ArchitectureObserved in bank

Procedural Frame

This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 195 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

Evidence47
CRIMINAL39
Civil Procedure38
Constitutional Law26
Real Property21
Contracts17
Criminal Law4
Torts3

Example wrong choices

first 20

14014_scripture_cart_jury_poll · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice CNo, because a federal judge may not poll the jurors on the judge's own initiative.
Why it's attractive
The answer attacks the judge's power to poll without a request.
Why it's wrong
The answer attacks the judge's power to poll without a request.
14062_stephens-orchard-late-changed-charge · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice ANo, because Stephen's objection was untimely and as a result, he waived the appeal of the court's instruction.
Why it's attractive
Rides the buried 'did not separately object to the proposed instruction' fact — a non-dispositive element — and ignores that the GIVEN instruction was different and objected to at once.
Why it's wrong
Rides the buried 'did not separately object to the proposed instruction' fact — a non-dispositive element — and ignores that the GIVEN instruction was different and objected to at once.
14108_ebike_delivery_sign · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BNo, because a motion for judgment as a matter of law must first be made at the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief.
Why it's attractive
It says the motion must be made at the close of the plaintiff's case, but the motion came before submission to the jury.
Why it's wrong
It says the motion must be made at the close of the plaintiff's case, but the motion came before submission to the jury.
14108_ebike_delivery_sign · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DYes, because Lydia waived the issue by not anticipating and rebutting the sign evidence in her case-in-chief.
Why it's attractive
It invents a duty to answer a defense before the defendant raises it.
Why it's wrong
It invents a duty to answer a defense before the defendant raises it.
14132_lydia_vineyard_smj · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DYes, because Lydia's lawyer may move for summary judgment now that Barnabas has contradicted the contract.
Why it's attractive
Choice uses a familiar case-stopping device, but the timing is wrong because trial is underway.
Why it's wrong
Choice uses a familiar case-stopping device, but the timing is wrong because trial is underway.
14178_choir_robe_credit_good_faith · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BYes, because Mary stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Why it's attractive
The call asks about good-faith pleading, so a claim-sufficiency reason cannot carry the yes answer.
Why it's wrong
The call asks about good-faith pleading, so a claim-sufficiency reason cannot carry the yes answer.
14188_homeschool_discipleship_kit_files · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice ANo, because it would be no more difficult for Ruth to identify the requested documents than for the publishing house.
Why it's wrong
Choice A is not the credited answer for this item.
14188_homeschool_discipleship_kit_files · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice CYes, because it would be more difficult for Ruth to identify the requested documents than for the publishing house.
Why it's wrong
Choice C is not the credited answer for this item.
14222_piano_tutor_counterclaim_default · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice AYes, because Peter's failure to answer the counterclaim alone authorizes the clerk to enter a default judgment.
Why it's attractive
The stem separates entry of default from the later request for default judgment.
Why it's wrong
The stem separates entry of default from the later request for default judgment.
14229_daily-bread-depot · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DConstitutional, because the burden was on Daniel to demonstrate that this condition was not necessary to vindicate a compelling governmental interest, and Daniel failed to meet that burden.
Why it's attractive
The owner does not carry the city's exaction burden.
Why it's wrong
The owner does not carry the city's exaction burden.
14233_galilee_nets_fieldhouse · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CThe issues presented by this case are nonjusticiable political questions because the fieldhouse grant followed a partisan legislative fight and there is a lack of judicially manageable standards to resolve the dispute.
Why it's attractive
The choice reacts to legislative heat instead of the concrete equal protection suit.
Why it's wrong
The choice reacts to legislative heat instead of the concrete equal protection suit.
14237_harvest_table_radio_segment · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice BNo, because the U.S. Constitution provides a cause of action against any state-accredited school that restricts freedom of speech as a condition of employment.
Why it's attractive
The word any creates an overbroad bridge from accreditation to a constitutional lawsuit.
Why it's wrong
The word any creates an overbroad bridge from accreditation to a constitutional lawsuit.
14263_good_samaritan_market · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DYes, because the Eleventh Amendment gives the state legislature plenary authority to decide how state funds for the institute will be spent.
Why it's attractive
The answer talks about immunity-style state power instead of the named-person punishment problem.
Why it's wrong
The answer talks about immunity-style state power instead of the named-person punishment problem.
14293_mootness-live-stream · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CDeny the motion, because Timothy has raised an important constitutional question: whether his investment in a streaming subscription, purchased solely to view the trial, constitutes property protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Why it's attractive
A federal question does not create jurisdiction if the case is moot. Mootness defeats jurisdiction regardless of the importance of the issue.
Why it's wrong
A federal question does not create jurisdiction if the case is moot. Mootness defeats jurisdiction regardless of the importance of the issue.
14294_bible_quiz_uprising · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Aremand the case to the state supreme court with directions that it resolve the First and Fourteenth Amendment free-speech issue that it discussed in such detail.
Why it's attractive
The state court already gave a plain state-law ground; the unresolved federal merits do not need a remand.
Why it's wrong
The state court already gave a plain state-law ground; the unresolved federal merits do not need a remand.
14314_christian_campground_permits · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice DThe takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Why it's wrong
Choice D is not the credited answer for this item.
14321_grace_harbor_sanctuary_candles · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CAt the time the sanctuary candles are manufactured and taxed they have not yet entered the channels of interstate commerce.
Why it's wrong
Choice C is not the credited answer for this item.
14324_lydia_illuminated_psalter · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice CSend the case to federal court, because the psalter crossed state lines and therefore presents a federal question.
Why it's attractive
The object crossed state lines, but the call asks what the State A court should do with a prior judgment.
Why it's wrong
The object crossed state lines, but the call asks what the State A court should do with a prior judgment.
14327_hatteras_ferry_preemption · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Adirect the removal of the case to federal court, because this suit involves a substantial federal question.
Why it's attractive
Plaintiff pleads a state-law claim; the federal issue is a defense. The well-pleaded complaint rule bars federal question jurisdiction on a federal defense (Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983)). State courts share concurrent jurisdiction over federal claims absent congressional exclusivity (Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990)). Removal is improper; the choice does not address the question actually being asked of the state court.
Why it's wrong
Plaintiff pleads a state-law claim; the federal issue is a defense. The well-pleaded complaint rule bars federal question jurisdiction on a federal defense (Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983)). State courts share concurrent jurisdiction over federal claims absent congressional exclusivity (Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990)). Removal is improper; the choice does not address the question actually being asked of the state court.
14343_esther_home_fire_readiness · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice BNo, because Congress has not specifically authorized the creation and support of this new federal advisory commission.
Why it's attractive
Turns statutory silence into a categorical prohibition.
Why it's wrong
Turns statutory silence into a categorical prohibition.

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

Practice questions using this trap →