Lovers of law school exams might enjoy my Fall criminal law exam, which I am just about to start grading:
Oleander O’Leary owns a restaurant, called Oleander’s. The restaurant is losing money, and O’Leary doesn’t know how she can keep it running. So, with deep regret, she decides to burn it down for the insurance money. She pours gasoline all over the property, but just as she is about to light the match to ignite it, she has second thoughts: Maybe she can turn the restaurant around in the next month, she thinks. She puts the matches back in her pocket.
Meantime, Vera Variola, a brilliant but sometimes forgetful biology researcher at the local university, is walking home past Oleander’s. Morgan Dexter and Bar Sinister are standing in a nearby alley, talking. Dexter sees Variola approach, and tells Sinister, “Let’s rob her.” Sinister says “No, it’s too risky.” Dexter says, “You coward, if you don’t help me, I’ll beat you up.” Sinister says, “OK, OK.”
Dexter walks out and pushes Variola, trying to make her fall so he can better grab her purse. Sinister stands nearby, ready to alert Dexter if the police arrive.
At that point Variola realizes that the purse contains a vial of smallpox virus that she had been working on at the university; she had placed the vial in the purse to take it from one lab to another, but then forgot it in the purse when she realized it was time to go home. Smallpox is a highly lethal and contagious disease: It would likely kill 30% of the people it infects, and given that most people aren’t currently vaccinated against smallpox, the death total could number in the millions worldwide, even if an emergency vaccination campaign is instituted.
Variola realizes that if Dexter and Sinister get the purse, they could either sell the smallpox to terrorists, or inadvertently break the vial. She therefore realizes she must do whatever it takes to keep them from having the purse. “Get the fuck away from here, you motherfucker!,” she shouts at Dexter, hoping that the anger in her words will scare him away. “Give me the fucking purse, you bitch, or else!,” Dexter replies, pushing her again. Variola then takes out her handgun, which she was lawfully carrying in her jacket pocket, and shoots at Dexter.
Variola misses Dexter, and Dexter runs away. But the bullet enters the restaurant, where it hits some metal, causes a spark, and (in an unlikely but not impossible twist) ignites the gasoline.
The restaurant quickly burns up. Unfortunately, Glen Ganymede, a waiter at the restaurant — and, as it happens, Variola’s son — was sleeping in a back room (he had been too drunk to drive home the night before). By the time Ganymede wakes up and runs out, he’s already horribly burned, so burned that Variola can’t even recognize him. Frightened, Variola and Sinister flee. Ganymede dies of his injuries.
Assume that the jurisdiction has adopted Model Penal Code § 220.1(1), but not including the affirmative defense in § 220.1(1). Do not discuss any separate crime of insurance fraud, beyond what is discussed in § 220.1(1). Assume also that the jurisdiction has adopted this statute, modeled on the California robbery statute:
Robbery, a felony of the third degree, is the taking of another’s property, from the victim’s person or immediate presence, and against the victim’s will, accomplished by means of force or fear.
Analyze, both under the common law and the Model Penal Code.
UPDATE: Commenter CDU adds:
Law student Lester Leighton, trying to comprehend the above question, suffers a brain aneurysm. Lyssa Lang, another law student sitting nearby, notices his distress. However, she places a higher priority on getting a good mark on the exam and says nothing. After the exam is over, a janitor, John Jones notices Lester lying on the floor of the classroom and calls 911. Paramedics arrive and find Lester is still alive. On the way to the hospital, a car driven by Dilbert Dinkins, who a breathalizer test later indicates had a blood alcohol level of .24, collides with the ambulance fracturing Lester's skull. At the hospital a medical mistake results in the doctor operating on the wrong side of Lester's head, causing his death. The autopsy reveals that Lester could have survived the aneurysm without significant disability had 911 been called immediately, would have survived with a disability had the accident not occurred, and would have even survived the injuries from the accident had the doctor operated on the correct side of the head.
Discuss Professor Volokh's liability for Lester's death.
My quick thought: It's poor form to have one character's name start with the same letter as another character's.
Blame the Mick for the fire. Again.
Discuss Professor Volokh's liability for Lester's death.
I should have stopped reading after these first seven words.
You might be able to get O'Leary for attempted arson under the MPC, but probably not common law. If I recall, arson at common law was the malicious burning of the dwelling of another. The restaurant is not a dwelling, despite her son's having slept there. But if the structure qualifies under the MPC, then she definitely took a substantial step (using the gasoline) with the intent to commit arson. I don't think the fact that she changed her mind affects the crime of attempt.
You could get Dexter and Sinister, I think, for conspiracy to commit robbery and attempted robbery. A conspiracy exists between those who, with the mens rea required for the underlying crime, agree to commit that crime. Dexter's actions of threatening and pushing O'Leary suffice as substantial steps toward the commission of the robbery, which the common law defined as the trespassory taking and carrying away of another's property through force or threat of force. Sinister, standing watch, is equally liable as a principal in the first degree (or is it accessory before the fact?) I don't think that these crimes merge.
Variola's act of shooting at Dexter is an assault, but she arguably acted in self-defense; however, the use of deadly force is probably not reasonable without Dexter's having threatened such force. She is privileged to use only that amount of force reasonable to repel the attack. She could also argue the defense of necessity, I think, based on the perceived threat from the smallpox, but that one is really reaching into the bar review memory grab bag. (And I don't think necessity applies where the danger sought to be averted is of one's own doing.)
Finally, you might be able to get Variola for depraved indifference murder -- the doing of an act carrying a high degree of risk without regard for such risk -- but I'll try manslaughter, which requires a reckless act. Regardless, the real issue will be with causation, as O'Leary's act of pouring gasoline at the restaurant is probably an intervening/superceding cause that breaks the causation chain. It hardly seems forseeable that the firing of the gun could cause a building to explode because the building's owner attempted to burn it down.
There's probably a ton I missed. And I probably got a lot of this wrong. I'm curious to see what others write.
For the record, if it's not a take home, these exams are read under pressure and great time constraints. Students don't really chuckle at the humorous set up so much, I suspect, as the audience here might admire your work.
Mr. A, Ms. B, Mrs. C works just as well at soliciting the critical information, and sometimes reading through the ficticious setup, the cultural play so to speak, just bogs down the reader. And you're testing for legal knowledge, no who most resembles that particular law prof.'s mindset and might pick up on all the clever play within the setup increasing comfort level and confidence.
By all means, if this is an outlet for creativity, go to it Professors. But I think the time spent crafting particularly witty set of characters is pretty much lost on the student audience anyway, who really are taking their tests with different mentalities than admiring the prof's skills. Then again, I thought the Tarot Cards in the classroom was a bit of nonsense silliness not worth spending any extra time on either, and I'm sure it went over well with this new generation of captive audience.
I figured that out about 15 years ago, when writing mathematics exams. Well, it was either that, or admit that, even absent the pressures felt in an exam setting, the students wouldn't have found me especially clever.
The first paragraph sets up an attempt issue, involving whether pouring the gasoline is a substantial step (O'Leary's intent is clear), as well as a common law / MPC split on whether burning a commercial building is arson (and maybe whether burning one's own building is arson).
In the second paragraph, there's a solicitation, although query whether that later merges into the completed robbery (assuming later paragraphs reveal that the robbery is completed, which isn't yet clear). The paragraph also sets up a possible duress defense, although the writer will presumably need to deal with whether the threat of being beaten up (minor, perhaps, physical harm) is a defense to robbery -- I would guess the common law and MPC say something different on this. There is also a conspiracy issue: Can a conspiracy be formed where one of the parties agrees only out of duress? (Presumably another MPC / common law split on that one, with the common law saying no because only one guilty mind.)
The third paragraph involves battery but presumably the more interesting issue is Sinister's liability (with the previously noted possible duress defense as an overarching issue). I suppose there are questions about whether Sinister is guilty of battery, either as an accomplice (providing a lookout) or because of the conspiracy (assuming there is one; we would presumably also have to address whether battery of the would-be robbee is foreseeable in a conspiracy to commit robbery; presumably yes).
The next paragraph sets up a defense-of-others defense to what Variola does next, in addition to whatever other defenses she might have. It also might suggest some liability for Variola: She knows that smallpox is dangerous and so was probably reckless in placing it in her purse.
There's a lot in paragraph five. First is whether Variola has a defense for shooting at Dexter. (I skip, by the way, Dexter's second battery, and maybe an assault if the "or else" reasonably put Variola in fear of bodily harm, or whatever the test is.) The shooting probably qualifies as deadly force. So may Variola use deadly force to defend herself from a robbery? I vaguely recall the answer was yes for the bar, in which case we probably have to ask the retreat question, though it wouldn't surprise me if some jurisdictions (or the effete MPC) say no in these circumstances. If that defense fails, what about defense of others? I assume the relevant issue here is whether the relatively remote possibility that a whole lot of people will be killed is sufficient. Finally, because it later becomes clear that Dexter doesn't get the purse, we have an attempted robbery issue; the assault or threat is probably a substantial step.
Variola missed, so the defenses just discussed will be relevant to a theoretical attempt prosecution. There's an issue about attempted *what*? At the common law, query whether she has the malice aforethought necessary for it to be attempted murder (assuming no defense, probably yes). Under more modern approaches (which I suspect includes the MPC), it's likely not really-bad [attempted] murder (First Degree, or whatever it's called) but the murder just under that one.
Anyway, on to paragraph seven. The restaurant burns, so is O'Leary (oh -- now I get it) now guilty of the completed crime of arson? This strikes me as an intervening cause issue, identical to the common exam situation where lightning strikes right before the arsonist lights the match; I'm sure there's a well-settled answer (assuming, of course, the exam is open book). The interesting question is who's liable for Ganymede's death. No one knew he was there (though we'll turn in a second to what happens after he leaves the restaurant), so no intent-murder. But what about: (1) felony murder for any of Variola, Dexter, and Sinister (depending on whether, based on the above analysis, they are committing any felonies; (2) manslaughter (perhaps even depraved heart murder) for O'Leary because her actions were, at the very least, reckless, though again we have the intervening (but forseeable, which probably matters here) gunshot; (3) manslaughter (almost certainly not depraved heart murder) for Variola, assuming no defense to the shooting, but we'd need to address whether a reckless action that carries a risk of death gives rise to criminal action when it causes someone to die in an entirely unforeseeable manner (again, this strikes me as a well-settled issue, probably arising when someone has a heart-attack in a mugging, although that's at least less unforeseeable).
Still on paragraph seven, what about Variola and Dexter, who so callously left injured Ganymede to die. Dexter appears to be the easier case, on the theory that a stranger has no duty to aid (or, in non-tortsy language, it's not a crime not to aid), but it was his criminal actions that led to Ganymede's peril. That might be enough (on the tort-like theory that you can't create peril and then leave the person-in-peril helpless), though arguably Dexter's criminal activity is too remote from the harm to Ganymede to trigger this rule. What about Variola? We apply the stranger rul -- oh wait. She's not a stranger because Ganymede is her son, so the issue is, presumably, whether her knowledge is relevant. It might depend on whether we're talking about a statute the punishes knowing parental neglect (where the mens rea would presumably require knowledge of the identity of the neglected person) or a reckless killing of some form. My head hurts.
The last paragraph refers to some provisions of the MPC, but I have no idea what those are and don't care to find out. As for the robbery statute, a few quick issues: (1) This doesn't seem to help our robbers on the attempted robbery charge, though it makes clear (as should have been obvious) that they aren't guilty of the completed crime; (2) is Variola guilty of robbery for taking the smallpox vaccine? It's presmably the university's property (can a university be a person?), she arguably took from the presence of the university (though this clause suggests that a non-human can't be a person in the statutory definition), it was against the university's will (again indulging the person fiction). The force requirement is fun: Arguably, this requirement was satisfied by the actual taking of the vial, but this reading reads "force" to be redundant of the statutory requirement of "the taking of another's property"; there are cases about whether taking a wallet (as in the case of a pick-pocket) is itself a robbery, so probably worth referring to those.
And that's all I have on a quick read-through, and there's probably just enough time left to write the answer well (and include both MPC cites and the well-known-but-not-to-me issues I mentioned).
As a current law student, I'm shocked by both: (1) the simplicity of this exam question; and (2) the fact someone might find this question in any way clever.
If you're going to flaunt it in public, then please invest a bit of art in the question's crafting.
And if UCLA is going to hold itself forth as a serious law school, please ask more of your students in the future.
(2) My sense is that some students are amused at the jokes, a few students pat themselves on the back for having gotten the reference, and most students don't much care. No-one really loses or is materially distracted, unless one packs the exam full of irrelevant facts just for color (which I try not to).
Excellent work. Don't know if it's all correct, but it sounds good.
Dexter and Sinister derive from the latin for right and left.
(And of course there's also Simon BarSinister from the cartoons.)
In my defense, I as using the alliterative initials to indicate the persons role/job: Lester Leighton and Lyssa Lang are Law Students, John Jones is a Janitor, and Dilbert Dinkins is a Drunk Driver.
Hmm, according to the Wikpedia article, Bar Sinister is a diagonal stripe in heraldry, which is sometimes used as a metonym for bastardy.
But what I really want to know about this fact pattern is:
Did Ms. O'Leary recently move to the area from Chicago?
and
Where's the ostrich?
I remember feeling (mildly) bothered that I did not know what any of the names' "double meanings" were. Hopefully my issue spotting was a little better.
Regarding quality, I thought it was a very fair question and quite in line with what we'd covered in class. I liked the foul language - it served as a reminder that a final exam is a game of sorts, not to be taken too seriously.
I was recently reading a Nabokov short story, "An Affair of Honor." It made me think that a duel would make for a great fact pattern. There is lots of room to weave in issues: accomplice liability/conspiracy (the seconds), attempt (firing and missing), mens rea/mistake (say, one of the guns is loaded with a blank), etc.
Eugene vs. Lenski, 2008?
Re: the above commentor who clearly attends a far superior institution of learning where the walls are covered in Ivy and the exam questions make students bleed from the ears - get over your elitist self.
At least, that's what the low life Plaintiff's lawyers I deal with every day would answer the question.
If in fact that was a realistic fact pattern, my apologies in advance.
How dare you mention 911 without giving credit to Giuliani. :)
Variola is the scientific name for smallpox. variola is the Latin word for smallpox (whence, e.g, French variole) as well as the genus of the two species of virus that cause the disease, Variola major and Variola minor.
yes. and by using such prejudiced terms, he clearly creates a hostile environment for left-handed people and should be subject to re-education camp and sensitivity training. words such as "ambidextrous" imply that a person who uses BOTH hands with equal ease are actually both "right handed" and clearly the word "sinister" being the word for "left" creates a hostile atmosphere for left handed students who are harmed by such discriminatory prejudiced language! next thing you know he'll be referenching "left handed compliments" and referring to things that are factually correct as "right"!
signed,
a proudly ambisinistrous person
I explained that it would create name confusion (in the family) from time to time and the kids would hate it. I was right.
So I'm with Prof. V on this one.
Mind getting a student's permission to post an example of a good answer?
Actually, at the non-ivy and non-elite level, I think there's less toleration for profs who want to "relate" to the students by doing cool things like Tarot cards, or cultural-reference-laden fact patterns. They already have social lives outside of class and don't want to waste precious classroom time on silliness.
More older students with a bit of life experience who aren't as easily charmed by the Professor enjoying himself displaying his humor on the student's dime. And they tend to resent having their time wasted on non-law related things like food drives, socializing, or anything not directly relevant to learning the law. Maybe they expect everyone to be like them and pick it up easy, the first time, so there's all this "extra" classroom time for the fun some aren't getting on their own.
Can't we (and shouldn't we) fashion difficult questions that draw directly from real life?
Remember these are elite law professors. "Real Life" is not their strong suit.
And though just the basics "Mr. A", "Ms. B" and "Mrs. C" (etc, etc) would help students keep the characters straight and not worry about looking back for obscure names (making it more about true legal analysis in keeping the names straight and following a credible fact pattern) , I get the impression that seeing who got the in-jokes and putting their "cleverness" up for display is about all the fun some get on the job. In short, they really really want to be liked by the students (ie, "So I'm with Prof. V on this one."), they've got a captive audience, and it's not too hard to impress younger law students who haven't been out much.
The serious answer is that you charge only Sinister and Dexter, for robbery, because they're the only two people a jury will convict.
lol... the dreaded "request for additional information"
file cabinet, or shredder - same difference ! :)
I'd expect to have two hours for that question and the MCs.
Was the test open-notes, open-book, etc., or no? And does UCLA allow students to use their laptops for such exams?
That is to say, a criminal law course and exam is supposed to prepare you to eventually pass bar exam questions. Bar exams are notorious for testing the nuances in the law - such as not being able to commit arson at common law if you burned a restaurant that was your own in the morning (usually has to be the dwelling or residence of another at night, etc..)
That being said, I recently helped a colleague of mine appointed on a murder case involving rival gangs where one gang kidnapped a rival drug dealer, beat the shit out of him, forced him to order a bunch of drugs from his supplier, proceeded to steal those drugs and kill the "delivery" guy, continued to hold the kidnap victim for ransom, almost collected a 100,000 - but the ransom "drop" which occurred in public was actually carried out by an undercover cop, who found himself the victim of an assault with a deadly weapon, a getaway, then the eventual strangulation and dismemberment of the kidnap victim. I think a "real" world exam fact pattern based on something like that might work - if you tweak the details a bit to add a few more crimes/attempts/conspiracies, etc....
Of course, and this is where the real world doesn't help much for bar exam purposes, at trial the State only proceeded on two counts: 1) 1st degree murder and 2) dismemberment. Nothing else really mattered considering the overwhelming evidence and videotaped confession and the time the guy was looking at on those counts.(consecutive sentencing and all) A law school exam that only had two crimes involved wouldn't do most students a lot of good and wouldn't allow professors to separate the wheat from the chaff as it were. Just my .02 cents.
If she was not authorized to take the vial, she might be charged with larceny (theft).
Thanks for the practice.
By the way, commenters above, you forget that O'Leary has a defense under the MPC of renunciation. From my practice on the question:
"In an MPC jurisdiction, however, she may interpose a defense of renunciation. A person renounces her crime when she abandons her attempt to commit the crime under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of her criminal purpose. There is a question as to whether waiting until next month is merely postponing the crime to a more advantageous time, but that is unlikely under these circumstances; she would have to douse the building in gasoline again and commit a separate criminal act. At the common law, she would have no such defense. Because the attempt is completed when she came within dangerous proximity to committing the crime, there is no renunciation of the attempt, simply a failure to consummate the crime which is part of the notion of attempt."
And my exam is closed book except for a copy of the MPC, so apologizes if the above is not letter perfect.
Is that ageism? It seems wrong to presume that my fellow students' learning objectives are somehow more naive. Do you assume that the non-non-traditional students haven't seen the 'real world'?
Although I'm paying through the nose for my legal education, getting to know aspects of professors' personalities as they teach is very valuable.
I've found the classroom environment at UCLA to be fairly dry and efficient. Although EV did set aside time to teach us latin and terms of art once a week. A real chuckle-fest, eh?
I think that a "real world" fact pattern would involve much more than just criminal law (as taught in a 1L course). There would be criminal procedure, evidence, constitutional law, and, depending on the circumstances, civil procedure, tax, securities, and family law (to name a few). In lieu of giving a "realistic" criminal law question, which would require issue-spotting across several subject areas (but likely narrow issues involving criminal law, specifically), professors put (roughly) the same number of issues into a fact pattern specific to the tested subject matter. At least some of the point is to ensure that students know to look for more than one issue and to think through how each issue will affect others.
The other reason, I imagine, is to test everything that was covered in class, 700 pages of reading later. ;) Personally, I find it massively frustrating to take exams which cover only a small portion of the material presented in the semester; other students may feel the same way.
Thanks for posting the question. I sent the latter half to my group of 1Ls (with a link to the first half) I am tutoring this semester; hopefully it gave them a chuckle before they sat for the exam this morning.
I would also note my vote in favor of putting humor in the exam. When your brain is throbbing from the assault a law school exam brings it is always nice to at least enjoy what you are reading. Even though I have been admonished not to return the favor in kind, I have always snuck in a little joke here or there. I figure it breaks the monotony or reading exams just like it breaks the monotony of taking them.
Lead, and copper jacketed lead, bullets don't create sparks. It is possible to buy steel jacketed pistol bullets, but I wouldn't know where to buy 'em. Anyway, I believe they would be classified as dreaded Cop Killer Bullets®, and their possession involves yet another crime. Even if they do not fit the definition of CKB®, a NYC or Chicago prosecutor would not be deterred by that minor detail, and anti-terrorism statutes would be dusted off.
On the whole "clever names v. A, B, C", count me as very much in favor of names. A &B are fine if you have just two or three people with a relatively simple fact pattern, but if you have multiple people in a complex fact pattern, it is MUCH easier to keep track of Alan, Bob, and Charlie than A, B, and C. As long as the professor isn't wasting a lot of time coming up with the names, I don't see anything wrong with something that makes it easier to follow and might give you a bit of a chuckle as you read it. And honestly, do you think it takes law professors a huge amount of time to come up with a basic name like O'Leary for a firestarter? One of my professors used the Beatles names for everything.
My Torts professor in class hypos (and the exam yesterday) always had Alice and Bob as the tortfeasor and victim. If necessary, Carol and David came along.
It added a bit of levity (because of how negligent it seemed Bob and Alice were all semester long) and is much better than talking about A and B. It allows for a better visualization of the problem.
And when I get to sit on a jury I will know that if the defendant's name begins with D, or the accuser's with V, that a crime has been committed and the defendant is guilty.
My wife took criminal law at UCLA many moons ago from a professor who has since gone on to fame (if not fortune) and is on the faculty of an Ivy League school. Her exam had a fact pattern involving the Tov family, and they had first names like Yom, Mazel, and Layla. Fact recapitulates fiction-- a dentist in Queens was just killed by a relative of his wife, whose first name was Mazultov.
Obviously I disagree with Gary anderson, who said:
Gary-- you should read Prof. Kerr's post about bad faith and then ask yourself if imputing motives to people is a convincing way to make a point.
I, a student, love it.
Not really. Distinctive names are easier to remember. I find the alphabetical names and intitals more confuing.
This is true no matter how the professor writes the exam. Clever fact patterns reward one kind of student and dull ones reward other kinds.
That, if true, is the professor's problem, not yours. Gothic cathedrals are full of sculpture and other art that are so high than nobody but the artist ever will see it. And Bulgakov wrote "The Master and Margarita," a classic novel, in secret over 10+ years in Stalin's Russia, not knowing if anyone else ever would read it. I can't criticize creativity. It may be a Jew thing. But maybe not; I love my children.
Shakespeare's plays probably could serve as a source of names, that a professor in need might "Cudgel thy brains no more about it".
In the mathematical field of Coding Theory, there is a regular cast of characters in different roles: Alice and Bob, who try and talk; Eve, who eavesdrops; Trudy, who tries to intrude and obtain the plaintext; and so forth. This allows for a convenient shorthand in their papers, although it's been noted that the net effect over time becomes quite silly:
Whether there would be more value than drawbacks to a similar routine cast of players for a law class, I would not presume to judge.
When I was a 1L I had a property exam in which it was found that a directed kidney donation was incompatible after it had been removed from Donor and before it was transplanted into Recipient. The issue was whether the doctor and hospital were bailees or owners of the kidney.
I argued for the latter (it was a long time ago, and I certainly can't recall the finer points of the law or my argument), but commented at the end that the donor and the recipient could probably sue for negligence because compatibility should have been determined before the surgeons operated on the customers.
Most professors, at least in NY, don't mind homor if not directed at them.
I got an A.
Whether you call them Mr. A, Ms. B, or Mrs C. -- or Alice, Bob, and Carol, that's the SAME THING.
It's when the PRof, for fun, forces you to remember and write out Oleander O’Leary, Vera Variola, Morgan Dexter and Bar Sinister -- that you have to go back and remember his clever cast of characters, who's who in which part again, to separate out the non-essentials (silly names not so simple as Bob, Alice, Carol, and Ted) from the legal analysis.
It's silly, and it detracts from the test taking. Why not serve up two of the exact same exams -- one with the simple dull generic names in the fact pattern, and one where the professor can show off his learning creatively, that's been bottled up since he stared practicing law.
You really want to help all the students on the test demonstrate what they've learned legally, not just give advantage to those who might enjoy wacky fantasy fiction where you might still find silly names, over the dull boring practitioner who's going to do a fine job in the field, right?
I do think exams like this reward those who most think like the professor, and I mean that in a quirky way, not based on solid legal analysis.
Allegedly
Just because you repeat a story often enough doesn't make it true. Most facts I've read seem to believe the woman was scapegoated. But that's irrelevant, eh?
And if you can bring me in Real People named Oleander O’Leary, Vera Variola, Morgan Dexter and Bar Sinister -- even if crazzy Californ-i-ay, I'll eat my hat. Literally.
UCLA 2010:
Gary A.,
Is that ageism? It seems wrong to presume that my fellow students' learning objectives are somehow more naive. Do you assume that the non-non-traditional students haven't seen the 'real world'?
Whoa, quick to pull the p.c. trigger, eh junior? Yes. I do submit that those who are easily impressed by "entertaining" professors and who are looking for social and cultural guidance in the law school classroom generally are younger folks.
Maybe they've "been around" -- travelling the world on money they didn't make, being taken to cultural institutions since they were in strollers, and perhaps even working in a "real job" that one of their parents' friends set them up for in a summer or two, or maybe even in that all-valuabe year to three spent between undergrad and law school -- but with personal and cultural references of their own to equal the professor? I doubt it.
Some learning only comes with age and experience, and you'll never convince me that those prodigy's or "brain children" who academically advance quickly also have the same maturity in a social sense as those with a few years of independent living under their belts. Be thankful for you privilege, is all I'm saying, but remember that not everybody is as impressed with learning non-legal Latin (that perhaps they already know) or accepting the Prof's quirky humor as "awesome" if it's not really to their standards.
But if you like the Tarot Card games, learning a bit of art history, and laughing along at his cleverness during your exam, more power to ya. I just wish you could take that up in office hours, instead of distracting from limited class time.
"Dry and efficient" is not a bad thing; there are plenty of places to whet your interests on a decent campus outside of classtime; do you think your needs will continue to be accommodated at the expense of others, who aren't there for the personalities and don't really need such cultural hand-holding introducing to them what they think is valuable.
I predict as EV ages and gets over himself a bit, he'll begin to better understand his role as a classroom teacher to all his student, and the time spent on such silliness will dwindle. "Hey look what a clever boy I am!" tends to pass as you find more personal outlets on your own time and you recognize there will always be a newer, younger professor better at "relating".
Although I'm paying through the nose for my legal education, getting to know aspects of professors' personalities as they teach is very valuable.
I've found the classroom environment at UCLA to be fairly dry and efficient. Although EV did set aside time to teach us latin and terms of art once a week. A real chuckle-fest, eh?
If he spent five minutes on this cast of characters: Oleander O’Leary, Vera Variola, Morgan Dexter and Bar Sinister, that's 5 minutes he could have spent getting up a Tarot Card game on his own personal time, no?
And everybody above is correct: Bob, Alice and Carol are easier to track.
Exactly!
Best to stick to night schools, and more vocational law schools then if you intend on practicing law, not just being an entertaining professor after the clerkships are done.
Dicta, dicta, dicta.
Not on my time.
Or dime, please.
All this does is make sure he won't post it again next year, which is a shame for the 1L's that come after.
In yeshivas all over the world, the parties to a case are always Reuven, Shimon, Levi, and occasionally Yehuda, etc. In matrimonial cases where female parties are required, they are usually Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel, and Leah (I seem to recall Bilhah and Zilpah making it into a case now and again; not sure whether they were female parties #3 and #4, or perhaps #5 and #6 in some extraordinarily complicated case in Yevamot).
You should have gone into psychology.
Are you saying that dull people make better lawyers?
As long as you are engaging in this personal sort of argument, I'll observe that I am the oldest person in my law class, and have been successful in another profession. I still like the cute fact patterns. Color me credulous?
Entertaining is not a bad thing either. Would you want a dry, efficient type to give a closing argument on your behalf to a jury?
The psychologist speaks again. I just looked EV up on ratemyprofessors.com, and he had a super high score. Unfortunately, there was only one response. At my own law school, most of the professors I had with the best reputations seemed to go in for this sort of thing. This was true of the older as well as the younger ones. Some of them don't do this.
As I said, it's a matter of style. Different people are more or less on the same wavelength of different professors. And in criminal law or criminal procedure, the only important thing is that the defendants' names begin with D and the victims' names begin with V.
Exactly.
So why not level the playing field with generic, easy to remember names like Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice?
Heh.(didja all catch my in-jokey??)
Sheesh. How did this thread dissolve into random personal vindictiveness against Professor Volokh?
Personal vindictiveness if you don't think the prof's jokes are as clever as all that and a piece of pie??
See what happens when you start catering to one type of student and can't understand others coming in with differing tastes? "She insulted my funny valentine! Not one of us..."
The boring and disciplined types who stick to the subject are more likely to actually end up practicing law, I suspect.
If you want an outlet for your creative writing skills, generally you don't find it in the field of law. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Hopefully y'all aren't offended by somebody else's dicta...
Lay down on the couch and tell me about your social life and outside interests you pursue on your own time outside of law school.
I bet you still fit my theory, looking for cute in the classroom.
Nope, entertainment is a great thing to pursue on your own time. Then, you can delve into your own interests, and not drag the rest of the class along down a path they'd prefer not to pursue in the law school classroom. (I already know Latin and took an art history class, I don't need Volokh to "educate" me because I'm not so impressed with his viewpoints outside of his law or computer expertise. ie/ Fred Thompson...LOL!)
And as creative as those closing arguments might get, they're never so wacky as the piece of work that is this fictional fact pattern.
But surely you've been around and already know that, eh?
It's a test, folks. It doesn't matter how long you're allowed or how hard it is. It's still graded on a curve.
The same goes for the names. If they distract you, then you are poor at concentration, and everyone gets the same distraction.
It's the curve, and that's all that matters. You're either smarter than your peers or you're not.
Do you realize that the first few minutes of reading the exam questions are the most tense and anxious moments of your students' lives? You simply couldn't keep it short, could you? Do you fancy yourself:
[A] a frustrated novelist?
[B] a sadist, then?
[C] a proud upholder of the Socratic tradition, perhaps?
[D] all of the above, or what?
Best wishes for winter recess to all y'all.
There was another thread a few weeks ago, posted by Prof. Somin, which degraded into an attack on his libertarian leanings and views on health care. This is great... let's attack the guy who just had surgery, and, once we're done calling him immoral, start trashing the one who tries to help out students! What next, a thread that attacks the Salvation Army bell-ringers?
/rant
EV - I copied your exam and sent it to a few 1Ls. Their crim exam is tomorrow; they might appreciate a model exam (which the school has on file) and the answers that other commenters provided. Thank you. :)
*Or perhaps I've watched Legally Blonde too many times and find the entire concept thereof to be obnoxious.
People act as if the tarot card thing was a huge deal taking up precious class time, when it fact it was no more disruptive than taking time to write our names on blank notecards. Professor Volokh is one of the best professors I've ever had, based on his commendable organization, effective teaching style, and the clear desire he has for each and every student to understand the material. I've heard similar sentiments from just about everyone I've talked to, and I suspect this is reflected in his teaching evaluations.
I've also never gotten the impression that he is some kind of social misfit who gets his only pleasures in life coming up with interesting character names for exams. As shocking as this may be to some of you, I think he's actually a fairly normal and well-adjusted (albeit brilliant and amazingly driven) guy who also happens to be a great law professor.
If anonymous internet commenters want to go ahead bashing his teaching methods - well, go ahead I suppose, but you're wasting your breath/keystrokes.