« on: January 18, 2009, 04:09:31 PM »
There is only one thing that impacts your 1L grades.
Your ability to apply law to facts. The person's Dexterity with the Law.
this assumes the following:
1. You know the Law Cold
2. You read the Facts meitculously
3. You MUST in every paragraph TAKE the facts and analytically PLUG them into the law
(4. You adress counterarguements)
And 5. YOU do NO BS (i.e. day-dream arguments)
What is meant by Hard-work? Work can be hard because it is long, or because it is tedious, or because it is mentally draining, or because the technique employed is one that would make a simple job more complex.(e.g. a wagon with square wheels)
This term is too vague to garner any benefit
What is meant by intelligence?
A horse-trainer would likely be considered intellgent when he tames wild horses, a mechanic would be considered intelligent according to his abaility to fix cars, and likewise, a lawyer would be considered intelligent according to his command of legal books. A person who can train horses, fix cars, and practice law, would be considered intelligent according to those three subjects.
The idea of intellegence as somehow existing apart from any trade or discipline is one that cannot be sustained empirically.
And of Luck?
"Men are in control of roughly half their fate, the other half is governed by fortune."- Machiavelli
There is no luck, only skilled or unskilled. You choose which you are going to be.
II. Thinking like a lawyer.
Law shcool exam question:
Man shoots other man. Discuss:
He is guilty of a crime, he shot him, this falls with murder or assult, his acts show he wanted to shoot him and he did beyond a reasonable doubt. &c.
He MAY have killed him. He could have shot the man in the toe, or maybe the bullet did not hit him. If the Bullet hit him, theyre MAY be an assult. If there was an assult, we would have to see if there could have been defenses. Some valid defenses would be self defense, defesne of 3rd persons. For example, if the man tried to shoot the shooter 1st or attacked him, then the shooter may be justfieid in shooting this man. However, if the defense was one that did not call for a weapon it would not be justified, as it would likely be an escalation.
Other incomplete defenses would be defense of property, or intoxication. If the man shot the other under the influence, he might be partially excused, because it would likely be hard to show Mens Rea, if at all.
It is also possible, the man was a police officer, if so, he may have defense of authrotiy.
Its also possible the man was killed. if so, it would probably be relevant whether this could be seen as a heat of passion killing, even though it does not sound like it. It also seems the man shot him for no reasons, and as such, can probably match the elements of a delibarate killing and willful killing. The last element for murder 1, would be premdittated, and while the facts do not show that the man premeditated, had he purchased a gun for that purpose it could be seen as some sort of premditaation.
Its also possible this is a movie, in which case there was some sort of consent, and may be no crime at all occurred.
1. May be, Probably, Possible, Can be, Likely, more likely than not etc.
2. because, since, as, due to &.
3. Seems, sounds, appears, smells
4. DONT ASSUME ANYTHING, NO TUNNEL VISION
--> Don't Assume, Don't Assume, Don't Assume. Each fact is ALWAYS different, even if similar.
Thats all I can think of at the moment.