This is where, for fun and education, we play alongside Thomas on T3BE questions from the multistate bar exam.

For now, and for simplicity, we're only playing with the public question with each episode of T3BE. However you may discuss the second question in the comments (I just won't be tabulating it) and anything else related to T3BE/this episode of T3BE. Congrats to /u/giglia who Matt chose as the winner of last week's public question!

If you want to guess the answer to the second question and have it "counted" in some sense, Thomas/Matt read and select answer from comments on the relevant episode entry on OA's patreon page.

The correct answer to last week's public question was: A, because statements and conduct made during compromise negotiations are not admissible. As a policy consideration, this serves the goal of judicial efficiency by incentivizing transparent settlement negotiations between parties without fear that their statements or offers would be used against them in court. (borrowing giglia's answer here)

Further explanation can be found in the episode itself.

Scores so far!

Rules:

• You have until next week's T3BE goes up to answer this question, (get your answers in by the end of this coming Tuesday US Pacific time at the latest in other words). The next RT2BE will go up not long after.

• You may simply comment with what choice you've given, though more discussion is encouraged!

• Feel free to discuss anything about RT2BE/T3BE here. However if you discuss anything about the public question itself please use spoilers to cover that discussion/answer so others don't look at it before they write their own down.

  • Type it exactly like this >!Answer E is Correct!<, and it will look like this: Answer E is Correct
  • Do not put a space between the exclamation mark and the text! In new reddit/the official app this will work, but it will not be in spoilers for those viewing in old reddit!

• Even better if you answer before you listen to what Thomas' guess was!

Week 6's Public Question:

A state constitution provides that in every criminal trial "the accused shall have the right to confront all witnesses against him face to face." A defendant was convicted in state court of child abuse based on testimony from a six-year-old child. The child testified while she was seated behind one-way glass, which allowed the defendant to see the child but did not allow the child to see the defendant. The defendant appealed to the state's highest court, claiming that the inability of the child to see the defendant while she testified violated both the United States Constitution and the state constitution. Without addressing the federal constitutional issue, the state's highest court reversed the defendant's conviction and ordered a new trial. The court held that "the constitution of this state is clear, and it requires that while testifying in a criminal trial, a witness must be able to see the defendant." The state petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

On which ground should the United States Supreme Court DENY the state's petition?

A. A state may not seek appellate review in the United States Supreme Court of the reversal of a criminal conviction by its highest court.

B. The decision of the state's highest court was based on adequate and independent state ground.

C. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not require that a witness against a criminal defendant be able to see the defendant while the witness testifies.

D. The decision of the state's highest court requires a new trial, and therefore it is not a final judgment.