← All traps
ArchitectureObserved in bank

Misfit Doctrine

This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 3 active questions. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”

Subject distribution

  • Constitutional Law1
  • CRIMINAL1
  • Real Property1

Example wrong choices

  • 14369_congressional-exception · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice ACriminal and quasi-criminal proceedings are traditionally matters of state concern, and state courts are the final arbiters of their own contempt powers.

    Why it's attractive

    Does this choice explain why CONGRESS has the power? No — it just says states handle criminal law.

    Why it's wrong

    Does this choice explain why CONGRESS has the power? No — it just says states handle criminal law.

  • 14369_congressional-exception · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice BThe proper means of federal judicial review of state quasi-criminal matters is by writ of habeas corpus, not by direct appeal.

    Why it's attractive

    Is habeas the same as direct appellate review? No. Does this choice say anything about Congress's authority? No.

    Why it's wrong

    Is habeas the same as direct appellate review? No. Does this choice say anything about Congress's authority? No.

  • 14369_congressional-exception · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DReview of state court contempt orders does not fall within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

    Why it's attractive

    The call is about appellate jurisdiction. Does this choice address appellate jurisdiction? No.

    Why it's wrong

    The call is about appellate jurisdiction. Does this choice address appellate jurisdiction? No.

  • 22019_cedar_ridge_heat_covenant · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice ANo, because the agreement to purchase heat did not touch and concern Naomi's land.

    Why it's attractive

    Touch and concern decides successor liability, not the promisor's own contract.

    Why it's wrong

    Touch and concern decides successor liability, not the promisor's own contract.

  • 22019_cedar_ridge_heat_covenant · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice BNo, because Paul did not sign the deed.

    Why it's attractive

    Paul signed the written contract; a grantee is bound by accepting the deed without signing.

    Why it's wrong

    Paul signed the written contract; a grantee is bound by accepting the deed without signing.

  • 22019_cedar_ridge_heat_covenant · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice DYes, because a discrepancy between a contract for the sale of realty and a conveyance is resolved by looking to the contract.

    Why it's attractive

    There is no contract/deed discrepancy here, and the deed controls if there were.

    Why it's wrong

    There is no contract/deed discrepancy here, and the deed controls if there were.

  • 22292_sabotaged-vehicle · CRIMINAL · Choice ANo, because one of the young men effectively withdrew from any conspiracy that existed.

    Why it's attractive

    Withdrawal is a defense for co-conspirators. Daniel was never a co-conspirator. Timothy's withdrawal is irrelevant to whether Daniel agreed.

    Why it's wrong

    Withdrawal is a defense for co-conspirators. Daniel was never a co-conspirator. Timothy's withdrawal is irrelevant to whether Daniel agreed.

  • 22292_sabotaged-vehicle · CRIMINAL · Choice BYes, because he knowingly aided and abetted in the commission of a crime.

    Why it's attractive

    The charge is conspiracy, not murder. Aiding and abetting makes you liable for the principal crime, not for conspiracy. Different doctrines.

    Why it's wrong

    The charge is conspiracy, not murder. Aiding and abetting makes you liable for the principal crime, not for conspiracy. Different doctrines.

  • 22292_sabotaged-vehicle · CRIMINAL · Choice CYes, because he committed an overt act in furtherance of an agreement to cut the brake lines on James's truck.

    Why it's attractive

    The answer says 'in furtherance of an agreement.' But the facts show Daniel never agreed with anyone. He decided to help silently. No agreement = no conspiracy, overt act or not.

    Why it's wrong

    The answer says 'in furtherance of an agreement.' But the facts show Daniel never agreed with anyone. He decided to help silently. No agreement = no conspiracy, overt act or not.

Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.

Practice questions using this trap →
Misfit Doctrine — Trap Taxonomy | BarMatrix