In response to the recent Evidence exam fallout, I would like to state my position. First, I know that this whole situation is the result of some sad shit, namely, cancer & Katrina. That said, I believe that we all (meaning law students) wanted to get as good of an understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence as possible before we are in some job & our boss asks us to draft a motion to supress or exclude. And we respond by looking completely confused.
But, alas, White became very ill & Katrina screwed Newalins. Thus, we were faced with a new professor who kept comparing us to his Tulane students & bitching about the cold weather in P-Burgh. Well, all I can say right now is that the snow that falls here might have some pollutants in it & further, snow only falls when it is colder than 0 degrees Centigrade, but we are not conducting classes in a building that has been submerged in toxic, human & animal wastes. So, let's move on.
The exam. It was tricky. And I kinda like tricky, even when I get the answers wrong. It shows that the Prof. put some effort into the exam. Now, there were some tricky questions on it, including the repetition of multiple choice answers such as: a) it is hearsay, but falls within the exclusion for party admissions; and b) it is non-hearsay, as it is a party admission. See, this is OK. He wanted us to understand that party admissions, by their defintion, fall under 801(d) and are non-hearsay. But, questions where the fact pattern relates the actions of three people (e.g. Tom, Dick & Harry) and the call of the question asks whether Charlie's testimony will be admissible ARE INEXCUSABLE. Pig slop. Crap. Totally unacceptable law professor work product. So, that's what I think.
Should we complain to the Admin.? Maybe, but just to the extent of bringing it to their attention, not to substantively change the way the exam will be graded or curved. We all got fucked. Together. As a group.
Happy finals, biiaaches.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment