Jul 13 2013

Transition to Adjunct Status

Published by under DE Bar Review UPDATES**

I am writing to inform you that following the conclusion of the course this summer, I have transitioned to adjunct status here at the University.  This move successfully marks the end of my 12th year administering the summer DE bar review course and the beginning of my long awaited opportunity to pursue other professional adventures.  I’d like to thank all of you for your patience and cooperation during this time of heightened stress in your lives.  Most of all though I want to wish all success on the bar and in your future practice as Delaware attorneys.

I will continue however to check my emails and respond to your questions and/or needs regarding the course up to and until the end of the month.  Please feel free to contact Deb Berry in the Office of Student Affairs at 302-477-2142 with any questions.

Kindest regards,

Professor Yarbrough

No responses yet

Jul 03 2013

July 2012 bar exam material – updates

Published by under DE Bar Review UPDATES**

Please note the following in regards to the July 2012 bar exam booklet distributed (or mailed out) today.

  1. Question 1 (corporations) Representative Answers were inadvertently omitted.  Please see pdf link below.
  2. Question 5 (partnership) Representative Answer #2 is missing page #3.  This is an oversight in the original materials as distributed by the DE Board.
  3. Question 7 (evidence) Representative Answer #2 page #2 is somewhat distorted.  This is a blemish in the original materials as distributed by the DE Board.

Unfortunately I cannot correct the problems in the originals documents released by the Board.

 

Answers_to_Question___1

No responses yet

Jul 01 2013

Agency Outline 2013 – missing page 2

Published by under DE Bar Review UPDATES**

It was brought to my attention this morning that page 2 of the Agency Outline was omitted.  Please see the link attached.

Agency Outline – page 2

 

No responses yet

Jul 01 2013

Instructor’s Analysis – Crim law/procedure 2010 Q5

Published by under DE Bar Review UPDATES**

It appears that the distributed version of Instructor’s Analysis Q5 (Binder III) is incomplete.  The link below provides Judge Carpenter’s full analysis.

Question#5.2010

No responses yet

Jun 28 2013

July 2012 DE Bar Exam materials

Published by under DE Bar Review UPDATES**

The course materials for the DE July 2012 bar exam will be distributed next week prior to the July 4th break.

No responses yet

Jun 28 2013

Final Testing Week: July 8th – 11th

Published by under DE Bar Review UPDATES**

Testing Options

  • Simulated MBE (200 questions/submit scantron to Barbri)

This workshop offers you the opportunity to take a simulated Multistate Bar Exam under timed conditions and have it computer graded by Barbri.  After submitting your answer sheet for grading, go to Barbri.com to get your national rankings.

  • How to Participate
    • Option A
      • Attend all three days of the workshop (July 8-10) here on the Delaware campus.  Day I (in-class testing). Day II & III (in-class review).  This workshop runs approximately 8 hrs each day.
      • You MUST bring your testing book (contained in your Barbri Box Set previously distributed).  Be sure to mark your responses on both your scantron sheet and in your book.
    • Option B
      • Attend Day I (in-class testing) only.
      • Complete test review on your own.  You may review your answers by
        • Logging into StudySmart
        • Using your MBE Exam Barbri book
    • Option C
      • Complete testing on your own and submit your completed scantron sheet to the Bar Programs Office by 4:00 p.m. (July 8th) for submission to Barbri for computer grading OR mail your completed scantron directly to Barbri.  No late submissions.
        • The Bar Programs Office is not responsible for the receipt and/or availability of scores of scantrons mailed directly to Barbri.
      • You may review your answers by
        • Attending Day I & II (in-class review)
        • Logging in to StudySmart
        • Using your MBE Exam Barbri book
  • Special Instructions
    • On the scantron sheet, you will need to enter your “Barbri ID”. 

 

MPT Workshop

  • The MPT workshop will be presented at 9 a.m. (Ruby Vale Ct) on Thursday, July 11th .  The workshop runs for approximately 3 hrs.
  • The workshop may also be completed online.  The MPT Workshop handout is also available online or may be picked up from the Bar Programs Office.
  • The workshop includes an MPT drafting exercise and review (see handout).

 

Simulated Final Exam (100 questions)

  • As a final practice review, you can take the simulated final exam included in your Barbri MBE Practice Questions, Vol. 2 book or online through the Enrolled Student Center.  This 100 question test is designed to give you one final practice in handling variations of commonly tested issues and is representative of some of the more difficult questions you will see on the MBE.
  • It is best to complete this testing opportunity after completing the Convisor Mini-Review assigned at the end of the PACED STUDY schedule.

No responses yet

Jun 27 2013

Smoking Notice – Vitamin Shoppe

Published by under DE Bar Review UPDATES**

The Widener University School of Law has received a complaint from a neighboring store owner concerning Widener community members smoking and leaving their cigarette debris in the Vitamin Shoppe’s parking lot.  The store owner also stated that Widener community members have been observed dumping their trash bags in their dumpster.

 

The Vitamin Shoppe requests that Widener community members refrain from smoking in their parking lot and using their dumpster.

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

No responses yet

Jun 26 2013

Evidence query – Prof. Holbrook’s response on crimes of dishonesty

Published by under DE Bar Review UPDATES**

Below is Prof. Holbrook’s response to the question on crimes of dishonesty in DE.

 

In Delaware, the term “dishonesty” for purposes of Rule 609(a)(2) is much broader than the answer given below implies. It includes robbery, burglary and theft.

A seminal case is Gregory v. State, 616 A.2d 1198, Del.,1992, in which the Supreme Court of Delaware clarified that “dishonesty” includes crimes involving “lying, deceiving, cheating, stealing or defrauding”.  See also Tucker v. State 692 A.2d 416, Del.Supr.,1996, and Manna v. State 945 A.2d 1149, Del.Supr.,2008.

The student should keep in mind that a court will only get to 609(a)(2) if the conviction does not qualify as a felony under 609(a)(1).  Evidence admitted under 609(a)(1) is subject to a balancing test.  Evidence admitted under 609(a)(2) is not. See Webb v. State, 663 A.2d 452, Del.,1995.

The relevant excerpt from Gregory v. State is as follows:

“What then constitutes a crime involving dishonesty and false statement as contemplated by D.R.E. 609? The notes to FED.R.EVID. 609(a)(2), which is virtually identical to the Delaware rule, defines such crimes as those involving “perjury, false statement, criminal fraud, embezzlement, or false pretense, or any other offense in the nature of crimen falsi, the commission of which involves some element of deceit, untruthfulness, or falsification bearing on the accused’s propensity to testify truthfully.” Fed.R.Evid. 609, Notes of Conference Committee, H.R.CONF.REP. No. 93–1597 (1974), reprinted in U.S.C.C.A. 7051, 7098. By comparison, we have construed the phrase “dishonesty or false statement” in D.R.E. 609 to mean that crimes involving dishonest conduct as well as crimes involving false statements are admissible for impeachment purposes, Tinnen v. State, Del.Supr., 521 A.2d 247, 1987, Christie, J., at 2 (November 18, 1986) (ORDER), and we have further defined the term “dishonesty” as the act or practice of lying, deceiving, cheating, stealing or defrauding. Id.

“In a purely philosophical sense it can be said, understandably, that all violations of the law, by their very nature, involve some element of dishonesty. Thus, one could argue that jay walking, spitting on a sidewalk, running a red light or a stop sign, and exceeding the speed limit, however slightly, are “dishonest” because they involve acts for which one can be punished by the State or its subdivisions. Those transgressions, however, are not the type which Rule 609(a)(2) contemplates. There must be something more than the act itself of violating the law. Thus, drug-related offenses generally do not fall within the rubric of D.R.E. 609(a)(2). For example, the elements of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver are (1) possession of a controlled substance and (2) an intent to manufacture or deliver it. Kelson v. State, Del.Super., 599 A.2d 413 (1991). The elements of this crime require no proof of conduct involving lying, deceiving, cheating, stealing or defrauding. If, despite this, we were to conclude that drug-related offenses generally involve deceit and dishonestly, then others might reasonably conclude that all offenses are of such a character. Given the plain language of D.R.E. 609(a)(2), and the analogous federal commentary, we need not add further gloss to what was clearly intended. Thus, we give effect to the manifest meaning of the words “dishonesty” and “false statement” as contemplated by the rule. That requirement precludes admission under D.R.E. 609(a)(2) of any offenses lacking the well-defined elements of such crimes.”

No responses yet

Jun 24 2013

Evidence query – crimes of dishonesty

Published by under DE Bar Review UPDATES**

I wanted to forward the Barbri responses I got to a question  I understand that is of interest to several of you.

 

DE Course Participant:

I’ve got a quick question.
The multistate lecturer, Prof. Alexander, defines (both in his lecture and in his outline) crimes of dishonesty as those crimes that involve involve an element of a false statement. He distinguishes between general crimes involving a dishonest element, such as fraud, with crimes involving false statements, like perjury. The DE lecturer defined crimes of dishonesty in more general terms, which would include crimes such as theft. I asked him if that definition was a DE distinction or if it was also the FRE definition as well. We didn’t get a super clear answer. So, I’ve asked around and the general consensus seems to be that crimes of dishonesty are defined more broadly, as opposed to the BarBri lecturer’s definition.
I don’t want to get an easy question wrong because of a simple discrepancy. Is there a way to clear this up?

 Barbri – Corporate Attorney:
This question references FRE 609(a)(2).
I believe the answer to be between the two explanations.   Fraud and perjury both fit the definition.  Theft does not.
See Committee Notes:

COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES-2006 AMENDMENT
The amendment provides that Rule 609(a)(2) mandates the admission of evidence of a conviction only when the conviction required the proof of (or in the case of a guilty plea, the admission of) an act of dishonesty or false statement. Evidence of all other convictions is inadmissible under this subsection, irrespective of whether the witness exhibited dishonesty or made a false statement in the process of the commission of the crime of conviction. Thus, evidence that a witness was convicted for a crime of violence, such as murder, is not admissible under Rule 609(a)(2), even if the witness acted deceitfully in the course of committing the crime.
The amendment is meant to give effect to the legislative intent to limit the convictions that are to be automatically admitted under subdivision (a)(2). The Conference Committee provided that by “dishonesty and false statement” it meant “crimes such as perjury, subornation of perjury, false statement, criminal fraud, embezzlement, or false pretense, or any other offense in the nature of crimen falsi, the commission of which involves some element of deceit, untruthfulness, or falsification bearing on the [witness's] propensity to testify truthfully.” Historically, offenses classified as crimina falsi have included only those crimes in which the ultimate criminal act was itself an act of deceit. See Green, Deceit and the Classification of Crimes: Federal Rule of Evidence 609 (a)(2) and the Origins of Crimen Falsi, 90 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1087 (2000).
Evidence of crimes in the nature of crimina falsi must be admitted under Rule 609(a)(2), regardless of how such crimes are specifically charged. For example, evidence that a witness was convicted of making a false claim to a federal agent is admissible under this subdivision regardless of whether the crime was charged under a section that expressly references deceit (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §1001, Material Misrepresentation to the Federal Government) or a section that does not (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §1503, Obstruction of Justice).

Dale Larrimore, Barbri of PA/NJ:
Obviously, I am unaware of the rule in Delaware, but for the MBE and under the Federal Rules of Evidence, I can offer the following:

A witness can be impeached by any crime if it can readily be determined that conviction of the crime require proof (or an admission by the defendant) of an act of dishonesty or false statement. You really have to look at the elements of the individual crimes as defined by the crimes code of the state where the person was convicted. If the statutory elements of the crime include an act of dishonesty or false statement, then impeachment is allowed based on evidence of conviction of such crimes.

On the other hand, a witness may also be impeached by evidence of conviction of ANY felony, whether or n ot it involves dishonesty or false statement if allowed by the trail court. With these types of crimes the trial judge has discretion as to whether or not to allow impeachment based in these crimes. Encourage your student to look at page 40 of the Evidence outline in the MS volume for more information on this.

If there are more specific questions, please let me know.
Dale

No responses yet

Jun 24 2013

“Open” calendar dates

Published by under DE Bar Review UPDATES**

Due to controls on the order in which topics are presented, there are two “open”dates (June 25th & July 12th) on the summer calendar.  Unless otherwise announced these dates remain free meaning there is no scheduled bar course activity.  However, July 12th does remain open for a potential make-up date.

Also please note that there are no scheduled classes next week, July 4-5.

No responses yet

Next »