9:51 PM Author: Impressive passionate electric furnace (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#18201015) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2011 5:06 PM Author: Useless odious selfie (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&forum_id=2#18460973) |