S.O.U.N.D. Advice for Bar Essays:
One mistake that students make is in thinking that merely regurgitating facts and then drawing a legal conclusion is sufficient—it is not, if your knowledge of the applicable principles of law is not coming through! For example, simply stating “When Officer searched the car based on spotting marijuana in plain view and seized the drugs, he performed a valid warrantless search” is not enough because it doesn’t allow the examiner to gauge how well you know the law and how well you can define what the plain view doctrine is. State, instead, “The marijuana seized by Officer is admissible under the plain view doctrine. An exception to the search warrant requirement, this doctrine allows the government to seize objects in plain view and admit them into evidence. Here, Officer spotted the marijuana on the backseat of the car in plain view and seized it during a valid warrantless search; therefore, the evidence will be admissible.” Although the second version is longer, it is still a concise yet completely thorough analysis, applying the principles of law involved to the facts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment