Law books
Answering a law school hypothetical on an exam is one of the toughest academic assignments that could be asked of anyone. Nevertheless, you should be able to handle the task reasonably well as long as you know the law and can organize your answer using the "IRAC" method--issue, rule, application and conclusion. Certain features of your answer, however, will reflect particular aspects of evidence law.
Instructions
1. Remember the two foundational issues that must be resolved before evidence can be admitted into court--it must be relevant (it must make a factual proposition at issue in the case more or less likely to be true), and its value as evidence must outweigh any potential adverse emotional impact on the jury. Remember also that juries are free to disregard admitted evidence--the only issue in admitting evidence is whether or not they will have the opportunity to examine it.
2. Identify the issues. A law school hypothetical may have several major issues. Tease them apart and identify each one specifically. Be specific--for example, "whether or not evidence that the city's subsequent sealing of the drainage pipe may be admitted as evidence to establish that it was negligent for not repairing it before the accident."
3. Create an IRAC outline for each issue. If your hypothetical has five issues, for example, you should organize your outline as a series of five "issue, rule, application and conclusion" sequences.
4. Identify the legal rule that is applicable to each issue. If you identified five issues, you should identify at least five rules--for example, "Evidence of subsequent remedial measures cannot be admitted to prove negligence on the part of the defendant." You may also identify any relevant exceptions to the rules.
5. Apply the rule to the issue in analytical fashion. For example, "Since the fact that the faulty drainage pipe directly caused the accident is undisputed, and since it was repaired only after the accident, the sealing of the drainage pipe constitutes a subsequent remedial measure."
6. Take a stand on the issue on way or the other. For example, "Accordingly, the sealing of the drainage pipe by the city should not be admitted into evidence."
7. Apply the IRAC formula to each issue that you identified in the hypothetical. Number each section, and perform a final check for grammar and spelling errors.
Tags: drainage pipe, each issue, sealing drainage, sealing drainage pipe, admitted into, application conclusion