Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - gershonw

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14
Current Law Students / Re: Any Hope for Hopeless Situation?
« on: December 09, 2007, 11:02:41 PM »

"Note to all service members-we are service volunteers and we should not brag about our service, ever in any capacity."

im no military guy...but i would caution that as a little sanctimous..

true you shouldnt be a jerk about it and say i know better because i wasi nthe service...( in this case..when the service has nothing ot do with the issue)....

but it is something to be proud of.

Current Law Students / Re: Crim Pro question
« on: December 09, 2007, 07:16:39 PM »
your welcome.

maybe this board is worth somthing after all..

Current Law Students / Re: Crim Pro question
« on: December 09, 2007, 06:57:44 PM »
Reasonable suspicioun is reqauired for a terry stop when its a regular law that they have suspicioun of being violated.

allows a pretextual stop on probable casue of a traffic law. (even if what they are really after is a more serious crime)

whether these combine to mean that if its a prextexual stop all you need is reasonable suspicion of a "traffic' law is actually not yet decided by the suspreme court and is the subjeect of..

a recent md high cour tdecision struggled with this issue: in state v williams 934 A.2d 38

it devotes a long essay to the question of when the pretext is only a traffic law and not a regular law..whehter you need resonable suspicion or probable cuase.

the majority in line with the majority of courts belive that it is reasonable suspicion even when the when pretext is only a traffic law and not a drug law or somthing.

they cite:
United States v. Sanchez-Pena, 336
F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2003); United Sta tes v. Hill, 195 F.3d 258, 26 4 (6th Cir. 1999); United
States v. Navarette-Barron, 192 F.3d 786, 79 0 (8th Cir. 1999); United States v. Lopez-
Soto, 205 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Chanthasouxat, 342 F.3d 1271 (11th
Cir. 2003); State v. Chavez, 668 N.W .2d 89 (S.D . 2003); State v. Bohannon, 74 P.3d 980
(Haw. 2003); and cf. State v. Crawford, 67 P.3d 115 (K an. 2003).

so that appears to be the law in the 8th 9th 6th 11th and 5th circuits at least.

also in the context of this analysis of saying that when doesnt meant that PC is nesssary when its a trafic law pretext...the 9th cir case United States v. Lopez-
Soto, 205 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2000) says that:

"Moreover, none of our sister circuits, either before or after Whren, has concluded that a traffic stop must be justified by more than reasonable suspicion. Where the facts before the court would satisfy both reasonable suspicion and probable cause, many of the more recent cases echo the language in Whren and simply analyze the facts for probable cause, see, e.g., United States v. Sanders, 196 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir.1999); United States v. Brown, 188 F.3d 860, 864 (7th Cir.1999); United States v. Jones, 185 F.3d 459, 464 (5th Cir.1999); United States v. Wellman, 185 F.3d 651, 656 (6th Cir.1999), but none of these cases suggests that probable cause is the minimum threshold for constitutionally permissible police action in making a traffic stop. In fact, some circuits have explicitly held, post- Whren, that reasonable suspicion is all the Fourth Amendment requires. See, e.g., United States v. Hill, 195 F.3d 258, 264 (6th Cir.1999); United States v. Navarrete-Barron, 192 F.3d 786, 790 (8th Cir.1999); United States v. Ozbirn, 189 F.3d 1194, 1197 (10th Cir.1999). We join those circuits and reaffirm*1105 that the Fourth Amendment requires only reasonable suspicion in the context of investigative traffic stops."

so while the suprem court hasnt decidde whehter a whren stop on a pretext of a traffic law only requires PC or RAS...the circuit courts are almost unanomusly going the resonable suspicion way...which is logical since whren doesnt explicitly reverse terry.

Current Law Students / Re: Any Hope for Hopeless Situation?
« on: December 09, 2007, 01:25:58 PM »
jomama :

"By the way, I'm fairly certain the original post was a flame seeing how we haven't heard from the OP since he made the post."

certainly possible. not sure that any particular court appearance is necessarily as stressful as a 1L law school exam.  it depends on how much your 1l grades matter..what you want to do. how you do in other classes....vs the court situation of what at stake..whether you will gain a % of the judgment or are payed by the hour or salaried and will keep your job even if you loose..what judge your good/close the case is...etc.

in this case it may depend on medication.

although obviously your right that being a marine under fire is more you know what your tlaking about thre....of course the person isnt joing the marines that we know of...

Current Law Students / Re: Any Hope for Hopeless Situation?
« on: December 08, 2007, 07:49:56 PM »
one thing i don't understand is how not being able to move the last 20 min could possibly get you a D.  its of course possible that your exam was a shorter one for like 1 or two hours..but most exams in doctrinal 1l situations i thought would be 3-4 hours.  if this is the case..20 minutes could certainly be important..but not that important..unless you did poorly for other reasons as well..or were nervous there too.  i suspect your panicking and overeating to the panic attack itself.

now i would certainly ask the dean/prof about it because as someone said before..the worst that can happen is that they tell you to leave (and i don't want to get your hopes up...they probably will in the interest of what they think is "fairness to other students"...even though their version of fairness just so happens to make them have to do less work ;)

if you do go to the dean or prof or what ever i would challenge him to make the distinction between someone who fainted  and your sitaution.  both situations make it impossible to complete the exam.  you didnt simply panic..but your panic had phisicological implications that *may* have made it physicologically impossible to take the exam.  sure..many students get anxious..but how many are so anxious that they can barely move? 

of course this goes back to the medication issue..whether you were or were not taking the meds would be impotant to that distiction.

to brign this home..suppose somebody's car broke down and they left their car in the middle of the street and ran to the school and missed an hour of the exam...would that be alllowed for 1 more hour so as to be on equal footing? i should hope so..why? becuase of a physical impossibility to take the exam.

my school clearly says that if the day before you can show physical impossiblity to take the exam that you can get a prostoponement..and i would assume the same logic would apply 1 hr before..and during the exam.

good luck...and if your not seeing somebody for the anzioty i would consider it.

dont listen to people who tell you you shouldnt be a lawyer.  its true that if you ahve aproblem with anzioty that that might be afactor in deciding whehter certina jobs are for you...but that cant be the only factor...further..a 9-5 gov job can be very low streess..and could also requrie a JD

Current Law Students / hint on exams
« on: December 05, 2007, 02:57:17 PM »
always make sure you know when you get the exam how many pages the exam is so you do the whole exam.

i just took a citation competency exam for my LRW class.  its not a big deal...10% of our LRW class whcih is only 2 credits out of a typical semester load of 16.

in any answers were all perfect but i guess i didnt see the last two pages so i failed.

Job Search / Re: State Clerkships
« on: November 28, 2007, 02:05:37 PM »
i got a summer clerkship at my state intermediate appellate court.  im a 1L at a t50 non t14. (yes it was a non nalp employer..although i didnt go to any Careerer services meetings and i had no idea about the dec 1 rule)

i had been going for any sort of sumemr clerkship and i called first every state trial judge in my area.  some told me they didnt know if they hire-some told me they would be hirign s submit a resume..some said they wernt hiring..and some didnt answer the phone...

as i was preparing to send resumes...

i then called the intermediate appellate court judges in my area

the intermediate appellate court judge told me to come in for an interview (told me just to bring my resume in).

i had a connection to the area and had been a law clerk at a firm before law school..and had other crim law experiences (probation office work)

the judge said he had an endless supply of criminal appeals...

he also liked that i westlaw-ed decisions that he had written or dissented from.  that gave him some idea that i wasn't a total moron.

good luck

of course thats just a summer clerkship...but i saw his current real clerks were grads of a  tier 3 and a tier 4 (both with a connection to the area)

it probably doesn't fly in the face of blind grading.

most schools that have blind grading refer to the written assignments or exams and allow for a class participation part of the grade...true...its traditionally not a lot of the grade..but i doubt it goes against the specific guidelines.

further..there is no aba requirement for blind grading or anything..its just a lawschool tradition near as i can tell

Current Law Students / Re: Character & Fitness Evaluation New York
« on: November 23, 2007, 11:54:49 AM »
I need more thoughts please!!!  :)

i second being honest about it.

to be honest with you though..your situation is incredibly fact specific so youll really have to wait it out...sory.

my best wishes though. for you and your dad if hes still around

Job Search / Re: An Important Message for 1Ls Scrambling for Firm Jobs:
« on: November 22, 2007, 06:00:22 PM »
But the judge has much more experience than the clerk. The clerk may present the judge with a wrong view, or a one-sided view of the situation, but the judge will see through that.

A former supreme-court clerk who gave a talk at my school got a question about this. His answer (paraphrased): "At the beginning I thought I had a lot of influence, because the Justice always seemed to agree with what I said. But I found soon enough that in reality I had no influence at all. If the Justice had a different opinion, I could say what I wanted, but I wasn't going to change his mind."

good to least on that court..

of course the SCOTUS has the luxury of only taking cases it wants to hear...

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14