Blurbs as an Essay

The Evidence question regarded exclusion of witnesses.  Evidence is one of my best subjects and I blew this question.  But, to my defense, I'm betting everyone else did too.  The applicable law needed to answer it is 3 lines in the big BarBri book and 3 lines in the NC distinctions section.  Rule 615.  Ask me anything about hearsay and I've got you covered.  But, exclusion of witnesses in a civil trial (which is very different than a criminal trial)...all wrong.  It almost seems unfair to premise at least 6 of my precious evidence points on a rule that occupies 1/100th of the entire subject matter of evidence to be covered on the exam.

All I can hope is that Rule 615 comes up tomorrow on the MBE so that I can recover a point, out of the 6 I lost today. Sigh....

The rule (maybe I got a few points since I said the party witness should not have been excluded):
Rule 615. Exclusion of witnesses.
At the request of a party the court may order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order of its own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause, or (4) a person whose presence is determined by the court to be in the interest of justice. (1983, c. 701, s. 1.)