Comments CREMINAL LAW Issues Covered: You missed major issues. You missed important

Comments CREMINAL LAW

Issues Covered:

You missed major issues.
You missed important sub-issues.
You need to address the call of the question.

Law Knowledge and Use:

You didn’t provide enough law or legal definitions to key terms.
You provided too much recitation or discussion of the law in general, rather than applying laws to the facts.
You need to focus on proving or disproving the elements of the rules of law in your analysis.

Argument and Analysis:

You were too conclusionary and did not provide enough argument for both sides of the issues. You need to play with the facts more and adequately explain the arguments both sides would be expected to make.
You need to explain why you believe the facts lead to the conclusion you reached.

Format and Structure:

You need to use the IRAC format.
Your essay would be improved with more white space. Skip lines between issues and skip lines within the sections, following the issue statement, rule, and analysis.
You need to label the issues discussed with an issue statement framed as a yes/no question or with the legal topic covered. This may help you focus your analysis on answering the question, as opposed to simply telling what you know about a topic.

Writing Style:

Mechanics:

Additional Comments

You spotted some of the important issues in this exam, but many others were missed. Going forward, remember that your primary job on law school exams is not just to talk about the issues but to *prove* whether and why the facts are sufficient to meet the relevant legal standards.

In this case, each of the following issues should have been addressed and individually analyzed through methodical and thorough IRAC approach for each: Did Ed commit conspiracy? / Is Ed liable for Frank’s actions through application of Pinkerton’s Rule? / Did Ed commit common law burglary? / Did Ed commit statutory burglary? / Is Ed liable for the assault of Wanda? / Is Ed liable for the kidnapping of Wanda? / Is Ed liable for the false imprisonment of Wanda? / Did Ed commit robbery? / Is Ed liable for assault of the police officers?

To effectively and accurately IRAC each of these issues, you would follow the issue question with a statement of the governing legal rule. Then you would apply the facts in a way that evaluated each element of the governing legal rule to establish whether there is sufficient proof of the charge. Only after that process could you reach a conclusion about what Ed’s liability would be for each particular charge.

You addressed the robbery issue thoroughly and caught an important distinction between the larceny that the men originally conspire and planned to commit and the robbery that they ultimately wound up committing. That was a good catch.

But this was a criminal law exam and there is no need to discuss potential torts. The call of the question for this exam focused only on the potential crimes and defenses for Ed.

Importantly, whenever you encounter an untimely death on a criminal law exam, there are a set of issues that need to be analyzed fully, methodically, and in order. Because each of these issues builds upon what came before, you should use the following format: 1) Was there a homicide? 2) Was the defendant the actual cause of the homicide? 3) Was the defendant the proximate cause of the homicide? 4) Was there a murder? 5) Were the elements of first degree murder satisfied? Remember that your job is to prove whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain charging a defendant with murder. That is a factually intense and legally complex effort that requires diligence, nuance, and significant detail.

Without thorough analysis for each of these five elements, you cannot sustain a charge for murder. And, because each issue is governed by its own distinct rule of law, independent IRAC analysis is required for each issue.

In this case, that means you needed to undertake a review of each of these issues for Wanda’s death and then, separately, you also needed to review each of these issues for Frank’s death. Because there were two unlawful deaths that occurred independently from one another, Ed’s liability can only be assessed by reviewing these elements for each death, separately. Only after working through each of those issues can you support a conclusion about what Ed’s liability will actually be for the deaths.

You are learning the substantive law. Now it’s time to take the next step by learning how to present and apply that knowledge in the most effective way to succeed on essay exams.

Best,