NCBE National Conference of Bar Examiners Multistate Bar Examination – 2024 Online MBE Practice Exam 4 verified 100 practice exam questions

NCBE National Conference of Bar Examiners Multistate Bar Examination – 2024 Online MBE Practice Exam 4 verified 100 practice exam questions Question # 1 - Constitutional Law A federal civil statute prohibited fishing in any body of water that was located within a national park and contained a particular endangered species of fish. The statute authorized federal district courts to enjoin knowing violators of the statute from the use of all national park facilities for up to two years. After a vacationer was found by a federal district court to have knowingly violated the statute, the court issued an injunction against his use of all national park facilities for two years. The vacationer appealed. Before the appeals court heard the vacationer's case, Congress repealed the statute by a law that expressly made the repeal effective retroactive to a date one month before the vacationer's violation of the statute. The law also directly cited the vacationer's case and stated that it was intended to "repeal all the statutory prohibitions that formed the basis for decisions" such as that rendered against the vacationer. On the basis of this law, the vacationer has asked the appeals court to vacate the injunction issued against him. Counsel for the United States has objected, contending that, as applied to the specific case pending in the appeals court, the law is unconstitutional. How should the appeals court rule? (A) For the United States, because Congress defied the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws by retroactively changing the consequences for violating the statute after the violation was proved in a trial court. (B) For the United States, because the law's citation to the vacationer's case demonstrates that Congress intended to compel the appeals court to reach a particular result and, therefore, sought to exercise judicial powers vested exclusively in the courts by Article III. (C) For the vacationer, because Congress has the power to determine the laws to be applied by the federal courts and to require retroactive application of those laws to any specifically identified case that it chooses. (D) For the vacationer, because Congress is authorized to make substantive changes to federal civil statutes and to direct that those changes be applied by the courts to all actions in which a final judgment has not yet been rendered. Question # 2 - Real Property A man obtained a bank loan secured by a mortgage on an office building that he owned. After several years, the man conveyed the office building to a woman, who took title subject to the mortgage. The deed to the woman was not recorded. The woman took immediate possession of the building and made the mortgage payments for several years. Subsequently, the woman stopped making payments on the mortgage loan, and the bank eventually commenced foreclosure proceedings in which the man and the woman were both named parties. At the foreclosure sale, a third party purchased the building for less than the outstanding balance on the mortgage loan. The bank then sought to collect the deficiency from the woman. Is the bank entitled to collect the deficiency from the woman? (A) No, because the woman did not record the deed from the man. (B) No, because the woman is not personally liable on the loan. (C) Yes, because the woman took immediate possession of the building when she bought it from the man. (D) Yes, because the woman was a party to the foreclosure proceeding. Question # 3 - Criminal Law and Procedure A state statute provides: "The sale of an alcoholic beverage to any person under the age of 21 is a misdemeanor." A woman who was 20 years old, but who looked older and who had a very convincing fake driver's license indicating that she was 24, entered a convenience store, picked up a six-pack of beer, and placed the beer on the counter. The store clerk, after examining the driver's license, rang up the purchase. Both the clerk and the store owner have been charged with violating the state statute. If the court finds both the clerk and the store owner guilty, what standard of liability must the court have interpreted the statute to impose? (A) Strict liability only. (B) Vicarious liability only. (C) Both strict and vicarious liability. (D) Either strict or vicarious liability. Question # 4 - Evidence A businessman was the target of a grand jury investigation into the alleged bribery of American and foreign officials in connection with an international construction project. The businessman had stated at a press conference that no bribes had been offered or taken and that no laws of any kind had been broken. The grand jury issued a subpoena requiring the businessman to testify before it. The businessman moved to quash the subpoena on the ground that his testimony could tend to incriminate him. The prosecutor responded with a grant of use immunity (under which the businessman's compelled statements before the grand jury could not be used against him in any state or federal prosecution). The businessman responded that the grant of use immunity was not sufficient to protect his Fifth Amendment rights. Should the businessman be compelled to testify?