I object. The first video he did critiquing the portrayal of the legal system in mass media "Movies get lawyered" came out 6 months ago. That is months, not years, and definitely not ages.
My dad was a cop and he has a very similar story to what happened at around 14:50. One of the guys he was working with was at the stand being questioned for a drunk driving case in which he was the arresting officer, and a lawyer asked him if he was sure that he remembered the arrest in question, asking something along the lines of "how could you possibly recognize my client out of all the people you've arrested for drunk driving?" And my dad told me that the guy responded by saying, "Because I couldn't believe that ANYONE would be THAT drunk at nine in the morning with their wife and kids in the car!" In court, never ask a question you don't know the answer to; you might not like the answer that comes back. Edit: I initially misremembered the story my dad had told me; one of his coworkers was the one who did this, not him. I edited the main comment to clarify this.
@@eval_is_evil I feel like I should correct myself and say it was one of my dad's coworkers and I had initially misremembered the story he told me (not that it matters).
@@nmotschidontwannagivemyrea8932 The irony of you misremembering this story, given its topic, is a very fun thing to consider, especially as someone who almost always roots for the defendant.
Yeah, it's been interesting watching things change over time; improvements in lighting, improvements in editing, the addition of little graphical things and catchphrases.
Because you might be driven by the music. Most shows incorporate powerful music to drown out the logic and reason of an argument to skew your bias in favor of whatever they're drowning out with music. If you tune it out and really listen to the argument it's really fallacious and his reaction of "eh" is exactly what anyone would feel hearing it IRL.
That opening speach by the judge sounded so much like the one made by the chief in the Grey's Anatomy pilot that I had to look up whether Shonda Rhimes was involved; she was the producer. I'd recognize her stilted, melodramatic monologues anywhere.
Jack Murphy I as well was having the same feeling when I watching this scene. Into I research and learned Rhonda magic was sprinkled in this show, she has a style that makes it easily recognizable for others to see.
In 2014, I would've agreed. After the Hamilton musical, Burr ironically gained some credibility both due to the way the musical treated him (as a complex character rather than a black-and-white antagonist of Hamilton) and due to Leslie Odom, Jr. winning the Tony for best actor as Burr over even the titular character. There's some level of fanboying over Burr as a personality, even as his political history is still considered more suspect.
Michael Wade - I mean, he was VP #3. Regardless of his famous duel, “Burr served as a Continental Army officer in the American Revolutionary War, after which he became a successful lawyer and politician. He was elected twice to the New York State Assembly (1784-1785, 1798-1799),[1] was appointed New York State Attorney General (1789-1791), was chosen as a U.S. senator (1791-1797) from the State of New York, and reached the apex of his career as vice president. In the waning months of his tenure as president of the Senate, he oversaw the 1805 impeachment trial of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase.”(wiki)
And let be honest. They don't even touch the Grey's scene. In the context of the episode it was an amazing set-up. Here it's a cringe pat on the back for the lawyers to feel good about themselves lol.
OBJECTION! It's about time we had an animated graphic of a bailiff tackling a lawyer. Bonus points if a bunch of Sonic the Hedgehog rings go flying everywhere.
I'm reminded of RDJ's reaction to the inexperienced lawyer's non-response to a claim of eye contact in a witness examination, in the movie "The Judge."
I don't know how applicable this would be, but there are two episodes of Star Trek the Next Generation that feature trials in some form that I would be very interested in seeing you review: "The Measure of a Man" and "The First Duty".
Considering that the episodes are set in a judicial system that may or may not resemble our own, and that we have no idea how they do or don't other than the narrow examples we see onscreen, I don't know how well a US lawyer would be able to judge their "accuracy". The only thing he could do is compare the cases to the system we have now, and that would be speculative at best. It'd be an interesting exercise, but wouldn't tell us much more than whether things have changed much in that future.
@@Serai3 But there is a precedent for this! Mr. Stone at one point reviewed a show (Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney) which was partly based on the Japanese legal system.
If he did Ace Attorney, I think ST:TNG would be fair game. I was very excited to see the suggestion of "The Measure of a Man" in the last video comments as I don't watch a lot of lawyer drama's but love Sci-Fi.
I would love to see you react to the other end of the spectrum, in detective shows, where they seem to be able to press confessions out of people on really flimsy evidence and what you would do to defend against the presented evidence.
_Objection!!!_ Frank Castle is not a serial killer due to the killings being a means to an end, to whit the disruption of organized crime syndicates and the application of vigilante justice, rather than being the result of seeking to gratify some form of aberrant psychological urge. Is he a murderer? Yes. But not a serial killer.
@@Just_A_Dude how accurately is the definition used in real life? Most people use words that have precise definitions for very vague notions. After some time the definition tends to get muddled between dictionnary and used meaning. For instance "terrorism": dictionary is an act of violence motivated by an ideology. But people use the label "terrorist" for some of the US shooters who are crazy people on a murder suicide rampage with no actual ideology behind it
@@Just_A_Dude A serial killer is anyone who kills at least 3 people with a rest period in between. The motivation is irrelevant - some do so for money, some for revenge, some for power, some for pleasure etc. Vigilante serial killers are real and they absolutely qualify as a type of serial killer. Frank Castle is absolutely a serial killer. Although this is really a matter for police and criminal psychologists, not lawyers- there is no crime called serial murder; you would just be charged on multiple counts of murder (and all the other stuff Frank was guilty of).
@@jonathancampbell5231 he technically would be categorized as a Mass Murderer and not a serial killer. The distinction generally lies in how the killings are done. Serial killers are almost always classified as someone killing someone 1 on 1 in multiple instances and usually a pattern to them. That is why there are so few "Serial killers" as opposed to mass murderers. He would be a mass murderer because he generally executes groups of people at a time in any way he can with no pattern (he doesn't kill in the same premeditated manner)
You should do Law and Order SVU S11 E15 in which a lawyer goes on trial for keeping client confidentiality of her knowledge of a murder he committed that someone else went to jail for. It seems very centered on lawyers and their responsibilities to the client vs responsibilities to the law.
Request : can we have a video about client-lawyer relationships? I always see in shows clients threatening to fire their lawyers, how accurate is that? Thanks!
Usually, the cases that lead to clients firing their lawyers come in two varieties: (1) a lawyer who is unethical and the client disagrees with these actions (such as escrow embezzlement, legal malpractice, etc.) or (2) a client who is so obstinate that they refuse to listen to their lawyer and will keep hiring lawyers until they have one that will do what they want regardless of whether the lawyer believes it to be wise or ethical. Regardless, once a lawyer is to be removed as counsel, the future splits in two paths: (1) If the relationship is purely transactional (such as a merger agreement or consulting), the lawyer will simply sign over the client's file to the client and hand over any documents. (2) If the relationship is litigation (such as appearing before a court), the lawyer will have to file a motion to be removed as counsel and the judge will choose whether or not to approve the motion. The new counsel will also have to file a motion to become the new lawyer for the client.
As a federal CO, I have seen so many times inmates start going off about their cases or other crimes over the prison telephones. It gives the warning "This phone call is being recorded."
I've just realised that in these times of many companies and studios falsely issuing copyright violation claims on YT channels even when fair use is in effect, they would have to be pretty ballsy to strike this channel. A channel run by an *actual* lawyer.
@ Firegen1 I know!!! I can’t help but imagine a full linebacker suddenly tackling a lawyer who places even one foot inside the well. The image keeps me giggling. Steve the Bailiff sounds perfect!!
Funny but got to see just that happen while in court two weeks ago. Everyone was stunned that the Bailiff actually tackled the guy. The person tackled was an accused who just decided to walk up to the Judge to give some paperwork without permission. Best part was when he was back sitting down, the judge had the Bailiff get the paperwork she looked it over then dismissed the case with prejudice. So other than getting tackled and bounced on the court floor was a good day for him he was up for a class C felony.
I ditto this objection, lawyers are actually quite good at math, they see that lawyers make more money that all those math majors teaching high school and what not. I should have become a lawyer...
Objection! The judge didn’t say “one of” the most prestigious, he said “the most prestigious.” while the former is certainly true, the latter is questionable
I’m British so please excuse my ignorance @1:20 you say you know the New York courthouse and the Californian one very well; I thought US lawyers had to pass the bar in the state they practice in, is this not true? Or do most lawyers pass the bar in multiple states as a matter of course?
Most lawyers only practice in one state and only pass that state's bar exam. I passed the bar in five states. Obviously, I'm 5x better than most lawyers ;-)
@@LegalEagle Wow, actually are the conditions you need to fulfil to get an opportunity to pass U. S. Bar exams the same in every state or they vary in every particular state? I am Ukrainian so please excuse my ignorance as well)
I’ve never understood these different laws in different states it’s a little muddled and another thing I dislike your VAT or TAX is added to the price after you go to the counter (cash register)
Your beautiful objective analyses of proceedings in these videos shines a really good light on lawyers, considering the bad rep lawyers tend to get. You're doing a great service to society and to legal profession by making these videos man!
At this point, I want to see the legal drama that Devin directs himself. And if a rookie defense lawyer doesn’t enter the well and get tackled by the bailiff, I will object violently.
I'm not a lawyer, I'm never going to become a lawyer, and lawyers in general do not have the best image in my mind. But I can't stop watching this series. I love it.
Burr shot his political rival Alexander Hamilton in a famous duel in 1804, the last full year of his single term as vice president. He was never tried for the illegal duel and all charges against him were eventually dropped, but Hamilton's death ended Burr's political career. Burr left Washington, D.C., and traveled west seeking new opportunities, both economic and political. His activities eventually led to his arrest on charges of treason in 1807. The subsequent trial resulted in acquittal, but Burr's western schemes left him with large debts and few influential friends. In a final quest for grand opportunities, he left the United States for Europe. He remained overseas until 1812, when he returned to the United States to practice law in New York City, where he spent the rest of his life in relative obscurity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr
@@garettbutler2990 the only knocks against it I can think of are people walking around in the well, and Shaun intially going up to the Lawyer in the first place.
I'm already annoyed by plucky encyclopedic knowledge fast-talking new girl just based on this video. I definitely won't watch this show. Thanks for the vid.
Given that first episodes often also act as pilots, they have a tendency to be overwritten and make their points with sledgehammers. It's best to judge a tv show by its later episodes.
Isn't that pretty much all TV these days? Very little is actually produced for entertainment anymore. Media outlets own the news, and networks as well as many studios and it's considered normal in 2018 to use their influence to further a political agenda so they do at every chance. Everything from reality shows to blockbuster movies lately has something to say about things they have no business saying.
@@frozenthorn9619 Yes, quite true and one reason I watch so little modern TV. Don't know if I'll even watch this one. But I enjoyed James' analysis of it.
@@Jere616 It also was trying to convince us that black people were people back in the 1960s, by having them just man the coms station, or that the Cold War was dumb by having russians drive the ship, or so on. These days, someone would just revolve the whole show around whatever group they want to preach about, and make everyone else an asshole.
Objection. Entrapment is a proper affirmative defense when the Government (a) induces an accused person to commit a crime, and (b) the accused wasn't predisposed to commit the crime. 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). An accused establishes that he was induced to commit the crime by showing that the Government created a substantial risk that the crime would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it. 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989). If the Government manufactured a (fake) bomb, and then persuaded an un-predisposed person to use the bomb to blow up a landmark, the trial court would almost certainly instruct the jury on entrapment. NB: It isn't always a great idea to plead entrapment, as it essentially amounts to a confession that the accused committed acts sufficient to meet the elements of the charged crime.
It's federal, and actually a completely separate code of laws known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I strongly doubt a civilian lawyer would be comfortable speaking too in-depth on the subject.
Military Law technically is it's own system, but falls under Federal law but possesses it's own Jurisdiction. Military persons committing a crime are tried usually under Military Law, with the sentence varying in severity of the crime. The least problematic issues tend to result in restriction to Base, or some kind of special duty, and these tend to be handled by the Soldier's CO. More high level crimes, like robbery, is taken to court, with military command alerted to the crime itself. If the Soldier engages in something more federal such as Fraud charges, or something a civilian is in a position to do, it can be a federal crime. If you are oversees, you are subject to both local and military law of which you have to be careful. Just because you get a slap on the wrist from the Military, doesn't mean you are exempt from the criminal punishment of your host country.
Formous, keep in mind many Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) the US negotiates with its allies permits the military to maintain jurisdiction over military personnel accused of crimes in the host nation. The host/ally trusts the US will apply the UCMJ fairly and not use it as a smoke and mirrors distraction to not punish wrongdoing among the military. Occasionally the public perception is the US military didn't live up to this expectation in a particular case, which leads to friction with our allies. Often comes up when a US military member (allegedly) commits rape or murder off-installation.
@@MichaelOnines I lived in Okinawa for some 6 years growing up. The SOFA agreement there meant you were liable to two different jurisdictions at the same time. Hence my choice of words.
OBJECTION: CHECK OUT Law and Order SVU, William Lewis case, it’s a long one but I wanna see how accurate the case was I believe it’s the last episode of the 14th season. My question to you is how easy is it to get an acquittal as easy as Lewis did.
Omg, you noticed that too?! I thought I misheard the pitch and tone!! So glad someone else heard this, otherwise I would have thought I was going mad!! ^o^
Gotta admit, I usually skip the plugs for things like Brilliant at the end of videos, but you manage to make them funny and worth watching. I sure hope they're paying you a lot, ya definitely deserve it for your awesome videos alone, let alone making even the ads enjoyable!
Here's a different portrayal of law you could do: In the comedy series Silicon Valley, there's an entire episode in which the main character is going through arbitration with Hooli, the series antagonist, over ownership of their company (as their product was started when the main character worked at Hooli). I'd be very curious as to how close they got to an actual trial. (It's Season 2, Episode 9). Edit: The arbitration actually carries over into Episode 10 as well.
I love all the commentary on non-lawyer things: "not props", "great apartment in NY". 😁😁😂 I love the knowledge you're spitting, but man, your responses make this hilarious. 😂😂😂😂 You got me rolling with that ending. What r u Smokey the lawyer??
With how often legal eagle has the complaint that it takes years to go to trial, it would be interesting to have a series that only focuses on one case the entire season, focusing on both sides to build up tensions as to who will actually win.
There was a series that did that. It was on CBS, I think, a few years ago. Can't recall the name of it but the first season was the entire story, including court case from start to finish. As I recall it only lasted 2 or 3 seasons.
That was maybe the best ad read I've ever seen on youtube. "If only Brilliant had been around when I was a student, I might not have gone into Law and actually done something good for the world."
I would be very interested in seeing you do an analysis of the legal issues involved in the upcoming trial of Joseph DeAngelo, who is accused of being the Golden State Killer. He was caught using an unprecedented technique that involved the submission of the killer's DNA profile, using an *inaccurate* name, to an online genealogy database. When a relative of DeAngelo, presumably without his consent, also submitted DNA to this database, a partial match resulted that alerted investigators to which family to examine. They then surreptitiously collected DeAngelo's DNA to identify him as the killer. There seem to be several unprecedented issues here, including ones that raise privacy concerns, and while the courts must ultimately rule on the matter, I would like to know whether you think there is significant potential for DeAngelo's defense to succeed based on the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. (I hope not!) I would also be very interested in your providing analysis of his trial when it finally commences. Thank you!
it's the actress, she portrays her characters a little annoying or her acting is just a little annoying... for some reason... idk I still like her though
Sustained ! She is so incredibly annoying . I don't know if it's the fault of her permanent constipated expression or what. But it strikes me as annoying. Yes I can confirm.
I think you have the best promos on UA-cam. Also I loved the 'eh' after that passionate closing argument ^^ Talk about letting the air out of someone's balloon lol.
Sent the photo of steam coming out of your ears to my attorney buddy! I'm begging him to watch your series--and, he says, he'd probably analyze you. But sending him the clipped photo and phoned him, told him your quote, "Objection, objection, objection!" He has agreed to purview your videos!!!!! So great! So great! So great!
Yes, both the judge and opposing counsel can and do chime in to stop or hurry this up regularly, we can see this in actual televised trials quite frequently. The only time where we actually find these long drawn out preaching dialogs is Movies and TV, it's not reality though.
@@GurpreetDutt Maybe, lol. It might however be a good opportunity to set people straight about some misconceptions involving libel and defamation laws.
Totally agree. We have a lot of people teaching our kids, reporting the news, and worst of all, voting, that don't know anything about the law. There's plenty of internet videos of people we're supposed to be able to trust making horribly inaccurate claims and statements, libel and defamation is a good place to start.
Objection! There are people who have eidetic memory who could potentially have that amount of encyclopedic knowledge to recite a specific law from memory. Although I don’t have a professional witness to argue this, so take it how you will.
A show you really need to look into is For Life. It's about a man that is arrested and convicted of a crime he, allegedly, didn't commit and is sentenced to life without parole. He then becomes a lawyer while in prison and spends the rest of his time trying to prove his innocence
If there is ever a Legal Eagle merchandise store, please make something with the slogan "Only you can prevent future lawyers" on it. Ties, sweaters, mugs, etc. I want a whole set.
I'll be sure to call you next time I steal a car in New Mexico (1) to rob a bank in California (2) and drive a hostage through Oregon (3) on my way to Washington (4) where I dump the stolen car and hostage and head to Idaho (5) where I buy a silver mine with the loot. If you'd let me know in which States you've been admitted, I can adjust where the crimes would be commited. (...nice tie, btw...)
Speaking of: This Is Wonderland when? I know it's out of jurisdiction but so was the Ace Attorney anime. Street Legal is a more serious show that also would work.
You should do an episode on Star Trek: Voyager season 2, episode 18 "Death Wish". It deals with a person's legal right to die. I don't know if you deal with those types of cases, but I found it intriguing. I'm interested how you would argue the case.
I'm not a lawyer, never will be, but these are a lot of fun. Don't stop critiquing, or making me think like a lawyer. These are delightful. Nearly fell out of my chair at, "...might have actually done something good for the world" Keep it going, please!
Objection: The defense's closing argument rests on Jury Nullification. In that he attempted the crime, but should be found innocent. No Lawyer would attempt that. No Judge would accept that. This is from a year ago.
I was watching Ant-man and the Wasp and one of the scenes in the end got me thinking. Some of the villains were in possession of a "truth serum" and had it administered to them (by the comic relief side-kicks) and were spilling there guts to police. My question was "Is ANY of what they are saying admissible as evidence or would it be considered coerced and be unadmissable? Not sure how to leave that as an abjection but I thought it would ask it anyway.
the entire problem with coercion is that it makes it unclear whether someone is speaking the truth or a fabricated lie that would prevent further coercion better than the truth would. if it can be demonstrated that the serum really makes them speak the truth rather than making them suggestible - that might be admissable.
The truth serum doesn't remove Miranda Rights, and they all chose to speak instead of remain silent, while fully aware that they were under the influence of a "truth serum". So while there's an argument for coercion, it isn't a very strong one. I'm sure that drugging people without consent is a crime though, but it doesn't mean they didn't confess of their own free will. Of course that also depends on the toxicology of the serum, if it does actually compell you to answer questions, then it may be considered coercion, though then we also have to consider whether they were given the serum with the intent of having them admit to criminal acts, or just for amusement, because that would change whether it'd be considered coercive.
That's for a court to decide and both sides would argue on behalf of the people they represent the defense would argue it's inadmissible while the state would argue that it was admissable and the judge would take in all the facts and arguments and decide and remember just because there is precedent for a defense of coerscion doesn't mean it would work I think a better tactic would be intimidation and coerscion so that if the state argues that the drug would have still allowed them to remain silent which we have seen evidence to the contrary you could still argue that they were too scared to keep quiet as they were threatened by a known criminal and possible terrorist (even though they can't prove Scott was behind the mask whoever was in the suit broke the secovia accords making them a criminal and potential terrorist)
Objection: Since the government, according to this show, created the plot, recruited the bomber, obtained the materials to make the bomb, made the bomb, and gave the bomb to the bomber, wouldn't entrapment still apply since there would be no conspiracy or plot without the federal agents?
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Objection: you've been making these videos for ages and you still haven't done the CLASSIC Legally Blonde
Maybe he has not been authorized yet (because he has to use copyrighted material for it).
LuisXGP by copyright law it is legal to use samples of material if used in a review or educational like format.
@@ConfusedKitty Well, it's not exactly a review, neither exactly an educational format. I wish @LegalEagle could grant us his wisdom about this.
I object. The first video he did critiquing the portrayal of the legal system in mass media "Movies get lawyered" came out 6 months ago. That is months, not years, and definitely not ages.
@@conniethesconnie "ages" (as in for ages or ages ago) is an expression that means "for a long time", time is relative. It doesn't mean years
"You have the awesome power of justice, and there is nothing more powerful than that!"
Real Lawyer: "Eh."
"You have the power of _Justice_ , you have the most awesome de facto power in all of law... _Jury Nullification_ !" ;)
OBJECTION!
Everybody knows the most awesome power ever is infinite pizza, your honor!
"Eh" wins the internet
Justice is actually number 4 on the list of most overpowered things, right behind money, nukes and 4chan memes.
What about *THE POWER OF ATTORNEY!!!!*
"there's nothing more awesome than the power of justice!"
the most lawyerly response possible: "eh"
Just the machine doing its job to (badly) regulate human behavior.
I busted out laughing at that too!
"People only become lawyers because they are bad at math and science..." I FEEL PERSONALLY ATTACKED, SIR.
>Laughs in Tax Law
>laughs in the laws of physics
I want to go into law when I’m older and I can confirm I’m bad at both 😂
Is this a Hamilton the musical reference? Because I stan either way
@@johnstrong7138 can relate
My dad was a cop and he has a very similar story to what happened at around 14:50. One of the guys he was working with was at the stand being questioned for a drunk driving case in which he was the arresting officer, and a lawyer asked him if he was sure that he remembered the arrest in question, asking something along the lines of "how could you possibly recognize my client out of all the people you've arrested for drunk driving?" And my dad told me that the guy responded by saying, "Because I couldn't believe that ANYONE would be THAT drunk at nine in the morning with their wife and kids in the car!"
In court, never ask a question you don't know the answer to; you might not like the answer that comes back.
Edit: I initially misremembered the story my dad had told me; one of his coworkers was the one who did this, not him. I edited the main comment to clarify this.
Freaking amazing. Props to your dad. Also respect.
@@eval_is_evil I feel like I should correct myself and say it was one of my dad's coworkers and I had initially misremembered the story he told me (not that it matters).
And if you do knlw the answer.. dont ank the question :p
@@DaBeezKneez You (the lawyer) may know, but you’re trying to tell the jury and judge by questioning the witness
@@nmotschidontwannagivemyrea8932 The irony of you misremembering this story, given its topic, is a very fun thing to consider, especially as someone who almost always roots for the defendant.
Your editing gets better and better every episode!
Yeah, it's been interesting watching things change over time; improvements in lighting, improvements in editing, the addition of little graphical things and catchphrases.
Can i hire u for those tiny details i own a digital agency be great to have someone that notice small details
yeah, the improvements are noticeable! it's nice.
He of course hires someone
"You wanna claim Aaron Burr" got me good. :D
And didn’t Burr only practice Law after he was basically exiled for some shyster stuff on the frontier?
@@j.m.murdoch2570 I thought he started studying after graduation and put it on hold for the war.
Justin Luna that’s entirely possible. I’m not fully up to snuff with my early American history.
@ Justin me too! I cacked it when he made that little quip ^o^
Is it normal to not be an American and not knowing who this "Aaron Burr" is?
18:38 That "Eh" completely ruined me. I was engaged in the closing argument than I got "Eh" and almost fell off my bed from laughter. LMFAOOOO
Same!
SAME
Really? I was scoffing at the closing argument and that "eh" amused me.
Because you might be driven by the music. Most shows incorporate powerful music to drown out the logic and reason of an argument to skew your bias in favor of whatever they're drowning out with music. If you tune it out and really listen to the argument it's really fallacious and his reaction of "eh" is exactly what anyone would feel hearing it IRL.
@@generalautism7406 You are completely correct. The music was definitely the reason I was being drawn in so deeply.
That opening speach by the judge sounded so much like the one made by the chief in the Grey's Anatomy pilot that I had to look up whether Shonda Rhimes was involved; she was the producer. I'd recognize her stilted, melodramatic monologues anywhere.
Jack Murphy
I as well was having the same feeling when I watching this scene. Into I research and learned Rhonda magic was sprinkled in this show, she has a style that makes it easily recognizable for others to see.
Didn't know that! No wonder I enjoyed this show so much. Sorry to see it canceled 😔
2:25 Someone might want to get Doctor Mike cause Aaron Burrs coming in with a 3rd degree burn
I prefer Dr. Hope
@@reachcole514 I'm subscribed to both. I especially like to watch both of them fact-check the same episodes. They often bring out different points.
Miss Priss same here
Doctor Hypocrisy is available
I like Mickey Atkins, she is really down to earth.
"You want to claim Aaron Burr?" Took the words right out of my mouth.
In 2014, I would've agreed. After the Hamilton musical, Burr ironically gained some credibility both due to the way the musical treated him (as a complex character rather than a black-and-white antagonist of Hamilton) and due to Leslie Odom, Jr. winning the Tony for best actor as Burr over even the titular character. There's some level of fanboying over Burr as a personality, even as his political history is still considered more suspect.
I LOLed when he said that.
Why not? A true hero.
@@roguishpaladin disgusting neoliberal
Michael Wade - I mean, he was VP #3. Regardless of his famous duel, “Burr served as a Continental Army officer in the American Revolutionary War, after which he became a successful lawyer and politician. He was elected twice to the New York State Assembly (1784-1785, 1798-1799),[1] was appointed New York State Attorney General (1789-1791), was chosen as a U.S. senator (1791-1797) from the State of New York, and reached the apex of his career as vice president. In the waning months of his tenure as president of the Senate, he oversaw the 1805 impeachment trial of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase.”(wiki)
The initial speach is a lawyer version on the speach Dr. Webber of grey's anatomy gives to interns😂
YES!!!!!!!!!! 😂😂
Honestly the truth 😂
TEA
Noemi Pileri exactly my thoughts!
And let be honest. They don't even touch the Grey's scene. In the context of the episode it was an amazing set-up. Here it's a cringe pat on the back for the lawyers to feel good about themselves lol.
I am still hoping for Legally Blonde. I just rewatched it and thought of you!
emmanlss can’t like this comment enough . Give us LEGALLY BLOND dammit !!!!!
Second the motion.
I think he said in another comment thread that he was working on it. I bet you'll see it soon.
I mean, he could even do the sequels and/or the musical version if he was super bored... Why hasn't this one cropped up yet??
Same. Ive been been commenting this on other vids too.
OBJECTION! It's about time we had an animated graphic of a bailiff tackling a lawyer. Bonus points if a bunch of Sonic the Hedgehog rings go flying everywhere.
14:20 That frustrated "Object!... Objectiooon!" completely floored me.
I'm reminded of RDJ's reaction to the inexperienced lawyer's non-response to a claim of eye contact in a witness examination, in the movie "The Judge."
I don't know how applicable this would be, but there are two episodes of Star Trek the Next Generation that feature trials in some form that I would be very interested in seeing you review: "The Measure of a Man" and "The First Duty".
also trial in the original.
Devil's Due as well!
Considering that the episodes are set in a judicial system that may or may not resemble our own, and that we have no idea how they do or don't other than the narrow examples we see onscreen, I don't know how well a US lawyer would be able to judge their "accuracy". The only thing he could do is compare the cases to the system we have now, and that would be speculative at best. It'd be an interesting exercise, but wouldn't tell us much more than whether things have changed much in that future.
@@Serai3 But there is a precedent for this! Mr. Stone at one point reviewed a show (Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney) which was partly based on the Japanese legal system.
If he did Ace Attorney, I think ST:TNG would be fair game. I was very excited to see the suggestion of "The Measure of a Man" in the last video comments as I don't watch a lot of lawyer drama's but love Sci-Fi.
Lol the way he said “you’re gonna claim Aaron burr 🤨”
Lmao
*Long-winded purple prose speech scene*
Counselor's retort: "Eh.."
Sustained!
I would love to see you react to the other end of the spectrum, in detective shows, where they seem to be able to press confessions out of people on really flimsy evidence and what you would do to defend against the presented evidence.
damn ... that's a brilliant idea! @LegalEagle what do you think of this idea?
I'd love that!
Omg THE CLOSER!!!! Brenda lies all of the time for confessions
Ooohh this is a good one yes!
"You have the *awesome power of justice* , and there is nothing more powerful than that."
Was a better moment in the manga tbh
If you do Daredevil, do the trials of The Punisher from the show. Matt Murdoch trying to defend a serial killer...
Even the first episode is legally interesting. So is "rabbit in a snowstorm" Premeditated Assassination by way of self defense was really insane.
_Objection!!!_
Frank Castle is not a serial killer due to the killings being a means to an end, to whit the disruption of organized crime syndicates and the application of vigilante justice, rather than being the result of seeking to gratify some form of aberrant psychological urge.
Is he a murderer? Yes. But not a serial killer.
@@Just_A_Dude how accurately is the definition used in real life? Most people use words that have precise definitions for very vague notions.
After some time the definition tends to get muddled between dictionnary and used meaning.
For instance "terrorism": dictionary is an act of violence motivated by an ideology. But people use the label "terrorist" for some of the US shooters who are crazy people on a murder suicide rampage with no actual ideology behind it
@@Just_A_Dude A serial killer is anyone who kills at least 3 people with a rest period in between. The motivation is irrelevant - some do so for money, some for revenge, some for power, some for pleasure etc. Vigilante serial killers are real and they absolutely qualify as a type of serial killer. Frank Castle is absolutely a serial killer.
Although this is really a matter for police and criminal psychologists, not lawyers- there is no crime called serial murder; you would just be charged on multiple counts of murder (and all the other stuff Frank was guilty of).
@@jonathancampbell5231 he technically would be categorized as a Mass Murderer and not a serial killer. The distinction generally lies in how the killings are done. Serial killers are almost always classified as someone killing someone 1 on 1 in multiple instances and usually a pattern to them. That is why there are so few "Serial killers" as opposed to mass murderers. He would be a mass murderer because he generally executes groups of people at a time in any way he can with no pattern (he doesn't kill in the same premeditated manner)
You should do Law and Order SVU S11 E15 in which a lawyer goes on trial for keeping client confidentiality of her knowledge of a murder he committed that someone else went to jail for. It seems very centered on lawyers and their responsibilities to the client vs responsibilities to the law.
Request : can we have a video about client-lawyer relationships? I always see in shows clients threatening to fire their lawyers, how accurate is that? Thanks!
Usually, the cases that lead to clients firing their lawyers come in two varieties: (1) a lawyer who is unethical and the client disagrees with these actions (such as escrow embezzlement, legal malpractice, etc.) or (2) a client who is so obstinate that they refuse to listen to their lawyer and will keep hiring lawyers until they have one that will do what they want regardless of whether the lawyer believes it to be wise or ethical.
Regardless, once a lawyer is to be removed as counsel, the future splits in two paths: (1) If the relationship is purely transactional (such as a merger agreement or consulting), the lawyer will simply sign over the client's file to the client and hand over any documents. (2) If the relationship is litigation (such as appearing before a court), the lawyer will have to file a motion to be removed as counsel and the judge will choose whether or not to approve the motion. The new counsel will also have to file a motion to become the new lawyer for the client.
Vince K he addressed it briefly in another video
As a federal CO, I have seen so many times inmates start going off about their cases or other crimes over the prison telephones. It gives the warning "This phone call is being recorded."
You can tell how skilled of a lawyer he is - he's got that very intense 'I'm watching and listening' face when he's watching the show.
I've just realised that in these times of many companies and studios falsely issuing copyright violation claims on YT channels even when fair use is in effect, they would have to be pretty ballsy to strike this channel. A channel run by an *actual* lawyer.
I imagine, however, that if it would be something that requires going to court, he would still need another lawyer.
I don't think they'd dare, considering his experience and probably connections.
To make it worse; a copyright lawyer
Not necessarily. It's standard practice for any movie or TV show (not to mention their networks) to have several lawyers on their payroll.
@@bensirach3586 Unless he chose, with the judges permission, to represent himself.
Objection! If we are going to have animated segments (which is a great idea) we need animated bailiff going in for a tackle. We can call him Steve.
@ Firegen1 I know!!! I can’t help but imagine a full linebacker suddenly tackling a lawyer who places even one foot inside the well. The image keeps me giggling. Steve the Bailiff sounds perfect!!
I second the motion! WE NEED AN ANIMATED BAILIFF TACKLE!
I need a third and the motion can carry! Also cheers Serena and Morpheus. 9 months on I still believe in Steve!
Firegen1 I’ll third the motion. An animated bailiff sounds like fun lol
Anyone else feeling like under that suit, he's wearing a shirt saying "The bailiff will tackle you"?
Objection! He's just wearing an invisible one overtop!
Funny but got to see just that happen while in court two weeks ago. Everyone was stunned that the Bailiff actually tackled the guy. The person tackled was an accused who just decided to walk up to the Judge to give some paperwork without permission. Best part was when he was back sitting down, the judge had the Bailiff get the paperwork she looked it over then dismissed the case with prejudice. So other than getting tackled and bounced on the court floor was a good day for him he was up for a class C felony.
I don't know why I'm watching this because
1 I should study chemestry right now
2 I'm not from America
But hell is this entertaining!
I love how he predicts the possibilities and a second later it happens...Man knows his law
You know, Quasimodo predicted all this.
"You wanna claim Aron Burr?" Killed me! Maybe the judge is a big Hamilton stan?
Objection! I studied mathematics and also didn't contribute anything worth while to society. STEM alone does not cut it
Physics. Yup.
This statement is so real for me as well.... I think I'm going to go cry in the corner for a bit
I ditto this objection, lawyers are actually quite good at math, they see that lawyers make more money that all those math majors teaching high school and what not. I should have become a lawyer...
...same :c
Tell that to Wall St quantitative traders.
I suggest the trial of Frank Castle from Daredevil Season 2 Episodes 7 and 8
Ooh, I like that!
That'd be amazing to see. One of my all time favorite shows
"you want to claim Aaron Burr?"
* All of us who have watched Hamilton about forty times since it was released yesterday*:
"For real though."
Objection! The judge didn’t say “one of” the most prestigious, he said “the most prestigious.” while the former is certainly true, the latter is questionable
I’m British so please excuse my ignorance @1:20 you say you know the New York courthouse and the Californian one very well; I thought US lawyers had to pass the bar in the state they practice in, is this not true?
Or do most lawyers pass the bar in multiple states as a matter of course?
Most lawyers only practice in one state and only pass that state's bar exam. I passed the bar in five states. Obviously, I'm 5x better than most lawyers ;-)
LegalEagle thanks for your speedy response. And *only* 5x smarter...I doubt it 😏.
@@LegalEagle Are there any cases that require you to have passed multiple bar exams?
@@LegalEagle Wow, actually are the conditions you need to fulfil to get an opportunity to pass U. S. Bar exams the same in every state or they vary in every particular state? I am Ukrainian so please excuse my ignorance as well)
I’ve never understood these different laws in different states it’s a little muddled and another thing I dislike your VAT or TAX is added to the price after you go to the counter (cash register)
Do "Harvey Birdman: Attorney At Law" at some point!
As much as I'd love to see this, is there any actual law happening in that show? XD
Hey, he did the episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia that took place entirely at Paddy's!
Do Harvey's trial with the stolen music! Or his final!
i second this.
HA HAAAA! Mistrial!
Woah 250k subs, i remember when this channel had like 20k, glad to see top quality commentary being justly rewarded =D
The quality is strong with this channel!
"People dont have encyclopedic knowledge of USC"
didnt stop my professor from trying to get me to remember title 51 front to back :^)
Did it work?
Your beautiful objective analyses of proceedings in these videos shines a really good light on lawyers, considering the bad rep lawyers tend to get.
You're doing a great service to society and to legal profession by making these videos man!
At this point, I want to see the legal drama that Devin directs himself. And if a rookie defense lawyer doesn’t enter the well and get tackled by the bailiff, I will object violently.
I'm not a lawyer, I'm never going to become a lawyer, and lawyers in general do not have the best image in my mind. But I can't stop watching this series. I love it.
"You want to claim Aaran Burr?" 😂
I never thought one of my favorite UA-cam channels would be a lawyer reviewing legal TV shows. But IT IS!
Queen Anne’s County Courthouse is the oldest courthouse. It was made in 1708 and still is in use to this day
“You wanna claim Aaron Burr?”
My exact thoughts.
Burr shot his political rival Alexander Hamilton in a famous duel in 1804, the last full year of his single term as vice president. He was never tried for the illegal duel and all charges against him were eventually dropped, but Hamilton's death ended Burr's political career.
Burr left Washington, D.C., and traveled west seeking new opportunities, both economic and political. His activities eventually led to his arrest on charges of treason in 1807. The subsequent trial resulted in acquittal, but Burr's western schemes left him with large debts and few influential friends. In a final quest for grand opportunities, he left the United States for Europe. He remained overseas until 1812, when he returned to the United
States to practice law in New York City, where he spent the rest of his life in relative obscurity.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr
I originally liked the show because we don’t have a lot of shows that portray both sides of criminal law but it was still over dramatized.
Still good tho compared to everything else
How about Psych's "Cloudy... with a Chance of Murder" episode?
That episode was hilarious
@@PhilWithCoffee honestly, I only subscribed to this channel to see him do that episode, or the remake of it. Psych is one of my favorite shows.
I agree. The "cloudy...with a chance of murder episode" is so funny. Either it or the remake would be interesting to see.
Yes that would be incredible! that show is hysterical! bet it'd get a terrible grade though
@@garettbutler2990 the only knocks against it I can think of are people walking around in the well, and Shaun intially going up to the Lawyer in the first place.
“What, have years passed since his first day” 🤣🤣
React to American crime story: the people VS. OJ Simpson
Especially when OJ confessed and they still let that asshole go.
I'm already annoyed by plucky encyclopedic knowledge fast-talking new girl just based on this video. I definitely won't watch this show. Thanks for the vid.
It comes across as one of those shows where the actors really feel like actors instead of characters
No, you'll love other characters it gets funnier I promise. My favorite is the blonde with the short hair.
dragongirl37582 Kate Littlejohn is my favorite too, I love how Jay is scared of her to the point where he treats her name like profanity.
Given that first episodes often also act as pilots, they have a tendency to be overwritten and make their points with sledgehammers. It's best to judge a tv show by its later episodes.
Aoife O'Cuinn
Just imagine how many scenes she recorded until she managed to repeat the written law exactly. So unnatural
I didn’t find her closing argument very inspiring, though I know it was meant to be inspiring.
Objection: The producers/writers used the closing arguments to preach to the TV viewers.
Isn't that pretty much all TV these days? Very little is actually produced for entertainment anymore. Media outlets own the news, and networks as well as many studios and it's considered normal in 2018 to use their influence to further a political agenda so they do at every chance. Everything from reality shows to blockbuster movies lately has something to say about things they have no business saying.
@@frozenthorn9619 Yes, quite true and one reason I watch so little modern TV. Don't know if I'll even watch this one. But I enjoyed James' analysis of it.
Modern TV is just propaganda, and not even fun propaganda like Star Trek TOS.
@@Seth9809 Right. At least Star Trek TOS was successful in inspiring a lot of kids to become scientists.
@@Jere616
It also was trying to convince us that black people were people back in the 1960s, by having them just man the coms station, or that the Cold War was dumb by having russians drive the ship, or so on.
These days, someone would just revolve the whole show around whatever group they want to preach about, and make everyone else an asshole.
Holy hell, you are the absolute undisputed master of smooth product endorsement. These lead-ins should be case-studies in graduate marketing courses.
Objection. Entrapment is a proper affirmative defense when the Government (a) induces an accused person to commit a crime, and (b) the accused wasn't predisposed to commit the crime. 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). An accused establishes that he was induced to commit the crime by showing that the Government created a substantial risk that the crime would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it. 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989).
If the Government manufactured a (fake) bomb, and then persuaded an un-predisposed person to use the bomb to blow up a landmark, the trial court would almost certainly instruct the jury on entrapment.
NB: It isn't always a great idea to plead entrapment, as it essentially amounts to a confession that the accused committed acts sufficient to meet the elements of the charged crime.
Hey! Could please explain JAGs and military law? Is military law under federal or state law?
I would think Federal seeing how the Army is a federal controlled unit
It's federal, and actually a completely separate code of laws known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I strongly doubt a civilian lawyer would be comfortable speaking too in-depth on the subject.
Military Law technically is it's own system, but falls under Federal law but possesses it's own Jurisdiction. Military persons committing a crime are tried usually under Military Law, with the sentence varying in severity of the crime. The least problematic issues tend to result in restriction to Base, or some kind of special duty, and these tend to be handled by the Soldier's CO. More high level crimes, like robbery, is taken to court, with military command alerted to the crime itself. If the Soldier engages in something more federal such as Fraud charges, or something a civilian is in a position to do, it can be a federal crime. If you are oversees, you are subject to both local and military law of which you have to be careful. Just because you get a slap on the wrist from the Military, doesn't mean you are exempt from the criminal punishment of your host country.
Formous, keep in mind many Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) the US negotiates with its allies permits the military to maintain jurisdiction over military personnel accused of crimes in the host nation. The host/ally trusts the US will apply the UCMJ fairly and not use it as a smoke and mirrors distraction to not punish wrongdoing among the military. Occasionally the public perception is the US military didn't live up to this expectation in a particular case, which leads to friction with our allies. Often comes up when a US military member (allegedly) commits rape or murder off-installation.
@@MichaelOnines I lived in Okinawa for some 6 years growing up. The SOFA agreement there meant you were liable to two different jurisdictions at the same time. Hence my choice of words.
OBJECTION: CHECK OUT Law and Order SVU, William Lewis case, it’s a long one but I wanna see how accurate the case was I believe it’s the last episode of the 14th season. My question to you is how easy is it to get an acquittal as easy as Lewis did.
If you listen closely when he shouts “Object. Objection.” He sounds like Seinfeld
Omg, you noticed that too?! I thought I misheard the pitch and tone!! So glad someone else heard this, otherwise I would have thought I was going mad!! ^o^
Lawyers ,doctors and mathematicians have a great sense of humour and are comedians at heart. Cue the Seinfield theme.
Gotta admit, I usually skip the plugs for things like Brilliant at the end of videos, but you manage to make them funny and worth watching. I sure hope they're paying you a lot, ya definitely deserve it for your awesome videos alone, let alone making even the ads enjoyable!
"I think he's guilty. Called it."
Here's a different portrayal of law you could do: In the comedy series Silicon Valley, there's an entire episode in which the main character is going through arbitration with Hooli, the series antagonist, over ownership of their company (as their product was started when the main character worked at Hooli). I'd be very curious as to how close they got to an actual trial. (It's Season 2, Episode 9). Edit: The arbitration actually carries over into Episode 10 as well.
I love all the commentary on non-lawyer things: "not props", "great apartment in NY". 😁😁😂
I love the knowledge you're spitting, but man, your responses make this hilarious.
😂😂😂😂 You got me rolling with that ending. What r u Smokey the lawyer??
I too love those non-legal quips he makes. So out of left-field, but so deeply appreciated and admired ^__^
With how often legal eagle has the complaint that it takes years to go to trial, it would be interesting to have a series that only focuses on one case the entire season, focusing on both sides to build up tensions as to who will actually win.
There was a series that did that. It was on CBS, I think, a few years ago. Can't recall the name of it but the first season was the entire story, including court case from start to finish. As I recall it only lasted 2 or 3 seasons.
Murder One my friend, Murder One is the show you're looking for.
The show Goliath (saw it on primevideo) also focused on one case per season
I think there are 4 seasons? It's a pretty interesting show
That was maybe the best ad read I've ever seen on youtube. "If only Brilliant had been around when I was a student, I might not have gone into Law and actually done something good for the world."
Objection: "Remember! Only you can stop future lawyers."
Only you can prevent forest fires. -- Smokey Bear.
0:45 well it looks like it’s time to ask for another Better Call Saul episode (also 12 angry men would probably make a great episode)
He's touched on 12 Angry Men before, but that one would be great for him to do a full dive into instead of just discussing a few clips.
I would be very interested in seeing you do an analysis of the legal issues involved in the upcoming trial of Joseph DeAngelo, who is accused of being the Golden State Killer. He was caught using an unprecedented technique that involved the submission of the killer's DNA profile, using an *inaccurate* name, to an online genealogy database. When a relative of DeAngelo, presumably without his consent, also submitted DNA to this database, a partial match resulted that alerted investigators to which family to examine. They then surreptitiously collected DeAngelo's DNA to identify him as the killer. There seem to be several unprecedented issues here, including ones that raise privacy concerns, and while the courts must ultimately rule on the matter, I would like to know whether you think there is significant potential for DeAngelo's defense to succeed based on the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. (I hope not!) I would also be very interested in your providing analysis of his trial when it finally commences. Thank you!
I'm getting annoying main character vibes from the girl😕
it's the actress, she portrays her characters a little annoying or her acting is just a little annoying... for some reason... idk I still like her though
Sustained ! She is so incredibly annoying . I don't know if it's the fault of her permanent constipated expression or what. But it strikes me as annoying. Yes I can confirm.
@@eval_is_evil That's literally her face, something she can't help. :)
Her voice hurts me.
I watched the entire show and loved it but yes she is extremely annoying EXTREMELY
I think you have the best promos on UA-cam. Also I loved the 'eh' after that passionate closing argument ^^ Talk about letting the air out of someone's balloon lol.
19:53 'there's always appeal', so true. Only when a defendant dies does the possibility of appeal end.
How old is too old to study law? Assuming I have infinite money. I want to be that one old clerk at Supreme Court.
If you got infinite money there is no such thing as too old XD
"Nothing more powerful than Justice!"
Mr. Eagle "Meh"
Better Call Saul
Season 3, episode 5.
I have not forgotten your promise, mr. Eagle. I might have to you to the court...
of the internet
Question from 12:43: if he gets caught walking on one direction with a bomb it counts as intention to blow up anything in that direction?
Sent the photo of steam coming out of your ears to my attorney buddy! I'm begging him to watch your series--and, he says, he'd probably analyze you. But sending him the clipped photo and phoned him, told him your quote, "Objection, objection, objection!" He has agreed to purview your videos!!!!!
So great! So great! So great!
Review Lincoln Lawyer!
And read the book too. Also, "The Firm"
His facial expressions from 18:02 to 18:08 cracked me up 😂
“You wanna claim Aaron Burr?....” 😂😂😂
Technically speaking, the oldest court in the United States is the King William County Courthouse, and it's still in use today :)
I'd also like to see the specific episode of law and order svu called Twenty Five Acts. It was the first introduction of my favorite ADA in the show.
Query: If a lawyer really goes off the rails during closing arguments, can the judge (or opposing counsel) interject to correct the situation?
I'm curious about this too.
Yes they can, opposing counsel can object on the grounds of it being out of the scope of the case, and if it continues, the judge may step in
@@norbertorodriguez004 thank you for the response.
@@norbertorodriguez004 Thanks for the info.
Yes, both the judge and opposing counsel can and do chime in to stop or hurry this up regularly, we can see this in actual televised trials quite frequently. The only time where we actually find these long drawn out preaching dialogs is Movies and TV, it's not reality though.
Can you do a video about the teacher who said you could be sued for retweeting/sharing Pewdiepie's stuff?
@@GurpreetDutt Maybe, lol. It might however be a good opportunity to set people straight about some misconceptions involving libel and defamation laws.
Heh, could be nice in an episode of him talking about multiple video/events.
Totally agree. We have a lot of people teaching our kids, reporting the news, and worst of all, voting, that don't know anything about the law. There's plenty of internet videos of people we're supposed to be able to trust making horribly inaccurate claims and statements, libel and defamation is a good place to start.
6:57 i sure hope stella got overtime looking over allll those us codes 😂
Objection! There are people who have eidetic memory who could potentially have that amount of encyclopedic knowledge to recite a specific law from memory.
Although I don’t have a professional witness to argue this, so take it how you will.
I haven’t seen most of the movies or series used in these, but I’m still excited to watch each episode!
im actually super sad this show got cancelled i would have loved him to do more on this show
Could you review the state bar exam from Better Call Saul?
Please react to “Hero or Hate Crime” episode from Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia 😩😩😩😩
That would be a great episode xD
A show you really need to look into is For Life. It's about a man that is arrested and convicted of a crime he, allegedly, didn't commit and is sentenced to life without parole. He then becomes a lawyer while in prison and spends the rest of his time trying to prove his innocence
If there is ever a Legal Eagle merchandise store, please make something with the slogan "Only you can prevent future lawyers" on it. Ties, sweaters, mugs, etc. I want a whole set.
I'll be sure to call you next time I steal a car in New Mexico (1) to rob a bank in California (2) and drive a hostage through Oregon (3) on my way to Washington (4) where I dump the stolen car and hostage and head to Idaho (5) where I buy a silver mine with the loot.
If you'd let me know in which States you've been admitted, I can adjust where the crimes would be commited.
(...nice tie, btw...)
Paul Leddy Lad, those crimes although in separate state jurisdictions fall under the authority of U.S. Marshals or the F.B.I.
LEgal Eagle passed bar in District of Columbia ua-cam.com/video/7Z1p7TMPXFM/v-deo.html
& i think California & NY & ???? & ?????
Objection: These shows are either in LA or NYC
Also as a Canadian I love how you used a CTV broadcast of this episode
Speaking of: This Is Wonderland when? I know it's out of jurisdiction but so was the Ace Attorney anime. Street Legal is a more serious show that also would work.
You should do an episode on Star Trek: Voyager season 2, episode 18 "Death Wish". It deals with a person's legal right to die. I don't know if you deal with those types of cases, but I found it intriguing. I'm interested how you would argue the case.
Greenscyth22 YES
I'm not a lawyer, never will be, but these are a lot of fun. Don't stop critiquing, or making me think like a lawyer.
These are delightful. Nearly fell out of my chair at, "...might have actually done something good for the world"
Keep it going, please!
Objection: The defense's closing argument rests on Jury Nullification. In that he attempted the crime, but should be found innocent.
No Lawyer would attempt that.
No Judge would accept that.
This is from a year ago.
“...eh.”
I shouldn’t have laugh so hard from that...
I was watching Ant-man and the Wasp and one of the scenes in the end got me thinking. Some of the villains were in possession of a "truth serum" and had it administered to them (by the comic relief side-kicks) and were spilling there guts to police. My question was "Is ANY of what they are saying admissible as evidence or would it be considered coerced and be unadmissable? Not sure how to leave that as an abjection but I thought it would ask it anyway.
the entire problem with coercion is that it makes it unclear whether someone is speaking the truth or a fabricated lie that would prevent further coercion better than the truth would. if it can be demonstrated that the serum really makes them speak the truth rather than making them suggestible - that might be admissable.
The truth serum doesn't remove Miranda Rights, and they all chose to speak instead of remain silent, while fully aware that they were under the influence of a "truth serum". So while there's an argument for coercion, it isn't a very strong one. I'm sure that drugging people without consent is a crime though, but it doesn't mean they didn't confess of their own free will. Of course that also depends on the toxicology of the serum, if it does actually compell you to answer questions, then it may be considered coercion, though then we also have to consider whether they were given the serum with the intent of having them admit to criminal acts, or just for amusement, because that would change whether it'd be considered coercive.
Um, it was definitely not Truth Serum 😁😁😁
That's for a court to decide and both sides would argue on behalf of the people they represent the defense would argue it's inadmissible while the state would argue that it was admissable and the judge would take in all the facts and arguments and decide and remember just because there is precedent for a defense of coerscion doesn't mean it would work I think a better tactic would be intimidation and coerscion so that if the state argues that the drug would have still allowed them to remain silent which we have seen evidence to the contrary you could still argue that they were too scared to keep quiet as they were threatened by a known criminal and possible terrorist (even though they can't prove Scott was behind the mask whoever was in the suit broke the secovia accords making them a criminal and potential terrorist)
I know nothing about law other than watching other episodes of this but isn’t most testimony made outside the court seen as hearsay?
do "Primal Fear" please
I also want this!
Based on Television it seems everyone who graduats from Law School clerks for the Supreme Court.
Objection: Since the government, according to this show, created the plot, recruited the bomber, obtained the materials to make the bomb, made the bomb, and gave the bomb to the bomber, wouldn't entrapment still apply since there would be no conspiracy or plot without the federal agents?