The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
hearsay mastermen come itt have Q
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 12th, 2014 3:40 PM Author: Impressive gaping Subject: how is A the right answer Raymond, a Hallmark salesman, was a guest at the Holiday Hotel in Arizona. After checking into the hotel, he went to the elevator on the lobby level floor to proceed to his room. When the elevator doors opened, he stepped into the elevator shaft, unaware that the elevator car itself had not descended to the lobby. Raymond fell 10 feet to the elevator shaft floor. The elevator actually was out of service because it was being repaired that day. Raymond sues the hotel, claiming he suffers from permanent injuries as a result of the incident.
At trial, Raymond proposed to testify that he called out after the incident, "I have just fallen while getting into the lobby elevator and my knee really hurts." The only response was from Jean Paul, the concierge, who said, "Hold on, I'll get some help." Jean Paul observed Raymond later that day swimming in the hotel pool.
Raymond's proposed testimony regarding his statement to the concierge should be: ( )(A) Admitted, as a statement of present physical condition. (x)(B) Admitted, as evidence of liability against the hotel. ← Wrong answer ( )(C) Excluded, because the statement was not made to a treating doctor. ( )(D) Excluded, because Raymond is not qualified as an expert to determine his own medical condition. |
 |
Date: June 12th, 2014 3:42 PM Author: Godawful ocher casino It's not the right answer. That's the problem with the MBE. It's subjective. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737450) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:00 PM Author: domesticated beady-eyed business firm sneaky criminal mostly because B, C, and D are reel retarted, sir. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737556) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:03 PM Author: Impressive gaping i just dont understand why it needs a hearsay exception. it's the witnesses own statement.
|
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:07 PM Author: domesticated beady-eyed business firm sneaky criminal LJL
good luck in feb. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:07 PM Author: Impressive gaping :( (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737611) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:08 PM Author: domesticated beady-eyed business firm sneaky criminal well, good luck next month too.
edit: a witness can't just testify about anything they want simply because they were the one that said it. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:11 PM Author: Impressive gaping fuck. his statement isnt hearsay to me so i just got thrown off on having to pick a hearsay exception as an answer.
ty |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:09 PM Author: electric institution It's not a wrong answer, just not the BEST answer (smug as fuck barbri lecturer) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737626) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:12 PM Author: Impressive gaping lol ty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737663) |
|
Date: June 13th, 2014 1:30 AM Author: irradiated aqua newt lls (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25741504) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:56 PM Author: Cerise Ungodly Electric Furnace Hell wut (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737912) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:59 PM Author: Impressive gaping i have a feeling i am completely misreading this question. im not a fucking genius but i swear im smart enough to understand basic law concepts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737928) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 5:01 PM Author: poppy alcoholic temple international law enforcement agency hearsay is basically any out of court statement, regardless of source it doesn't matter if the witness is testifying about his own statement, it's still hearsay and inadmissible unless there is an exception (or it's one of the limited 'non-hearsay' exceptions) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 5:02 PM Author: Impressive gaping ok ty i dont why my outline is that off (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737946) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 5:04 PM Author: poppy alcoholic temple international law enforcement agency it's a pretty important concept to have wrong (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737953) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 5:08 PM Author: Impressive gaping lol you are telling me (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737969) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:58 PM Author: poppy alcoholic temple international law enforcement agency reread the definition of hearsay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737917) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 5:00 PM Author: Impressive gaping so even statements made by the witness testifying are hearsay? if that's the case, my outline for evidence is wrong and caused this confusion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737936) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 5:02 PM Author: poppy alcoholic temple international law enforcement agency yes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737942) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 5:11 PM Author: nighttime soul-stirring filthpig bro, hearsay definition:
ANY OUT OF COURT STATEMENT OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED
for testing purposes, just assume everything is hearsay and work backwards from the non-hearsay categories and exceptions. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:09 PM Author: Sick exhilarant jap (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737630) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 5:18 PM Author: contagious lettuce shrine Subject: Take a Diversity Nap Fucking lol. 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25738007) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:31 PM Author: swashbuckling pit Think b is wrong because it doesn't involve liability so much as whether he was injured. Glad I don't have to deal with this shit anymore. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737777) |
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:34 PM Author: Comical nowag piazza Pretty sure this falls under the "Records of Religious Organizations" hearsay exception brothers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737797) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:40 PM Author: nighttime soul-stirring filthpig Fucking LOL man, I will be rooting for you.
C & D are both hilariously wrong, as is B. But even then, how does (A) seem wrong to you?
Edit: just read you that you thought whatever the D says isn't hearsay.
If you didn't take evidence in LS for some reason and are struggling with the testimony concepts, sitting down and reading the E&E on evidence might really benefit you. You can get through most of it in a day and it makes the shit pretty clear. Not a waste of time at this point if you're this bad with the basic concepts. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:44 PM Author: Impressive gaping because it is a hearsay exception and the statement is not hearsay
i figured b was correct because it is relevant at least. like on direct, the plaintiff would be like i fell down an elevator shaft and screamed out for help and that i was in pain. just seems like it is a standard response during a direct all used to prove the hotel was liable due to negligence in some way. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:48 PM Author: nighttime soul-stirring filthpig See my edit above. The statement is hearsay but for the exception. As a rule, really vague and generic answers like (B) are almost never correct. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737860) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:51 PM Author: Impressive gaping i guess i will
i have in my notes that prior statements by the witness testifying is not hearsay
ty |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:54 PM Author: nighttime soul-stirring filthpig jesus bro, fuck your notes, go to the source. it's more complex than that.
get a really solid outline if barbri or kaplan or whatever is confusing you, or get a concise supplement, and just spend a day actually learning that shit. you are shaky and this should be an easy topic to pwn. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:55 PM Author: Impressive gaping ty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737908) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:49 PM Author: awkward stead Seriously... just do lots and lots of practice questions in evidence. Like multistate edge or barbri's version. After awhile you'll recognize the subtle differences. For me, evidence was the hardest MBE section. Property was hard too, but the questions were more straightforward (if that's possible) than the evidence questions.
I heard that the new MBE will have civ pro... is that true? |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:52 PM Author: nighttime soul-stirring filthpig i don't think civ pro has been added yet, but there are now experimental questions on every test.
if he fundamentally doesn't get evidence, then a day just learning the testimony shit would be valuable rather than burning through all his practice questions. evidence is widely regarded as one of the easier topics on the exam if you just have a clear understanding of the basics. if you're confused about what hearsay is, then you need to remedy that shit quickly and move on. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:54 PM Author: Impressive gaping see below ive been scoring around 90 percent
i guess it was just a small section of my notes that said statements by the witness testifying is not hearsay. ill look into the E&E to clarify. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:56 PM Author: nighttime soul-stirring filthpig yeah if you are getting 90%+ on actual MBEs, then i really wouldn't worry about it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737911) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:57 PM Author: awkward stead I know... everyone told me it was the easiest section, but I still struggled with it. Definitely understood the more concrete (IMO) sections K's and Prop, but ended up doing fine on all the sections.
Just focus on what "truth of the matter asserted" really means. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:53 PM Author: Impressive gaping my prep company did not give me anything for civ pro for the MBE so i hope not. it did give it to me for state material so even if it comes up im sure ill be fine.
ive averaging around 90 percent on the 150-175 MBE evidence questions ive done just this one throw me way off. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:55 PM Author: nighttime soul-stirring filthpig it's not on there. obviously it's a high percentage topic for essays. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737906) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:50 PM Author: stirring chapel telephone cr. but A is a better answer because it digs deeper than B. if you were writing an essay in response to the question, you would start off by analyzing whether the testimony is RELEVANT (answer B)... but then you would say b-but its HEARSAY ... and then you would say however, there's an applicable exception (answer A) what they mean by the "best" answer is that it addresses the deepest issue in the prompt |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 5:09 PM Author: Impressive gaping ty ill keep this in mind (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737972) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2014 4:56 PM Author: poppy alcoholic temple international law enforcement agency good luck, this is a pretty easy question (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25737913) |
|
Date: June 13th, 2014 2:05 AM Author: Opaque Fear-inspiring Brethren Love Of Her Life It's refreshing to see a thread like this (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#25741589) |
|
Date: May 29th, 2017 8:32 PM Author: Impressive gaping (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2591825&forum_id=2#33423628) |