F. Lee Bailey CROSS-EXAMINES a witness
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- He put on a legal clinic during the OJ Simpson murder trial in '95. A mountain of evidence was stacked against Simpson, but the defense obscured the facts, played with words, and out-lawyered the DA's office. Bailey died at age 87 on 3 June 2021. His obituary:
www.usatoday.c...
Simpson was a jealous ex-husband who had beat his wife before. His blood was found at the crime scene. The only other blood there was from the two knifed murder victims. The blood of both victims was also found in OJ's car and home, along with OJ's blood dripped at his home. The limo driver, who took OJ to the airport that night for his alibi, said OJ seemed hot and nervous and guarded a backpack that was later missing. Why did it vanish in two days unless he threw it out at the airport? That explains why no murder weapon or bloody clothes were ever found. Also, his footprints, in a very rare size 12 Bruno Magli shoes, were also at the crime scene. The shoes vanished after the crime as well. He also had a bad cut on his left hand two days after the murders, but said he didn't know how he cut it, and then changed it to he cut it on his cellphone. It was a very deep cut and his cellphone had smooth edges. His blood at the scene was also to the left of his shoe prints, perfectly consistent with his left hand bleeding at the scene.
Verdict: NOT guilty. That's the US jury system, where rhetoric can beat facts at times, just as in politics.
Best book on the OJ trial?
"Outrage" by the late Vincent Bugliosi, the author of "Helter Skelter."
Alternate video title suggested by a viewer: "F. Lee Bailey creates SMOKE SCREENS"
As the story goes, one time a lawyer told the jury to imagine the real murderer walking through that door in the next 10 seconds. He told them that he would. When some looked, he used that to show reasonable doubt. But the jury convicted. They noticed the defendant never looked.
Nice one.
@@LawByStan Yeah, I forgot how good that was. Thanks. I just pinned it.
@@StephenDoty84
Got to feel bad for Sgt. Rossi here, what a rough experience during that cross.
@@dfls5069 Yeah, even when Rossi said, "I didn't say that," he did say it.
Bailey could have had the reporter read back the transcript, but charged ahead instead.
They don't make attorneys like Bailey anymore ! The mannerisms , monotone and smooth style . Top 10 trial lawyers ever !
Hi Matt who were the other big trial lawyers of Baileys status during the 60's and 70's
@@98Ashb Tony Serra (perhaps the only lawyer who could win a trial while wearing a florescent green suit with lapels wider than the door of a Cadillac El Dorado), Gary Spence, William Kunstler and Melvin Belli come to mind.
Hi Rod, i'll look into them thanks very much for your reply
@@98Ashb By the end of the '70s Racehorse Haynes was ahead of Bailey. Racehorse won impossible acquittals for T. Cullen Davis and lady who shot her husband. Bailey lost the Patty Hearst case and his star dimmed. Everyone wanted to hire Racehorse. I made a good video on him a few weeks ago, with rare news clips not found on UA-cam elsewhere.
Most of the top 10s were Simpsons lawyers
Johnnie Cochran, F. Lee Bailey and Barry Scheck all did an outstanding job of illustrating how badly the police botched this case. The judge even ruled that the police were AT LEAST reckless, which is a higher level of culpability than negligent.
hey asss wipe. what about CARL "the truth" Douglas??? he was a great lawyer also
The holy trinity of trial dominating whoop ass!
Don't forget Carl Douglas! He was great too.
Yea we can’t forget about Carl. His ways may be vile at times but hey it worked.
I have watched this dozens of times!!!! Taking nothing away from Cochran, as he did an outstanding job... but, F. Lee... sheesh oh man!!!!!! I’d hate to be crossed examined by him!!!! He’s a genius... he gives you NO TIME to think of (not a fabrication), the proper reply...
You can really be telling the truth... but, one slip of the tongue.. he’ll DESTROY you!!!! ❤️ him
Yeah, and I like how Bailey senses when to stop asking leading questions, as the witness expects on cross, and let the witness hang himself by asking an open-ended question suddenly, "And how is that possible, please tell me?"
Best Cross examination I have ever seen. It just shows that when an attorney invest real time in a case he can bring doubt to almost anything.
Yeah, you can imagine lightbulbs going off in jurors' minds when Bailey said the cop knew he should have stayed out of the crime scene, "for fear of ruining the case." But he went in and let others in, so he ruined the case, I guess.
credibility of the witness is a big key in most cases . brilliant lawyer
Antonio Amaro Too bad the masses don't understand that!
Antonio Amaro Yup.
"So if the killer wasn't a dog, then somebody had to go out the back end didn't they?" ... priceless
man that guy doing the questioning is very intimidating, he could make me think im guilty even if i was innocent lol
+tim707max He is the most famous lawyer of all time. He is the inspiration for the "lawyer talk" in movies. Its his style that started hollywood lawyer techniques.
+80's Electronic Music Production
No, he's not the most famous lawyer of all time. Hint: The initials C.D. and A.L. and just plain C. Those 3 are.
@Butt Butt Yeah, Adams must have been good too. The initials I wrote above, as the 3 most famous, btw, were:
Clarence Darrow, Abraham Lincoln, and Cicero.
That guy :) :) :)
So, he could make you feel guilty too, eh? That raises a good point. Where were you on the night of the murders? Can anyone corroborate it?
OJ has said he's still looking for the real killers.
[And rumor has it, he has taken a mirror out of his room. ]
F.Lee Bailey is probably one of the most admired Legal Minds in our History. He is unique a great credit to his profession. Bailey is brilliant, colorful articulate just the best and sharper then anyone. I enjoyed this very much. Every Lawyer I have ever spoken to is in awe of this Man.
Ohhhh to those who think F. Lee is a hack or "all show". One would be hard pressed to not at least admit that this guy was well prepared. He is also very tenacious without getting overly angry. Furthermore, he is masterful at drawing out facts and highlighting those facts in the moment without too much theater enough so the jury recalls them when he uses them for their real purpose later. He's a Rubik's cube master where the "set up" is as important as the "play".
I definitely agree I feel you won the case in so many different ways totally prepares knows the answer before you even ask the question the true master f lee Bailey is simply the best
If not Rubik's Cube, he's good a Whack-a-Mole... Each witness answer is a "mole."
Good point about Bailey not getting angry. That would make him look bad to the jury, I think. He's firm, combative, yet composed and rational throughout. Temperament is a key ingredient for a lawyer, one NOT taught in law school, but essential in real life in and out of court, I'd say.
Timothy Duzenski he's a master at casting doubt ! It's needed though especially to help an innocent person and it's too bad he could be bought and not fight for the poor man who really needs the help ! OJ was never gonna be found guilty anyway ! OJ the murderer ! Why not he got away with all the other violence against her !
OJ is guilty. F Lee Baily is brilliant. To this day, F Lee Bailey insists the press has given a biased representation of the case. He said he told the media that a not guilty verdict was coming and it would take less than three days. He was right.
this dude is masterful at attaining all the information needed to cast just enough doubt on a jury....and its brilliant
"Do you determine without asking questions whether witnesses have information?" Good Lord that was gold.
Yeah, he's a master at thinking on his feet and finding the right words for the applicable thought.
Lmao
Notice as he chews up and spits out every witness with methodical precision....simply brillant...
Yes, his facility with words is amazing. (He was an English major at Harvard and wanted to be a writer -- a clue perhaps.)
His tempo is so stress inducing...it makes the witness want to answer the questions at the same tempo and not give consideration to their answers.I got nervous just from watching it.
Good observation.
If you see the other video on UA-cam, on Bailey's "advice to lawyers," you'll hear him talk about how question speed is vital to his tactic.
He also makes great use of "leading questions", getting the witness to give him an answer more in line with what he wants. Doing so, Bailey is able to get the testimony to develop and flow in the way he wants it to
theres very much subconscious dynamics involved in examining and cross examining a witness. i bet the witness didn't even realize he was allowing lee to set the speed in which the cross examination was being conducted.
lol yeah, he's brilliant
F. Lee Bailey kicks ass, and he didn't not even start on Fuhrman yet!
One hell of a lawyer! RIP F. Lee Bailey.
BEST DEFENSE ATTORNEY THAT EVER WALKED THE PLANET!
MUFASA'S DAUGHTER Patty Hearst. He lost her case.
You dumb
@@TrekJohnDoe great lawyers litigate sentencing, not so much beat cases.
Enough about Racehorse Haynes, Percy Foreman, Gerry Spence, and Vincent Bugliosi, all of whom are probably more effective at trial than Bailey was. I'd pick those four over Bailey myself, if each were in their prime.
“How is that possible, please tell me”
HAHAHA
After the cross examination concluded sgt Rossi went home to fetch his shine box.
I love F.Lee Bailey The media exaggerates They are jealous and always have been, besides he looks Great today and sharp as a whip does not look like a raging Alcoholic he is 79 years old an a credit to a brilliant career and mind. His oratory skills are 2nd to no one. He is # 1 still is read all his Books love him. Thanks for uploading.
The talented F Lee Bailey. Well they don't make them like that anymore.
5:48 FLB "boxed him in" perfectly.
OJ sitting there like.. these the best lawyers money can buy!
As an expert witness i can say that my go-to move is to take a moment before i answer. It throws the attorney’s rhythm off.
With F. Lee Bailey's sharp questioning, Johnnie Cochran's closing statements that showed the differences between "probably guilty" and "guilt beyond all reasonable doubt", and Robert Shapiro's matter-of-fact approach, I can see why O.J. Simpson was acquitted, even though the media sensationalized the trial. I feel good about the outcome, although very sad for the victims.
Barry Scheck's closing argument was the most convincing, I thought, as I watched the TV trial in real time.
@@StephenDoty84 I applaud you, Mr. Doty, for not only appreciating Barry Schreck's testimony, but for understanding all his DNA mumbo-jumbo talk, and for not falling asleep during his long-winded diatribes.
One of his tips for cross: You can't corner the witness until you seal off all the means of escape first.
Lawyers tend to get impatient and jump to ask the key question without boxing in the witness first.
This takes some forethought and scheming at home...
I love how cocky the witness is in the beginning and then, very quickly, turns into pure gelly.
leave Bailey alone whether you think oj is guilty or not Bailey was a pretty exemplary lawyer
+Momin Alam
For the Chris-Crocker meme, it's...
LEAVE BAILEY ALONE! ;)
Lls
I'm pretty sure Bailey has been disbarred for misconduct.
False,he was given a case by Shapiro to defend a Pharmacutical owner from Montreal.The payment was 4 million in stocks,that were falling.The guy was basically acquitted.The stocks grew to $24 million.Shapiro claim $20 mill. was his he paid Bailey 4.The Gov't then claims $20 mill was a fine.Bailey stood his ground,eventually he lost to Shapiro and the Gov't.He was never paid any fees. Massachusetts disbarred him.Right after his destruction of Fhurman.
+philip williams His finances your alluding to have what exactly do do with his skills as a lawyer again ?
🤦♂️ if I was that cop I would of played dead right there on that seat
Bailey: Officer, wasn't the crime scene error ridden enough without you pouring GASOLINE on the fire?
Marcia Clark: Objection, your honor, inflammatory!
This is how conversations are after parent teacher conferences
Bailey’s smirk and occasional tilted smile are undoubtedly effective in cross examination, before he utters a question.
"So if the killer wasn't a 🐕... "💀💀💀💀💀
Bailey just dominated that courtroom. He has a great ability to recall and use prior testimony and other evidence on the fly in his cross examination questions and also is great at building a box around his witness constructed with the answers to his quick proper yes/no questions in order to set up a broad open ended question, all the while secure in knowing any answer the witness gives will be devastating to his opponent. Normally, asking an open ended question not answered by a yes or no is not a good idea on cross-examination because of the risk of the witness springing a damaging surprise. But, if done like Bailey does here in cross-examining the detective about the foot print evidence (or lack thereof), it is low risk and very effective - also best done when the judge is allowing the cross examiner fairly broad leeway in asking what otherwise might be argumentative questions, like the judge was during these segments of the trial.
Good point, spoken like a lawyer. And the witness paused when Bailey stopped asking leading questions and said, "And how is that possible...?"
Bailey: "You never asked her a question. How could she indicate anything?" [8:04]
Furhman: "As far as I'm concerned."
Bailey: [Thinking faster on his feet] "Do you determine without asking questions whether witnesses have information?"
Easily the greatest cross examiner in American history
Yeah, his speed, vocabulary, ability to think on his feet, and follow up on bad answers immediately is amazing; all while keeping his composure and fending off annoying, bogus objections of 'argumentative", etc.
Baileys'' cross is the best entertainment.
Gotta say Mr Bailey adopted a very courteous manner throughout. Clever lawyer. He takes small points and makes them broad. Pretty clever.
+Edward Kirkhope LOL he isn't making things broad he is attempting to make the witnesses lose credibility. Anytime the witness stumbles and he knows he can make something out of it he pursues it. It's like when a shark smells blood he uses the witnesses stumbling points as a way to make them look bad to the jury.
I agree with you. It is by broadening out the discrepancies that he shows the 'stumbling' of the cops. What might be considered discrete mistakes when broadened out appear egregious. 'If the killer wasn't the dog then ............'. Terrific lawyer. I deplore the outcome of the case but can only say the defence lawyers did their job with great skill despite the odds being against them right after OJ when on his car ride whilst being watched by millions.
"how is that possible, Seargent. Please tell me." that is HILARIOUS.
Yes, it blindsides the witness too, since it violates a general rule of cross-x.
It's amazing how time changes perceptions. At the time of the trial, the vast majority of media outlets and commentators lampooned Bailey's performance as that of a washed-up, semi-senile buffoon. Now, more than 25 years later, it's regarded as a clinic on trial lawyering.
You say they "lampooned Bailey's performance." Can you support that? And for which deed? You presume he gave just one "performance" to lampoon, singular. He did many things over several days. Some were good, some less so. He argued motions in limine, which were not lampooned. His cross of Sgt. Rossi was well received at the time and got high praise. Yes, he was criticized for his long cross of Fuhrman which didn't yield the fireworks the media wanted, because Fuhrman kept his composure, but his cross proved useful for the defense. At the time, his media critics were not considered knowledgeable also and were taken lightly.
@@StephenDoty84
1. "Can you support that?"
Yeah, I'll be sure to take an hour or two out of my day to go searching for obscure media clips that I watched 27 years ago so that I can prove a point to a stranger on the internet.
2. "He argued motions in limine."
LOL. Yeah, that's totally what people were talking about. Ninety-nine percent of the public doesn't even know what a motion in limine is, and no one cared. The public cares about cross-examination. That's what they know, and that's what they find interesting.
3. Fuhrman was the most important prosecution witness because he claimed to have found the bloody glove. So the cross of Fuhrman was the most heavily covered part of the trial, and the consensus was the Bailey blew it. Of course, he didn't. It was a very good cross because Bailey knew something the public didn't: they had the tape.
@@jgc1077 I see, so you are relying on hearsay from unknown journalists who may know nothing with no special added knowledge on your part. That gives your opinion very little weight. So you added some snarkiness of tone to fill that gap.
1. So you can't support it with anything in particular, as I suspected.
2. If they watched the trial or its highlights on the news, they saw Bailey shine at something OTHER than cross-examination. The point is you were wrong to limit what the public "finds interesting " to cross examination and to say "no one cared" about his motion in limine. The thousands who have watched and liked the UA-cam video "Bailey - Argues in court" indicate how wrong you are on that. He is arguing a motion there, silly, not cross-examining anyone. That went over your head. That was some of his best work in the trial. So, you don't know what you are talking about.
3. Fuhrman was not more important as a witness than the forensic DNA experts who had OJ's blood at the scene, regardless of the glove. His blood was on the ground and on the gate, and the victims's blood was in his car and home. That was evidence of his guilt by itself. (Screw the ridiculous speculation about the glove being planted because Fuhrman used the N-word in unrelated matters years ago. That is fodder for fallacy and a red herring for sheer emotional and racial paranoia on weak grounds.)
You are right 100%
This is why F. Lee Bailey gets the big bucks.
Back to rewatch this for the hundredth time after watching OJ: Made in America on Netflix. That footprint questioning and testimony always makes me cackle. "If the killer wasn't a dog...." For real though, all that blood and no bloody footprints? It's preposterous. F. Lee Bailey's voice is captivating.
Yeah, the evidence against OJ was overwhelming. Even one of his lawyers recently said "We never said he was innocent, but the police did such a bad job... yada, yada..." Every crime scene has mistakes, but they don't rise to the level of exonerating a guilty person; it they did, no one would ever get convicted; cops are government workers in a union; expecting perfection is childish and silly and and a bad excuse to let criminals go free, defeating the purpose of criminal laws and doing an injustice to crime victims and TO THE CITIZENS WHO ENACT THE LAWS THROUGH THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. It was THE PEOPLE OF CA v. OJ. The people got screwed by an inept prosecution and a gullible jury. Bugliosi would have gotten a conviction, I bet.
HE just shows police in competence.
F. Lee Bailey was the goat. 🐐 He was a great Lawyer. 
2:45 tension in the court!!! "Wasn't the evidence staring you in the face..." Hearing this section for the first time was riveting on TV!!
Bailey has eyes that look like he has the secrets to your soul when he's questioning you....
Yeah, he used to say other lawyers make a mistake on cross-exam by taking their eyes off the witness to look at their notes.
Best attorney what i have ever seen!
He should have questioned Christine Ford at the Kavanaugh hearing...
"So if the perpetrator wasn't a dog, someone must have seen him that night at the party, true?'
Excellent use of the technique of cross examination to twist facts and make it look like the police department was at fault. If not one of the best defence attorneys to have ever walked the planet, definitely a master cross examiner.
KUNAL BOGHANI “twist” facts? Do attempt an explanation.
For real even if he was guilty they convince me that he wasn't good team
😂😂😂 Chris Darden was melting in his seat while F. Lee was cooking Mark Fuhrman... 😂😂😂
Lol
Holy cow. He just absolutely does a number on this guy. Incredible cross-examiner.
Rossi thought a dog might have been the killer.
Imagine if he called for the K9 unit, to set up a fight with the killer...
F.lee bailey, one of the greatest attorneys of all time .
How much of a court trial is actually about facts and truth and how much is about theater? Sad that so much theater and acting is the norm for courtrooms.
the sad thing is that the prosecutors win 90% of their cases and the judge always favors the government.the defense is up against a monster.
@3:32 Objection. Calls for speculation. Someone wake Clark up. "Do you determine without asking questions whether witnesses have information?" lol
+Beach Mouse Yeah, I love Bailey's way with words, as in that question. He was an English major at Harvard, btw, and wanted to be writer...
Clark would object often when unnecessary and then miss valid chances.
I miss the PBS program Ethics in America. They still have the videos up on Learner dot org. But they would impanel people like the Surgeon General and Justice Scalia and ask interesting evolving questions in a hypothetical case. Often amusing. Highly entertaining.
+Stephen Doty Thanks again for this - Bailey ripping into these guys multiple times is a sight to behold. He appears to have vastly more expertise than even expert witnesses. The reasonable doubt necessary for acquittal appears to have in large or in sole part been created by Bailey in portraying the cops as at best: bumbling incompetents (though Scheck maybe played a part here too) and at worst: ruthlessly ambitious racist perjurers with a consequential motive to frame an African American defendant in a star case. All told it was Bailey who was the member of the dream team who could be solely credited with bringing the case home for OJ? It is apparent also that more than "reasonable doubt" was created since most of the jurors I have heard interviewed were steered into believing that OJ was innocent despite vast evidence to the contrary.
Aran McGrath In the civil trial after this, the jury voted 12-0 to find OJ liable for wrongful death. The evidence, even in the criminal trial, did not make anyone really think he was innocent. It was more a case of Scheck driving home the point, "If you can convict someone on this kind of evidence, then no one is safe. No one!" The implication being that the jurors could be next to be prosecuted. The idea was to send a message to the establishment and police. Van Adder bringing the vile of OJ's blood back to the crime scene to show off in front of everyone was outrageous. It fueled the possibility of blood planted at the scene, especially when some blood went missing at the lab during testing. He was a total disgrace.
To me, the enduring lesson of this case is that government is mostly incompetent, as conservatives, not liberals, point out. That is why it should do as little as necessary. Leave the rest to the private sector where people are held more accountable by customers and investors. We leave things like police, courts, laws, and the military VA hospitals to government. And they are some of the most inefficient, costly, and error prone things. But Obama keeps proposing more government programs, departments, and power grabs all with more costly budgets, totally oblivious to it all. Then he wonders why people don't like it.
No offense but the focus here is F. Lee Bailey. What a brilliant attorney he was.
The master. Completely undressed both of them.
Darden about to blow a fuse.
One interesting thing he does is he will calmly press in to a certain point and then take he foot off the pedal and go a different direction. Very crafty.
How is that possible? Please tell me...
After 3:18, yes, the cop thought he ended the matter with his answer before that question. Then the pause after Bailey asks it reveals puzzlement.
F. Lee Bailey totally owned that witness...he made him look like a total fool.
"So if the killer wasn't a DOG! - then someone had to go out the back end, didn't they?"
F. Lee Bailey is so accomplished he was able to get a guilty man set free!
He could make someone else doubt you knew where you parked your car, after a few questions.
He is sooo genius. He always refers to them as "killers". Very smart
Good point. He is making the jury visualize two or more people already - an image that contradicts the DA's theory of the case. Compare that to what a lousy attorney would say, "So OJ must have run out the back... Strike that!"
these cops didnt have a chance with these awesome lawyers
You are 100% correct
I watched almost every minute of the original trial and watching the short clip, reminds me of a horrible job, the entire prosecution and police team did in this case. I don’t think any of us will ever know if OJ really killed his ex-wife but we all know the police are responsible for him Being acquitted.
Are you nuts? There was enough evidence left at the scene and OJ's house to convict him three times over, silly. All the defense did was make the dumb argument that if a cop used the N-word 10 years ago, he'd risk his own life to frame OJ for murder. (Planting evidence in a murder case is punishable by death in CA.) It was total logical nonsense. The innuendo of racism makes people stupid; Democrats have used it for years to avoid a secure southern border, safe streets, sound policing, school discipline, fair college admissions, race-neutral hiring, a balanced budget, voter ID, etc. Anything that constitutes good government and sound policy has been avoided through lies of 'racism', which serve to hijack the brain and distract it from any logic. That's all that happened in the OJ case. OJ was the most-white acting rich black celebrity around; he faced no actual racism; yet they played on the illusion of race form the emotion of the 60s riots, slavery, etc. Pure spin. It sounds like you knew noting of the evidence or your brains fell out when you said this: "I don’t think any of us will ever know if OJ really killed his ex-wife." I know. Read Outrage by Bugliosi, if you still don't. Gosh. Don't be such a wimp.
F.Lee Bailey is one of the best defense attorneys in history. Mark O'Mara reminds me of this guy. - And we would have loved to hear Fuhrman's response to Bailey's last question in this video!....lol
Goes to show, how much of a trial is about finding truth, innocence or guilt and how much is theater and showmanship. If you've got money, you can hire a guy like this, if you haven't got money you're going to get convicted - innocent or not.
But Mike Tyson had plenty of money and did three years in prison.
How Robert Blake stayed out of prison is a miracle. Even OJ said he's guilty, I bet.
This lawyer is GOOD !! this might be his specialty.
Yes, he recently wrote a lawyer's guidebook to better cross-examination.
A more accurate title for this vid would be" F. Lee Bailey creates smoke screens"
Bailey: "Objection, your honor, conclusory. Is that all I do?"
Pretty much. I mean the whole thing is nit picky nonsense. There were footprints leaving the scene. And they match the defendant’s size and shoe type he originally claimed he didn't own. (Until the pics turned up during the civil trial of OJ wearing those "ugly @ss shoes" at a home Buffalo game.) Later on, Bailey starts in on the distance this guy says he was standing from a gate (i.e was it 30 feet or 50 feet?). Does he think this guy pulled tape to measure? Their whole theory was inconsistent as well: the questions imply incompetence of the LAPD while the rest imply framing Simpson. How do those 2 things coexist? If they were that incompetent, we would know he was framed. And he wasn't.
Judge: "Good response. Objection overruled." ;)
Check the end of the video description now...
Cheers.
3:40
That's mean controlling the room. F Lee Baily was in full control.
Best lawyer in the world f lee bailey rest in peace you were lagend👍👍👍👍
he literally made that guy feel the same way we confront a 5 year old with a questionable confrontation..within great powerful character stating the obvious and being consistant there's no denying how well this guy can make u look very stupid on a simple mistake..I read this guys bio back in college..i was pretty surprised
Exactly
"Out-lawyering" the DA's office is quite a bit of work, especially when DA's office gets in the mode of expecting a case from the police that can be prosecuted with little or NO effort, such as if the defendant confessed, admitted something, lied, said something that doesn't match the evidence, isn't rich, can't refute DNA, physical evidence, whatever. The bottom line is that defendants who don't talk to the police and don't testify have the strongest chance of winning, whatever that may be.
This man dug out the grave of prosecution at the stage of this cross examination.
where can i watch the whole thing?
@sm0kie421 Yes, it's good for law students and lawyers to see his command of the witness and ability to think on his feet. He keeps his eye on the witness and not on his notes. He has no notes. He has studied and rehearsed what he wants to say already. He can make adjustments on the fly based on the answers he gets, as opposed to reading a list of questions disconnected to the witness's answers.
Lawyers like F Lee Bailey only come once in a lifetime.
Yeah, I made videos on Racehorse Haynes and Vincent Bugliosi also, two other trial-court legends lost. Gerry Spence lives.
100%
Did that actually happen? Footage? And where can I find more of these? In your book?
@79Testo : Is it possible u share it to us? there is no source to buy or see here in the Philippines, especially for us lawyers in the province [country].
The Great F. Lee Bailey. Such an Amazing Trial Lawyer.
I love F Lee Bailey. I don't care what he was accused of doing later in life.
These minor discrepencies such as a witness saying 30 feet one day and later on saying 50 feet does not mean ANYTHING. Any testimony will have these minor differences, the lawyer makes a big deal just to create a smoke screen.
Exactly, one viewer proposed a title of this video as "Bailey creates smoke screens.'
You're absolutely right. An effective cross examination isn't dependent upon things like that, and jurors can actually become bored with repetitive tactics and attorneys belaboring a certain detail. But I would tend to disagree with you that they teach you never to ask a how question, and to ALWAYS ask leading questions. I remember learning that you can should ask leading questions if it doesn't matter what the witness's answer is going to be...buy obviously, one has to be careful with that.
1:34 "Nobody went in?"
Bailey peppers it with little, odd questions; conversational.
Then, "Why in the world did you..."
+Stephen Doty I have to thank you for this.I am a fraud investigator and have been at the receiving end of many an intense cross but I have never encountered the likes of Bailey. I love his dramatic gestures, taking off the glasses, oblique stares and boisterous yet learned approach - a real brawler - a true master at work and a treat to watch
+Aran McGrath Yes, glad you found it. He always had a way with words, as an English major at Harvard and wanted to be a writer, but left to join the military, revealing his combat side, before graduating #1 in his law school class at BU... Notice how he is not distracted by notes either, as other attorneys are. He doesn't rely on them. He plans it in advance.
+Stephen Doty He's watching him swallow, any type of Mannerisms. Even if an objection, he's locked on the witness, may move his eyes but never makes him feel he's not.
If I ever get in legal trouble I want this guy as my lawyer
He moved to Maine recently and took the bar exam there. Imagine that, after so many years. He graduated No. 1 in his law school class, though, despite only doing two years of college, so I imagine he had little difficulty passing. Now you know where to contact him if you ever get charged with battery after a silly road rage incident, which could happen. Imagine that trial:
Cop: I responded to the scene of the battery.
Bailey: How the hell do you know that!!? You were not there at the time. If someone strikes another in self-defense, it is not a "battery" by law! Motion to strike that answer, as improper, your honor.
Judge: Motion granted. The jury is to disregard that legal conclusion offered by Det. Johnson. It is for you to determine, after weighing all the evidence, whether a battery in fact occurred. You may proceed.
Bailey: Thank you, you honor.
;)
Hope you can afford 5000.00 an hour!!!!
How delightful it is to hear Marcia Clark's objection get overruled...
Yeah, she was an annoying bitch the whole trial. The queen of frivolous objections. She was obviously an affirmative-action appointment based on her lack of basic trial skills. Bugliosi detailed her mistakes in "Outrage" nicely. In her book, if you check the index, she only mentioned Bugliosi once. She could not rebut his substance, so she called him a "clown" instead. Typical bitch move. She should be remembered as the poster child for the dangers of affirmative action and "diversity" for its own sake - same goes for Chris Darden. LA had a woman and a black man as prosecutors to show how "inclusive" it is -- isn't that special!! - never mind that they sucked as trial lawyers. PC culture is just toxic bias of its own unfair kind.
(They were handed a guilty defendant and a mountain of blood evidence and circumstantial evidence against him. His own limo driver gave evidence that incriminated OJ, who said he was delayed because he overslept; but the driver saw OJ dressed all in black sneak into his front door earlier from the back area, where the bloody glove was dropped; plus he seemed hot and nervous in the limo, and the backpack he guarded with his life vanished two days later, consistent with bloody clothes in it...)
Rapid fire questioning .. does not give the person time to think
Say what you will about this man, but you would surely want him as your defense if you were facing serious charges lol
Do you have more of the trial to upload?
Again. This guy was something
And notice how he sneaks in testimony of his own for the jury when he asserts the pathway was "terra cotta, a porous, hard surface." No one objects to his testimony from the desk. He's too authoritative.
Fuhrman pleading the fifth was the end of this case
Good point. Too bad it was irrelevant to OJ's guilt. If a cop used the N-word 10 years ago, then denies it in public on TV, it doesn't magically undo a double homicide by another person. The whole logic of if he said anti-black things, he must be a racist, so OJ must be innocent was kindergarten logic. It just appealed to emotions. It bore no relevance to the glove or to the cap OJ left. They just tried to stigmatize Fuhrman, and Cochran turned it into a civil rights case with his "Send a message" crap to jury as if OJ was Rosa Parks, and he wanted jury nullification. Not only that, perjury is a matter of degree and subject to relevance -- one may lie about some things, such as if a woman lies about her age or weight, it's not perjury. Fuhrman should NOT have taken the Fifth and just said he was embarrassed to admit what he had said to someone for a movie research project. Big deal. He was no more racist than Barack Obama or Jesse Jackson -- he pressed hard to free a black man with exculpatory evidence once, and played hoops with black officers every week, and they had no problems with Fuhrman. Also, Fuhrman came about his views from dealing with black crooks in LA. So it was based on his experience. How come people don't ask what vile conduct blacks exhibited to form his opinions? Does that conduct redound badly on them, ultimately, or on Fuhrman?
Once someone says "racist" everyone loses their heads, as if they forget blacks and Hispanics are probably more racist than whites from their upbringing -- because they have more social permission to be.
Stephen Doty actually they asked him if he planted evidence and he took the 5th.
They asked him if he lied under oath and he took the 5th as well.
To avoid losing a case just say I don't recall or can't remember rather than lying your backside off and having a film show you to be incredible.
Once you are uncredible reasonable doubt is established and the case is over just as it was in this case.
@@lynndragoman1573 Yeah, he was advised to take the Fifth no matter which question was asked. They could have asked, "Did you strike Rodney King with a baton?" If he took the Fifth to that, so what. Taking the Fifth is not evidence he struck King, nor should it be perverted to mean anything more than it did under that circumstance.
There is ZERO evidence he planted any evidence. It's all fantastic innuendo and conjecture. The DA should have argued that in closing. Instead, Marcia trashed Fuhrman to make herself appear to be virtuous to the mostly black jury. It was a sham closing. Bugliosi made the closing argument she and Darden were unable to make, and which could have won the conviction, I think.
Stephen Doty he was advised to take the fifth because the McKenna(sp) tapes showed he was a liar and there was no way around the video proof.
Once he was established as a undisputed liar under oath perjury charges would be the next course of action so the 5th was his only way out.
Guilty or innocent once you show a key witness on the stand for more than a week is lying reasonable doubt is now second only to if it doesn't fit you must acquit.
@@lynndragoman1573 There are rules of evidence against using extrinsic evidence, like those tapes, to impeach a witness on a collateral matter. Who cares if he denied using the N-word. It is not only irrelevant to OJ's guilt, but also excludable as more inflammatory than probative to a mostly black jury. The trial judge could have excluded it on those grounds. You also wallow on this "undisputed liar" designation as if Fuhrman is the only one -- while you've probably told three lies this month, so you share that moniker with Fuhrman? Without Fuhrman, Martha Moxley's killer might have gone unpunished. So he's an "undisputed author" and "undisputed detective" too. You ignore all that in your use of labels like some pretentious, bitter scold who can't keep things in proportion.
That's when they knew they done fucked up
Why people think his questioning was so brilliant, I have no idea. He makes errors, misstates what people have previously said, misrepresents things in various ways (such as assuming things that are not in evidence), and asks things that don't do anything to address the actual issues at hand. And where did "obliterate" come from? I would have been objecting to almost everything he said.
Let's examine it one at a time. You say, "He makes errors, misstates what people have previously said, misrepresents things in various ways." Please list some errors, mis-statements, and misrepresentations. As far as "obliterate" goes, that's part of a leading question, perfectly valid on cross. If you don't know where it came from, you haven't followed the testimony concerning footprints, as in the cops walking on the walkway.
@@StephenDoty84 It is absurd to post this video on your account and pretend that he is never full of shit, never makes any mistakes, or never tries to misrepresent anything. I followed every moment of the testimony, but I wouldn't have to have done that to know that "obliterate" is being used intentionally because it SOUNDS severe, even though there is absolutely nothing automatic or inherent about a footprint being "obliterated," even if something happened to a footprint. And, of course, as an example, there was ZERO evidence that there was any "invisible to the naked eye, but might be found later" footprint around to BE "obliterated. There was ZERO reason to believe any such thing ever existed. He was simply trying to misdirect with made up nonsense that was beyond abject speculation about there being some sort of reason to think that there was evidence around that didn't point directly to the murderer, OJ Simpson. You don't get to imagine evidence into existence.
Wow F Lee Bailey was drilling this cop to the point of stop it; its brutal. This cop is done Ms Clark has been overruled over and over.
He is still alive and giving interviews to CourtTV, despite all the 🥃and cigarettes.
where can i watch all of f.lee bailey on this trial?
Stephen could u post the other videos of Lee arguing to Judge Ito?
It's interesting how an argument can show the facts in a different light even if doesn't seem to be true. It's the evidence that trumps facts.
This was broadcast in '95 when the Internet was in its infancy. I didn't get on-line till '98, in fact. Hard to say who recorded the full original trial and still has it. I only have fragments. Search for it on-line, maybe, then report back here on what you found.
This man ripped him to shreds
I am in the 8th Grade and working on a mock trial case. I have been looking up different videos and article to help ne with knowing what to do and how I should form my direct and cross examination questions, opening and closing statements/arguments. Since this has started I have taken a real interest in law and I think I may want to be an attorney one day. If anyone in that field of work/study has any tips or advice, it is highly appreciated!
Wow, you are getting a head start! Most lawyers don't work on a mock trial until their second year of law school, at around age 24. What I found motivating was reading books by lawyers, such as The Defense Never Rests by Mr. Bailey and Helter Skelter by V. Bugliosi. Also, One L by Scott Turow is good, as is Outrage by Bugliosi. Plus a biography of a good judge, such as Ben Cardozo, will inspire. Study logic in college too. Those are my tips...
Stephen Doty Thank you very much for your advice! I will look into those books.
Anne Blue OK, you are welcome. Good luck with the mock trial. Report back here with what you learned after it. ;)
Take it to them Bailey!!!
Best lawyer ever!!!!