@@papihuey A peremptory challenge is when one side gets to say "I don't want that juror" and does NOT have to give a reason -- which is okay, UNLESS the judge suspects there is a bad reason like racism or sexism (like if a lawyer only asked for black people to be removed). Each side has a LIMIT to how many peremptory challenges they have. / The opposite, for cause, means, for example, that the juror is too old OR not fair OR not able to be fair OR not able to be a juror for some other SPECIFIED reason.
At about 47:00 the defense attorney mentions several jurors that worked for or with himself, yet in the beginning the jury was asked if they knew any of the people associated with the case and they said "no".
Jurors are not always forthcoming. I’ve done jury selection in a very small town and they do not come forward with relationships. That’s why probing questions and individual questions are important. I’ve had cousins not admit relationship because they “weren’t close.”
Did you catch what the Defense Attorney said at 43:51 ? This is not yet a trial, yet he is already stacking the deck in his favor. He is describing why his client acted in self defense before the trial has started. He has already putting a thought into the jury's mindset.
This was very helpful for me to understand Voir dire better for my v Class, and helped put me to bed as well. I will say, good acting. I thought it was real at first then started hearing the names.
I stumbled upon this accidentally, but upon doing so I got tied up doing a few other things so it ended up playing for a bit in the background. Now, I don’t have any reason to comment here other than for the pure appreciation I have for the group that made this video in such a realistic manner and for the individuals (actors) that did such a fantastic job portraying their particular roles within this video. So, with that said, I wanted to commend everyone that was involved in making this video for their efforts that went into it. This was perhaps the best example of taking a mock situation and presenting it in a manner that didn’t seem “Hollywood” or “amateur”, but authentic and real (barring the naming of the plaintiff and the defendant, as well as, the subsequently named key witnesses and associates of course. However, given the facetiousness of the names used in this mock scenario, one must give props to the absolute professionalism displayed by all of the actors involved in this production because this so easily could’ve lost its effectiveness if any of them were to crack up at the hilarity of the fake names used. If they would’ve succumb to this and broke character, even for the slightest second, this wouldn’t have been the very real representation that this is.) Now then, I know that this is a rather long comment that no one will really care to read and I know that my opinion doesn’t matter much here, but that’s neither here or their and therefore isn’t the intent of my comment anyhow. That comment is meant for those individuals that made this and it is to express my appreciation for their efforts. Although this not something I needed education on nor is it anything that applies to anything I do for a living or that really appeals to my interests, the fact is that this is a very important event within the legal process. For that point, it is quite evident that the education that this video provides, by way of its superb accuracy in depicting all aspects of this Voir dire process, will assist countless people, albeit attorneys, judges, law enforcement, legal or judicial professionals of any kind or citizens that may be summoned to participate in this process, and that assistance will be paramount in the assurance that such a process will run smoothly and efficiently in the future if this video is properly provided to any of those individuals mentioned that may be unfamiliar with what to expect in this kind of situation the education they may need. Eliminating any hiccups or factors that may slowdown this process is, in my opinion, is extremely important because time is money and that means tax payer’s money...in other words, the faster that this process can be carried out, the better. And, I think everyone can agree that freeing up more funds to be adequately allotted to other things that it could be more necessarily appropriated to is, without a doubt, always a good thing! So once again, AWESOME JOB 👏🏻 to everyone that created this educational video. You’re work will be greatly appreciated by citizens across the nation, IF THIS VIDEO IS CIRCULATED APPROPRIATELY OF COURSE, whether or not citizens that never have to be a part of this process know ever know about this video or not. For that, I thank you and I say that on behalf of all Americans, for your time and efforts for that went into making this. Now...if you can only make an educational video detailing the events that were involved in the Mueller investigation. Lord knows that would save tax payers a fortune and, even more so, it would eliminate a plethora of headaches that far too often become unnecessarily abound when proper legal procedures are hijacked and turned into circus proceedings that are filled with nothing more than nonsensical garbage at the behest of corrupt agendas, albeit personal, political or otherwise! Haha In all seriousness though, thank you fir what you’ve done with this video and for any and all other educational videos you have made in this likeness! 👍🏻🙏🏻🙌🏻👏🏻👌🏻👍🏻🤓
Wow. That's some lame voir dire. Both of these lawyers present excellent examples of how to get jurors to reveal absolutely nothing about their biases.
I have been selected for jury duty next week. This is very informative! And I also learned that the four main Seinfeld characters went to Arkansas after prison and boy did it go bad! lol!
Jury Nullification is a legal concept attorneys and judges don't want you to know about as a juror. Regardless of what the jury instructions are, you can still find a "not guilty" verdict in lieu of a hung jury/mistrial.
@@Jblog100 It depends on the circumstances. If the law is unjust, nullify it. For example - If it's Darrell Brooks, with his 76 charges of assault - murder, who practically begged the jury to nullify - forget it, I'm returning a guilty verdict. If it's one of these _abortion is murder_ states - I don't care if they have iron-clad indisputable proof, I'm returning not guilty.
@@VioletWings1353You’re the one who doesn’t understand what an impartial jury is The commentor was saying that they took issue with the LAW, not the crime or alleged criminal
Well put-together demonstration of voir dire, though I was also kind of hoping that the overall group of jurors would be a little bit less "perfect". I still salute your video, though! :)
For the people that got excused to leave at the end around @1:10:46 the judge mentions to call before Thursday. Is that so they can be part of another trial questionnaire? Or just to be informed they don't need to come back? Like until the next time they are called for jury duty?
Some places do juries in “terms” that can last certain amounts of time. That means that when you are called to serve for a term, you’re in the pool for every case during that term. They can call you in for as many or as little cases as they want to. Most courthouses have electronic messaging systems now that notify you of when to report, but it used to be that you had to call the courthouse yourself to find out when you should report again.
They could have used the Simpson's. That would have been something, Even the Flintstones. Barney Rubble, got hit upside the head Fron Wilma, because Betty, dyed wilmas hair brunette, and bought her an outfit that matches hers, to in order to see if they look like twin Sisters. So Barney sneaks up behind Wilma, and pinches her butt. Wilma finds out it's not Fred, her Husband, and Barney gets the skillet upside his head. Wilma being Oblivious at the moment, that she looks like Betty😅🤣
+MR B if you watch the whole thing the crime is committed by Kosmo Kramer against Jerry Seinfeld lol i guess its just place holder names to make it a little less droll and maybe "protect" identity
Just the idea that twelve people almost completely ignorant of legal proceedings can hold in their hands the fate of an individual leaves me speechless !! Only in America!!!!! The rest of the world leaves laws and trials and judgements in the hands of competent professionals TRAINED IN THAT SPECIFIC FIELD !!!
@@maverick4220 that’s the English “ common law” system versus the Diritto Romano , on which are based most if not all western countries’ judicial systems .
@@itadrummer1 The idea that one person, employed by the government, gets to decide the fate of an individual accused by the government, is absurd and ripe for abuse. In American courtrooms the judge sits at the front of the room on an elevated platform, and the prosecution and the defense sit next to each other, literally at the same level, both in equal positions in relation to the judge. In Dutch courtrooms the prosecutor and the judge sit besides each other at the front of the room on an elevated platform, both looking down at the defendant. It is not possible to be a 'competent professional' at deciding which evidence is trustworthy and how long someone should be locked in a cage for. Experienced and trained, sure, but that's not as good a thing as you seem to think it is.
I would rather have the Roman Law code than the Anglo-Saxon Common Law! The idea alone of twelve people, more than likely completely ignorant of the most basic notions of jurisprudence, having the right AND the power to decide over one’s life just terrifies me !!! I’d rather go through the European law and court systems, should I have to deal with the law!!!
I watched the entire video and was a little disappointed. I was half expecting the procedure to start out with the Judge asking specific questions to specific perspective jurors. Questions like where do you work, what you like to do with leisure time, hobbies, travel experiences, etc., as well as some legal questions. And then the attorneys would also move right down the line asking various questions. That was my experience when I went through voir dire. That didn't happen at all here. It's been a long time since I've been called so maybe it's different now. Maybe the juror questionnaire covers all that now. I don't really remember filling one out.
I was onboard with this Skit/Example, until the defense attorney revealed that 3 jurors either work or worked for him. Those are impossible odds. And only two jurors struck, one who didn’t want to view evidence and the other who didn’t have child care.
@19:40 "If you have a reasonable doubt in the graver transactions of life such that you would have in a graver transaction of life then we have not proved our case" I have no idea what she was trying to say. I'm not convinced she knew 🤣
This is a job interview. What if we don’t want the job? Why do we have to lie to get out of it? Why can’t we just say “I don’t want to be here”. Why can’t we exercise our 4th amendment rights and just refuse to awnser your question.
Hmmm, I like the way in which this court is organized. Wow defensive murder is a super heavy one. Must consider all evidence, plaintiffs character, history, circumstances leading up to this and so much more. Peoples lives are on the line. I Mean defensive murder how? Who attacked or presented imminent threat to life first? Why? So much that you got to consider here.
I'm confused on the blue and red chips I'm under the assumption is Democrat or Republican if I was on one side or the other then you should be one solid color for my appears
+esj8341 is 80% of this necessary? no, but if you might go to jail for 3 years its worth a few afternoons to hear what these lottery selected plebeians think
A white male Judge.....that's getting more rare in our Leftist Judicial system The AGs in Chicago and southern poverty of NY have lost any public trust by dropping Smollett case and spending over a year trying to get thee Presidents tax returns when he gets audited q year. Reo Nadler or Rep Schiff would be notified if there was a problem. I wonder if the Floyd George can get an unbias jury.?
Problem with that female juror at 1:15:12 - convictions are not on - "walks like a duck quacks like a duck it's [probably] a duck"., like to see attorneys voir dire of that juror.
OMG, I stumbled upon this video because I just received a jury summons, so I thought this video was real until I heard that the defendant was Kosmo Kramer and the victim, Jerry Seinfeld. 😄
Kind of like a team captain. The court clerks will need to communicate with the jury as a whole. People that want to be the foreman are a bit like the teacher's pet. Careful with an overzealous foreman. Hung juries are definitely not wins.
+Jerome Loch My sister lives in Arkansas and she thinks these jokes are funny. So do I. Thanks for the humor! By the way, the toothbrush WAS invented in Arkansas. Really. LOL
They can kick you off with preumptory strikes and not need a reason for cause to do it. If you give the impression that your interests will conflict with your ability to remain unbiased, then you will likely be dismissed from the jury.
this is just the type of social situation id close up in. i wouldnt say anything and if called on, say the least possible. id feel more comfortable if it was just one one one.
Yes,it is real. Sadly Kramer was convincted of murdering Jerry two years ago. His motivation was that he had fallen on hard financial times and Seinfeld refused to do reunion shows.
This is a genuine cinematic masterpiece. It's insane how real it feels.
I thought this was real until they said Jerry Sinfeild.
except that the prosecutor said the defendent was in his 70s LOL he looks like in his 40s
I have to do a mock voir dire in my class today and this was extremely helpful, thank you so much
A rough breakdown for future viewers:
29:50 strike for cause
32:20 objection
1:00:00 strike for cause
1:00:34 peremptories strikes
hey can you explain to me the peremptory challenge again? I don't get it from the video
@@papihuey A peremptory challenge is when one side gets to say "I don't want that juror" and does NOT have to give a reason -- which is okay, UNLESS the judge suspects there is a bad reason like racism or sexism (like if a lawyer only asked for black people to be removed). Each side has a LIMIT to how many peremptory challenges they have. / The opposite, for cause, means, for example, that the juror is too old OR not fair OR not able to be fair OR not able to be a juror for some other SPECIFIED reason.
At about 47:00 the defense attorney mentions several jurors that worked for or with himself, yet in the beginning the jury was asked if they knew any of the people associated with the case and they said "no".
Fucking disgusting
This is a mock jury selection So that may have been deliberate to show help more probing questions will reveal potential conflicts.
Jurors are not always forthcoming. I’ve done jury selection in a very small town and they do not come forward with relationships. That’s why probing questions and individual questions are important. I’ve had cousins not admit relationship because they “weren’t close.”
Did you catch what the Defense Attorney said at 43:51 ? This is not yet a trial, yet he is already stacking the deck in his favor. He is describing why his client acted in self defense before the trial has started. He has already putting a thought into the jury's mindset.
... that is kind of his job my man.
I couldn't sit through this and listen to someone talk non stop for an hour
lawyering, its ugly but someone's got to do the hocus pocus
This was very helpful for me to understand Voir dire better for my v
Class, and helped put me to bed as well. I will say, good acting. I thought it was real at first then started hearing the names.
Not the best episode of Seinfeld I’ve ever seen but I’m sticking with it.
I stumbled upon this accidentally, but upon doing so I got tied up doing a few other things so it ended up playing for a bit in the background. Now, I don’t have any reason to comment here other than for the pure appreciation I have for the group that made this video in such a realistic manner and for the individuals (actors) that did such a fantastic job portraying their particular roles within this video. So, with that said, I wanted to commend everyone that was involved in making this video for their efforts that went into it. This was perhaps the best example of taking a mock situation and presenting it in a manner that didn’t seem “Hollywood” or “amateur”, but authentic and real (barring the naming of the plaintiff and the defendant, as well as, the subsequently named key witnesses and associates of course. However, given the facetiousness of the names used in this mock scenario, one must give props to the absolute professionalism displayed by all of the actors involved in this production because this so easily could’ve lost its effectiveness if any of them were to crack up at the hilarity of the fake names used. If they would’ve succumb to this and broke character, even for the slightest second, this wouldn’t have been the very real representation that this is.)
Now then, I know that this is a rather long comment that no one will really care to read and I know that my opinion doesn’t matter much here, but that’s neither here or their and therefore isn’t the intent of my comment anyhow. That comment is meant for those individuals that made this and it is to express my appreciation for their efforts. Although this not something I needed education on nor is it anything that applies to anything I do for a living or that really appeals to my interests, the fact is that this is a very important event within the legal process. For that point, it is quite evident that the education that this video provides, by way of its superb accuracy in depicting all aspects of this Voir dire process, will assist countless people, albeit attorneys, judges, law enforcement, legal or judicial professionals of any kind or citizens that may be summoned to participate in this process, and that assistance will be paramount in the assurance that such a process will run smoothly and efficiently in the future if this video is properly provided to any of those individuals mentioned that may be unfamiliar with what to expect in this kind of situation the education they may need. Eliminating any hiccups or factors that may slowdown this process is, in my opinion, is extremely important because time is money and that means tax payer’s money...in other words, the faster that this process can be carried out, the better. And, I think everyone can agree that freeing up more funds to be adequately allotted to other things that it could be more necessarily appropriated to is, without a doubt, always a good thing!
So once again, AWESOME JOB 👏🏻 to everyone that created this educational video. You’re work will be greatly appreciated by citizens across the nation, IF THIS VIDEO IS CIRCULATED APPROPRIATELY OF COURSE, whether or not citizens that never have to be a part of this process know ever know about this video or not. For that, I thank you and I say that on behalf of all Americans, for your time and efforts for that went into making this.
Now...if you can only make an educational video detailing the events that were involved in the Mueller investigation. Lord knows that would save tax payers a fortune and, even more so, it would eliminate a plethora of headaches that far too often become unnecessarily abound when proper legal procedures are hijacked and turned into circus proceedings that are filled with nothing more than nonsensical garbage at the behest of corrupt agendas, albeit personal, political or otherwise! Haha
In all seriousness though, thank you fir what you’ve done with this video and for any and all other educational videos you have made in this likeness! 👍🏻🙏🏻🙌🏻👏🏻👌🏻👍🏻🤓
Mueller investigation? You mean the one where Bob didn't have a clue what Fusion GPS was?
Find something to do
Nigga wrote a whole chapter
This is a fascinating insight into the Voir Dire process.
Wow. The person who made this must be a huge Seinfeld fan.
They had to do something to keep it interesting. People will be listening for familiar tv names and maybe other references.
When I was in law school they had all kinds of mock trials. There was even a Harry Potter trial.
I thought so too. Almost believed it lol
How about the guy that claimed his kids are "perfect" and never fight? I would have flagged him as dishonest, sarcastic, or inappropriate.
Correct! He lied!
In King County (WA) the bailiffs line the jurors up before entering the courtroom for voir dire so that the lineup is smooth and efficient.
My Jury selection for 2 days went exactly like this
wallabing I'm going to do this soon too
Wow. That's some lame voir dire. Both of these lawyers present excellent examples of how to get jurors to reveal absolutely nothing about their biases.
Tea
agreed.
Educational. Always good to see a pro forma process carried out.
I have been selected for jury duty next week. This is very informative! And I also learned that the four main Seinfeld characters went to Arkansas after prison and boy did it go bad! lol!
Jury Nullification is a legal concept attorneys and judges don't want you to know about as a juror. Regardless of what the jury instructions are, you can still find a "not guilty" verdict in lieu of a hung jury/mistrial.
but why would you?
@@Jblog100 To shrink the Prosecutor's erection of course.
@@Jblog100 It depends on the circumstances. If the law is unjust, nullify it. For example - If it's Darrell Brooks, with his 76 charges of assault - murder, who practically begged the jury to nullify - forget it, I'm returning a guilty verdict. If it's one of these _abortion is murder_ states - I don't care if they have iron-clad indisputable proof, I'm returning not guilty.
@@mallninja9805 let's all hope you're never on a jury as you don't have any concept of what an impartial jury is. 🙄
@@VioletWings1353You’re the one who doesn’t understand what an impartial jury is
The commentor was saying that they took issue with the LAW, not the crime or alleged criminal
Well put-together demonstration of voir dire, though I was also kind of hoping that the overall group of jurors would be a little bit less "perfect". I still salute your video, though! :)
Stacked that jury with the ladies for sure.
10:46 "when Kramer told the police that SIENFELD was a CRACK PUSHER and then shot him"
Me: 🤣🤣🤣
For the people that got excused to leave at the end around @1:10:46 the judge mentions to call before Thursday. Is that so they can be part of another trial questionnaire? Or just to be informed they don't need to come back? Like until the next time they are called for jury duty?
Some places do juries in “terms” that can last certain amounts of time. That means that when you are called to serve for a term, you’re in the pool for every case during that term. They can call you in for as many or as little cases as they want to. Most courthouses have electronic messaging systems now that notify you of when to report, but it used to be that you had to call the courthouse yourself to find out when you should report again.
What are the chances of everyone involved in the case having the same name as sitcom characters?!? I’m stunned! Life imitating art I tell you!
This video gave me significant shrinkage.
your comment made me LOL literally. :) (I'm a Seinfeld viewer just cuz my dad was a die hard fan lol.)
I have jury duty orientation tomorrow too. Sigh
I report for jury selection tomorrow.
I get this is a "Mock Trial" but did they have to use Seinfeld characters?
They could have used the Simpson's.
That would have been something,
Even the Flintstones. Barney Rubble, got hit upside the head Fron Wilma, because Betty, dyed wilmas hair brunette, and bought her an outfit that matches hers, to in order to see if they look like twin Sisters.
So Barney sneaks up behind Wilma, and pinches her butt.
Wilma finds out it's not Fred, her Husband, and Barney gets the skillet upside his head.
Wilma being Oblivious at the moment, that she looks like Betty😅🤣
Kool cool
The goal is to find truth, not to find innocence or guilt
cosmo cramer? really? lol
+MR B if you watch the whole thing the crime is committed by Kosmo Kramer against Jerry Seinfeld lol i guess its just place holder names to make it a little less droll and maybe "protect" identity
right
No, it is actually real. Kramer (Real name Michael Richards) was convincted of murdering Jerry Seinfeld two years ago
@@mah38900 Omg it’s just the names of the characters from the TV series “Seinfeld.” It’s just a MOCK jury selection.
5:40 "Mrs. Bush will be representing the state" (gag *fart noise*)
the judge is sticking it to me, Jerry!
15:35 "We do have a very good system of justice in this country" that was fucking laughable.
Just the idea that twelve people almost completely ignorant of legal proceedings can hold in their hands the fate of an individual leaves me speechless !! Only in America!!!!! The rest of the world leaves laws and trials and judgements in the hands of competent professionals TRAINED IN THAT SPECIFIC FIELD !!!
@@itadrummer1 Not even just in America, it's also in the UK.
@@maverick4220 that’s the English “ common law” system versus the Diritto Romano , on which are based most if not all western countries’ judicial systems .
@@itadrummer1 The idea that one person, employed by the government, gets to decide the fate of an individual accused by the government, is absurd and ripe for abuse.
In American courtrooms the judge sits at the front of the room on an elevated platform, and the prosecution and the defense sit next to each other, literally at the same level, both in equal positions in relation to the judge.
In Dutch courtrooms the prosecutor and the judge sit besides each other at the front of the room on an elevated platform, both looking down at the defendant.
It is not possible to be a 'competent professional' at deciding which evidence is trustworthy and how long someone should be locked in a cage for. Experienced and trained, sure, but that's not as good a thing as you seem to think it is.
Any geniuses want to put forth a better system?
What have you done Kramer?!
good luck with all that jerry
I would rather have the Roman Law code than the Anglo-Saxon Common Law! The idea alone of twelve people, more than likely completely ignorant of the most basic notions of jurisprudence, having the right AND the power to decide over one’s life just terrifies me !!! I’d rather go through the European law and court systems, should I have to deal with the law!!!
called in to answer under oath questions about you and your family ? seems ridiculous and unconstitutional to me
Wait... that guy is 70 years old?? What???
😂😂😂
I watched the entire video and was a little disappointed. I was half expecting the procedure to start out with the Judge asking specific questions to specific perspective jurors. Questions like where do you work, what you like to do with leisure time, hobbies, travel experiences, etc., as well as some legal questions. And then the attorneys would also move right down the line asking various questions. That was my experience when I went through voir dire. That didn't happen at all here. It's been a long time since I've been called so maybe it's different now. Maybe the juror questionnaire covers all that now. I don't really remember filling one out.
What if I'm not fair and impartial and quickly jump to conclusions and stick to them through shear stubbornness?
Then you’re a shit juror… seems an obvious answer 😅
I was onboard with this Skit/Example, until the defense attorney revealed that 3 jurors either work or worked for him. Those are impossible odds. And only two jurors struck, one who didn’t want to view evidence and the other who didn’t have child care.
She summed up thirty minutes in 10 seconds.....
Wow.
Even better, find a documentary “Inside the jury room.” First time real jury deliberations had been filmed.
Three people on the jury say they have worked with the defense attorney. If I was the prosecutor those three would be red flags to me to start.
I agree 100%. Those three jurors would be excused in a real case.
judge was about to laugh multiple times
like jerry would say "good luck with all that"
Newman did it! He always hated Jerry, and was jealous of Kramer.
Most boring Seinfeld episode ever!
@19:40 "If you have a reasonable doubt in the graver transactions of life such that you would have in a graver transaction of life then we have not proved our case"
I have no idea what she was trying to say. I'm not convinced she knew 🤣
This is a job interview. What if we don’t want the job? Why do we have to lie to get out of it? Why can’t we just say “I don’t want to be here”. Why can’t we exercise our 4th amendment rights and just refuse to awnser your question.
I should have known that this was a mock selection when I realised that Michael J Fox was the judge
12:43 a lil Freudian slip
Forgot the rest of his name. He's Cosmo Kramer "The Assman"!
COSMO KRAMER!! Hell Yes!!
Hearing "Kramer" got my biases triggered. For one thing, he could at least knock.
29:00 The gentleman in the back can't put his hands where they belong
May be trying not to laugh.
Hmmm, I like the way in which this court is organized. Wow defensive murder is a super heavy one. Must consider all evidence, plaintiffs character, history, circumstances leading up to this and so much more. Peoples lives are on the line. I Mean defensive murder how? Who attacked or presented imminent threat to life first? Why? So much that you got to consider here.
Better actors than the real show.
Good acting! It seemed real.
Jerry drives a coupe deville?
Why was the women in the black vest wearing a shirt sporting a cat wearing a witch’s hat?
Is the defendants name Cosmo Kramer??? Seriously?
That defense attorney knows half the city.
Three of them on the jury. The state attorney has to be concerned with seeing that.
I'm confused on the blue and red chips I'm under the assumption is Democrat or Republican if I was on one side or the other then you should be one solid color for my appears
This has Arkansas written all over it.
Peggy Hill? This is brilliant. 😂
The guy with the perfect kids and step-kid, oh brother! Lol
17:06 good one - goes to the probability of faulty eyewitness testimony -
Is it necessary for the defendant to sit through the entire trial proceeding.
+esj8341 is 80% of this necessary? no, but if you might go to jail for 3 years its worth a few afternoons to hear what these lottery selected plebeians think
Trial usually starts immediately after selection.
What are the red and blue things pulled from the box when selecting jurors??
HiediGetsHealthy the jurors get selected and that's how they pick the people to be jurors
And there is someone by the name of Goerge Kostansa testifying, where is Elaine? haha
Your Honor, I have had a negative experience with Mr. Kostansa. I bought a faulty computer from him years ago.
"Cosmo Kramer"?! from SEINFELD ??..
That judge is easy on the eye, anyone? no? just me?
He is cute pie behond reasons doubt. LOL
Girl I was saying da same damn thing😜
@@supermelodia facts 😆
A white male Judge.....that's getting more rare in our Leftist Judicial system The AGs in Chicago and southern poverty of NY have lost any public trust by dropping Smollett case and spending over a year trying to get thee Presidents tax returns when he gets audited q year. Reo Nadler or Rep Schiff would be notified if there was a problem. I wonder if the Floyd George can get an unbias jury.?
Juror Casillas is dismissed. 🤣
Versus Cosmo Kramer. Beautiful.
In Texas we pronounce it as Voir Dare. . .
They do a murder trial in one afternoon there?
They are just picking jurors.
@@throwmilly no, they've finished jury selection. The judge says this case should take the afternoon to try.
Problem with that female juror at 1:15:12 - convictions are not on - "walks like a duck quacks like a duck it's [probably] a duck"., like to see attorneys voir dire of that juror.
These must have been the scenes cut from the final Seinfeld episode.
Hearing the names of Seinfeld characters really takes me out of it, lol
Why should they be impartial since it's the government that is threatening them with jail time?
I would just tell them, i am a born again Christian and only God judges, i refuse to judge anyone.
This is a real case an I Michael Beal will study the case in a real room.
Ms Hill played the mommy card
OMG, I stumbled upon this video because I just received a jury summons, so I thought this video was real until I heard that the defendant was Kosmo Kramer and the victim, Jerry Seinfeld. 😄
OR SHOULD HAVE TO ASK ABOUT THE JURY BELIEVES IN THE CON > OF AMERICA ??? and their 1st AND 5th AMEMENTS ?????? PLEASE RESPOND !!!!
Well done. Except real voir dire is never this, uh, thrilling.
Is this an actual void dire?
I bet it was Bob Sacamano
Damn dude, Kramer did Jerry so wrong.
He had it coming!
17:00 what is the foreman?
Kind of like a team captain. The court clerks will need to communicate with the jury as a whole. People that want to be the foreman are a bit like the teacher's pet. Careful with an overzealous foreman. Hung juries are definitely not wins.
Do all people from Arkansas have that speech impediment?
+Frapzoid It is not a speech impediment. It is a dialect.
+Jerome Loch My sister lives in Arkansas and she thinks these jokes are funny. So do I. Thanks for the humor! By the way, the toothbrush WAS invented in Arkansas. Really. LOL
Heather Wanamaker
No dear, it IS a speech impediment. Not only do they speak funny their grammar is awful too. Defend that BITCH!
this is annoying, i don't wanna be there.
Where is Dolores?
47:25 the judge is very amused 😆😆
Ahh yes. The classic “contest” episode.🤔
Sound was indeed bad, yet the TRUTH was told! Clearly, unjust...
I love Forensic science would I get kicked off the jury
They can kick you off with preumptory strikes and not need a reason for cause to do it. If you give the impression that your interests will conflict with your ability to remain unbiased, then you will likely be dismissed from the jury.
I was in a hospital and I thought that I was in jail
this is just the type of social situation id close up in. i wouldnt say anything and if called on, say the least possible. id feel more comfortable if it was just one one one.
Lots of Mini Mouths has jurors speak up and tell them how you really feel! The 1st amendment still applies in America for now!....
I knew Kramer would eventually kill Jerry Seinfeld.
Well done!
Wait a second! Is this a real courtroom voir dire? Jerry Seinfeld and Cosmo Creamer?
Yes,it is real. Sadly Kramer was convincted of murdering Jerry two years ago. His motivation was that he had fallen on hard financial times and Seinfeld refused to do reunion shows.
Weren't you listening? Kramer was tired of Jerry selling crack in his neighborhood
LOL
This is a mock deal here.
For real though