Most Tested Bar Exam Rules: Evidence

Подписаться 47 тыс.

Просмотров 49 тыс.

50% 1

FREE Top 120 Most-Tested Rule List: studicata.com/...
📚 LAW SCHOOL & BAR EXAM PREP
Law school prep: studicata.com/...
Bar exam prep: studicata.com/...
🤝 CONNECT WITH YOUR INSTRUCTOR
Michael's Instagram: / studicataguy
❤️ COMMUNITY & REVIEWS
Community: studicata.com/...
Testimonials: studicata.com/...
Submit a review: shoutout.studi...
📱 TECH
iOS app: studicata.com/ios
Android app: studicata.com/...
📣 ABOUT
Studicata provides a fresher, more relatable way to prep for law school finals and the bar exam. With top-rated video lectures, exam walkthrough videos, outlines, study guides, strategy guides, essay practice exams, multiple-choice assessments, performance tracking, and more-Studicata has you covered with everything you need to ace your finals and pass the bar exam with confidence.
Email: info@studicata.com
Learn more: studicata.com
🎬 VIDEO INFO
Most Tested Bar Exam Rules (MEE): Evidence
(1) Relevance
(2) Character Evidence
(3) Hearsay
Learn more: studicata.com

Опубликовано:

1 окт 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 35

@constanzaortiz92 5 лет назад

Hi! This summary has been so fantastic! I've watched all your other evidence videos and they've been so helpful!! Totally cleared up my understanding. I wanted to follow-up and ask whether you've had a chance to make the flowchart for character evidence?

@jsamanipour7540 4 года назад

Im willing to be an attorney in California as a foreign lawyer. The general principles of law is all same . Like jurisdictions, evidence rules , torts .... only the type of regulations are different. Im following your videos its very helpful to give me a vision on CA state Law

@cleotoo1 5 лет назад

thanks for the great video! could you include the flowchart you refer to?

@akiyahb4276 5 лет назад

I was just thinking the same!

@VK-el3of 5 лет назад

Omg. Taking February 2020 bar and love your videos. Seriously considering enrolling

@jaidevkalra3569 4 года назад

VK were the results a shock? ;/

@johnshumate8112 2 года назад

If I asked a witness on cross how they knew it was blue ink for the contract and they said, “because it was raining that day”, I would just say no further questions and sit down.

@victoriakroger5506 4 года назад

This is great! I do not see the link to an evidence tree chart as stated in the video. Did you ever make it?

@christianthames2302 2 года назад

You have one of the best legal channels on the net man. You should pay someone to advertise you a little bit, you make it right back in advertising revenue and grow your channel

@studicata 2 года назад

Thank you for your support!

@NamasteCC 5 лет назад

thank you

@BitterComments 3 года назад

God bless you. And your tall hair!

@reycfd7753 2 года назад

Amazing! Thanks!

@hl7642 3 года назад

👍

@hl7642 3 года назад

Helpful

@britnyhoag7404 3 года назад

Can you post the link to the flow chart you mentioned you would in this video?

@tiggerish 6 лет назад

This is a great video and very clear.

@studicata 6 лет назад

Thank you!

@timothystarks5053 4 года назад

Great explanation of this rule I've heard thus far...great....it can get complicated but great job...

@saradavies1582 3 года назад

God bless the day i found studicata!!!!

@cass4420 4 года назад

To clarify, you said for your mnemonic device “MIMIC” (sorry, I butchered the spelling of it, love the device nonetheless) - “preponderance of the evidence” to get some evidence in under FRE 404(b) Character Evidence; however, isn’t 404(b) for criminal cases only, therefore the standard of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt instead of preponderance? Why is it preponderance of the evidence for the weight of that evidence to get it admitted?

@hyojinlee 3 года назад

Love all your videos, thank you so much!

@saradavies1582 3 года назад

i cannot find the tree please

@rukusfan1387 3 года назад

Give him a thumbs up!

@dagobello 4 года назад

Awesome explanations.

@studicata 4 года назад

Thank you!

@ivancarlson953 4 года назад

In the Casey Antony trial, an expert witness, Dr. Rodriguez, failed to enter into his report that he couldn't make an opinion on where was the placement of the duct tape, despite the lawyer, Mr. Baez, previously had been given a court order to tell witnesses to enter all opinions into their reports. Rodriquez claimed he wasn't aware of that court order, and he wasn't conformable making the opinion since he had none. I guess this goes to show that evidence, even documentation that there is no opinion and the basis for that opinion, needs to be entered. The old adage, "if you didn't document it, you didn't do/consider it."