Yeah but he destroyed his case here. She didn’t see him a minute or so before it was just 2seconds before he’s proving his client was going fast and didn’t give the person on the stand time to actually judge his speed.
@@cosimfre2651I’m pretty sure he said the case was she pulled out in front of the client. It doesn’t matter if the client was speeding or not, if she didn’t have time to judge the distance than she definitely did not have time to pull out in front of them
AMEN! 🙏🏾✝️ Be thankful that GOD woke you up today! Luck isn’t real, GOD IS! Pray for everyone! Please do not call people fools! None of us are worthy! But remember, GOD hates the, not the sinner! Please do not use THE LORD’S NAME in vain! Please do not swear on anything!! AMEN! 🙏🏾✝️
You really can't change your mind. The 30 days is to correct errata (technical changes where the transcriber misheard or mistyped), not substantive changes.
@@subaru4920you can disagree with him but it’s pretty crazy to call that sleepover video rambling when it’s very obviously concise and well communicated and resonated with hundreds of thousands of people.
I understand both sides. I like the thing about sleepovers because my partner and I plan on instituting the same rule and it's nice to hear other people think through the same stuff (she's 5 months pregnant). On the other hand, I could see how someone that follows this channel would be annoyed by content that they deem completely unrelated to the legal stuff.
@@subaru4920yeah, why would we want to bring awareness to child sexual abuse and promote parents being extra cautious to make sure their kids aren't in the situation to be sexually abused.... thats a weird way to say you want less people aware and more people putting their children in situations to be abused. I know the internet is a crazy place but come on, you hebephiles will do whatever it takes for just promoting more opportunities to sexually abuse kids
I think she probably didn't want to admit that her driving did not reflect awareness of the other driver, but also wanted to use her knowledge of how aggressive the other driver was driving against them. Most people have either done it or seen someone do it, where a driver will notice you and how you intend to steer your vehicle, but another person is essentially in their way and doesn't yield or change lanes to accommodate the other person. Often this matters when people merge from a highway or change lanes. So it seems like she's the asshole who saw someone driving fast and chose to make lifer harder for them, and her decision led to an accident.
@@codyhumble7855 In other words, she caused the accident but tried to skew her story to appear not at fault... but she forgot her "story" while in court.
@@heartofdawnlight Intentional or not, she pretty much got caught in a lie. When you get questioned in legal cases, they tend to be very thorough to try and get the full consistent story and make sure they get all the details. Unless you are well prepped by a lawyer or just a great liar, it's hard to lie throughout the whole process without getting caught. Usually, the liar doesn't mess up their story and out themselves 🤣.
One of my favorite things to hear as an adjuster “I never saw them but they were speeding.” Because asking for someone to explain how they are both able to see and not see someone at the same time results in hilarious answers.
Yes, sometimes people lie in legal proceedings. But sometimes lawyers make people seem to be liars, when they are not lying. There are other ways to judge if someone is speeding, perhaps not to the exact mph, but strength of impact and aftermath devastation and damage, can reveal excess speed as partial cause of accident. There are liars and there are lawyers
@@davidhughes4785hard to judge impact because not every accident is the same and people i feel like - majority of the time attempt to brake before accidents. Making the impact appear to be slower. Ive been in 3 accidents (passenger all 3 times. And all 3 have been all the same amount of dmg. (Even tho one was driving (hopefully the speed limit) which was around 35, and like 5 mph the other 2 times.
What don't you get? You look before turning. You don't see a car so you proceed with the turn. Then there's a collision. It means the other car was flying
@@MarkHall-cf6ji Not really. There isn't really anything fast enough and as capable at real time transcription with near enough accuracy compared to the human brain
thats not what passive aggressive means. being passive aggressive is agreeing with what someone says to their face and then doing the opposite out of spite when they are not around
@@adj98 yes. you just do not understand the phrase. passive aggressive people wont argue with you, they wait until you leave then arrange everything the way you dont like it. they agree to your policy and then ignore it. that is what being passive aggressive means. if you ask me to wipe my shoes at the door, and I agree then never do it - THAT is passive aggressive behavior. especially so if I intentionally track dirt in. {What is an example of passive-aggressive? For example, someone who engages in passive-aggressive behavior might appear to agree - perhaps even enthusiastically - with another person's request. Rather than complying with the request, however, he or she might express anger or resentment by failing to follow through or missing deadlines.}
This is why the police caution in the uk says “it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court” basically if you don’t mention an important part (allegedly seeing the driver speeding on the highway) when questioned it can cause many problems for you in court.
This wasn't about her omitting something. She contradicted herself. In one part she said she didn't see him coming. In another, she said she he was speeding. How would she know he was speeding if she didn't see him? She changed her story to make the other guy seem more at fault. This is very different than simply omitting something from an earlier statement. Also, I think in another clip of this case it shows that there was more she said in court which contradicted her earlier statements. Basically, she discredited herself because she kept changing her story.
@B1gBoyPants it could be her doing that purposely or it could be memory lapse from the accident. I've had 4 not at fault accidents since 2018.. some of the details from some of the accidents I still mix up, I however suffered concussions in most of them and went on to be diagnosed with post concussion syndrome.. the 1st accident I was in an out of consciousness and only have what I remember and what I was told so I definitely mess things up. Also, how much time passed since the accident to court? Memory is never as fresh and she could be having a traumatic response. Accidents are traumatic period. Don't be so quick to judge without all of the facts. Again, may be she is in the wrong and changing her story but may be she suffered injuries or trauma response.
@@angyllerobinson5910 regardless, it shows that her testimony is not necessarily reliable, which was the point. Even if it isn’t deliberate on her part
Oh, my dumb ass totally was like, "I mean yeah, seeing your client vs seeing your clients vehicle are two completely different things, whats this prove?" Lol
@@IcedLancemaybe in general conversation but in court they deal with things in absolutes not “I know he was going fast because I saw the car but I have no idea how to quantify the speed because I don’t know how long I saw it for” which is essentially what her answers boil down to
@@FirstLast-vv6lvShe didn't say any of that though and you even misunderstood the last question. I don't need to stare at a car with a stopwatch to know if it's speeding. If I'm driving at the speed limit and I see a car going faster than me, I can tell it's speeding.
This is more about her contradictory statements. In this trial she says that she saw his car on the road coming before the crash, contradicting her deposition.
@@ryanrzjr She said she saw the car, and she said she didn't see the person driving. I don't see these as contradictory. The only time I see other drivers is when I'm standing at a red light.
I hope more videos like this one are in the pipeline. Videos like this do a great job of demystifying the courtroom and some procedures for us. Thanks, Mike!
I work as an auto claims adjusters and this always makes me laugh when I get a situation like this when getting someone’s facts of accident. My thoughts are always, “If you saw they were going fast why did you continue to pull in front of them?”, “If you didn’t see them before the impact, how do you know they were going fast?” You can’t have this both ways unless someone else or video can corroborate it.
It’s amazing to me that a lot of trial Lawyer activity in the courtroom is like acting. It’s like a performance you have to be comfortable with being in front of an audience. You have to be comfortable with performing and almost kind of teaching the jury your side. Not only is it intelligence and memory, but it’s like you’re directing and acting out of play all by yourself, executing the story in front of everybody and the manipulating it to your advantage or your clients advantage. That’s amazing use of all kinds of skills. I guess now I have a different appreciation for lawyers wears before I only had negative experiences so I only had a bad opinion.
I like how he keeps adjusting his suit , it shows awareness but I think that better tailoring is the answer because some would be distracted and lose the plot.
@@Candyman757Any attorney who cares about their case will dress, speak, stand, walk, handle exhibits as if the client's case depends on it, cuz it does. Or he can demand recording systems in all the courtrooms in the world accomodate his pacing around.
If she had an attorney present in that courtroom, they are an ass- else they would have issued an objection to your line of questioning. Someone can "notice" a car without "seeing" the driver! OBJECTION SUSTAINED!
He’s attacking the witness’ trustworthiness (impeaching her) by reading her deposition testimony (testimony that she gave under oath prior to trial as part of discovery) into the record (meaning the judge or jury can access it during deliberations), which likely contradicts the evidence she have prior to the video starting. This gives the jury a reason to doubt the accuracy of her testimony, and makes it more likely that they will side with his client on the matter.
This is part 2. In part one she is giving her testimony in court where, to paraphrase she says "I saw him very far away about 30 seconds, so I thought I had time to cross, but when I saw again he speed up dangerous levels and hit me. Its his fault because he was going to fast, if he wasnt going fast I would have time to cross the intersection." Which contradicts her deposition being pretty much: "I started crossing before I even knew or was aware he was there. I never saw him or checked before I started turning. I didnt saw him when I cross. I know he was driving fast because when I got out of my vehicle AFTER the impact, he was there, so its my only logical conclusion (at the moment to cover myself)."
@@LimakPanThat's not how that works. Why do you sound like you're defending the liar? She said she did see him (his vehicle). She then said she did see him and didn't know how long before the crash (an obvious lie). You don't need to count the seconds to come up with an answer to something so simple. She could have said, just before the crash, or a couple minutes before the crash. She could have said anything if she knew the answer, but she didn't know the answer because it was a lie.
"did you see my client" I would be asking; "in what context". "I didn't see your client but I saw his car." I find it interesting that people are so intimidated by lawyers. Some of them aren't as smart as they want us to believe.
"did you see him before the impact?" "no" "so if you didnt see him before the impact, how did you know he was speeding?" "cause i saw his car" dude seriously i cannot wrap my head around her logic💀
You asked if she saw your client before the crash. (No.) You didn't ask if she saw your client's CAR before the crash. (Implied yes.) Hypothetical: she saw a car before the crash, and it was going fast, and afterwards she saw your client get out of the driver's seat, but that was the first time she saw your CLIENT - after the crash.
The problem wasn't that she didn't distinguish between seeing the car or not it's that she had a different answer in part 1 which nobody clicked through to. That's why he breaks out the deposition transcript. She said that she saw him before then in court but did not see him before then in the deposition.
In court before the deposition was brought out: "I saw him speeding off the highway sir" _I saw him_ is directly said by her earlier This deposition proves directly she was lying under oath (since deposition is also done under oath of course)
This kind of happened to my mom. The guy who crashed in to her said he knew she was speeding because he didnt see her lol the cop thankfully saw through that right away
But the first question said she didn't see him 30s to 1 minute before. Crashes happen way quicker than that. She didn't lie at all. She even said she saw his car. You just didn't ask about the proper time frame when she did see his car. There's nothing about your questions that imply the ones after the first are referring to the same 30-60 seconds before the crash.
One of the questions was how long before the crash did you see him. She still didn’t know. Second, go watch the first part, she says she saw him speeding off the highway. Yet she still decides to pull out in front of a speeding car. Makes zero sense. She is changing her story cause she knows she needs to put the blame on the other driver. He could have been speeding, but her deposition is more than likely right. She never saw him.
“In the 30 seconds-minute before the crash.” Aka within one minute before the crash. It is not “before 30 seconds of the crash did you see the car” it is “in the 30 seconds before the crash”
She saw the car driving fast, but did not see the driver, before the impact. She wasn't certain how long before the impact she first saw the car. She saw the client was the driver of that car after the impact. So she answered truthfully as the question was asked with literal interpretation.
Maybe I’m missing something but you can see someone’s car and how fast they are going without “seeing him”. The way the question was worded leaves it ambiguous and therefore should be easy for the other lawyer to counter.
thats not what the point was, she claimed he was driving fast, but she didn't see him, or the car before the crash happened so clearly she doesn't know how fast he was going, looking at damages/ car, is not seeing someone going fast, the question wasn't ambiguous, it was just the result of making the point she didn't see him go fast at all
The point is simpler than that. In the part 1 video, she claimed she saw his client speeding on the highway long before impact. However in the deposition, she claimed she did not see the client at all until impact. The contradiction in her testimony is enough to have her deemed untrustworthy and therefore impeached.
@@redakdal why would you need to? You can tell from the damage how fast someone was going. She said she saw the car before it hit her, just not sure for how long...
But that's not what she said. She did not see him. She DID see the car. She does not know how much time passed between her seeing the car, and the crash. I don't see any contradiction in that.
I fail to understand this. She saw the car, not the person, for a certain amount of time that she does not recall, during which she saw the car going fast. How exactly does this win the case?
@@scotttillinghast9665 BS. He asked did you see him, she said no. Of course not, he is inside the car, maybe up higher than her. She told the truth, I didn't see the person, I saw the car.
@@smokinjoe4709frankly that’s fucking nonsense. No reasonable person would argue this. And that’s why she lost. We all know she’s and they were using him interchangeably with his car.
@@SolitaryLarkAs someone who is neurodivergent that is exactly how my mind works and the fact that you are unwilling to believe anyone can possibly think that way is why I almost got charged with my brother's murder even after they caught the actual murderer. Because like you the police get to say no one thinks like that, and they get to convince the jury that no one thinks like that. But several percent of the comments in this chat show that people do think like that. Even if we are the minority we do exist, kind of like left handed people are a thing even if they are a minority you can still buy baseball gloves and golf clubs for them. So don't write off neurodivergent thought patterns as not existing because you don't use the same equipment.
Don't think that would work on me if I was on the jury and instead might convince me your client was speeding. Instead of discrediting her, I interpreted the responses as "was going so fast they came out of nowhere", not a legal argument but something we all witnessed with speeding cars.
It the part 1 of this she said she saw him speeding from the highway on the merge lane. She said in her deposition that she didn't see him with in 30 sec/when she hit him. The fault was she can't both not have seen him until she hit him and saw him coming of the ramp of a highway. Both cannot be true.
She said this in court before the deposition was brought out: "I saw him speeding off the highway sir" _'I saw him'_ not 'i saw his car' Her deposition contradicts what she said earlier
@@tradetrek That is kinda my point, they are all using 'him' and 'his car' interchangeably, that's my entire point actually The actual thing this short is about (it's a part 2 btw) is that she had contradictory statements in her deposition vs in court (both are under oath), so she lied under oath
Most of the time you only noticed someone who's about to hit you in the final 3 to 5 seconds. 30 seconds to a minute it's too long before a crash because you have a moment to do something about it. That's why you follow the 10-second rule when you drive behind someone. You should be able to stop safely within 10 seconds no matter what speed you are driving. That was a disingenuous question you asked her.
I agree, he actually would have been better off making it appear like she told the truth when she said she saw him coming off the highway before he hit her (in a different video) because then she clearly saw it was unsafe to change lanes and did so anyway.
She said she didn’t see the driver. She didn’t say she didn’t see the car, I don’t see what you won here? Also 1 minute before any crash even at 100 miles an hour the car is going to be very very far away, 1,500 ft, of course you won’t see the driver, you may see the car though.
Lawyers are notoriously flimsy when it comes to time, 30 seconds can be enough time to to have a 4 course meal or so short a human can't even comprehend what happened in that amount of time depending on which one helps their case.
@@marcgatlin2641 oops typo on the distance. You can’t see the face of a person driving at that distance! Or do you think you can? A person can actually see millions of miles, it’s how we see the stars. But you certainly cannot see the driver of the car that Elon Musk sent out. My point was he asked 2 very different questions, which she gave 2 very different and non contradictory sensible answers to. And he seemed to think he’d made a win. Mind you half the population is by definition below average intelligence, so I suppose he fooled them well.
Given the trajectory of the car after pact you could surmise that the other car was traveling at excessive speed but without more details it's hard to say for certain
Your honor. I will prove a "logical fallacy" akin to high school questions or logic from a person under a high stress situation answering questions under oath.
“Did you see him 30 seconds to 1 minute before the crash” “No” “Then how did you know he was driving fast” “Because I saw him” “Sounds to me like you never saw him” Anyone in the jury with an IQ higher than 5 realizes how long of a time 30 seconds is before a crash.
"Because I saw him" obviously within 30 seconds of the crash. Rafi clearly bait and switches from "did you see them in this particular time frame" to "then you didn't see them AT ANY POINT before the impact". It's like asking "30, 60 years ago were you attending this school?" no (because I attended to school about 5 years ago) "If you never attended this school before 2024, how can you know what happened in the school" what? It's a rhetorical trick, he said "IF you didn't see him before the impact, then how did you know how fast he was going" it is posing a hypothetical that isn't true. He tricked her into a contradiction by posing a bogus hypothetical that she wasn't clever enough to robustly contradict. When he asks when she saw the car and she honestly responds she doesn't know when that's entirely consistent with her seeing the vehicle within 30 seconds but not sure when.
@@Treblaine The previous question was not at WHAT time within 1 minute of the crash did you see the car, but did you see the car (at any point) within 1 minute of the crash and she said no. When she says no that means she is stating she never saw the car within 1 minute of the crash (at least not before impact).
@@1nm1 if that is what he meant, he knew (or should have known) that phrasing it in sloppy way he did would create confusion he could exploit by manufacturing a contradiction. It barely has any grammatical structure "in the 30 seconds 1 minute or so before the crash, did you..." That's grammatically incoherent, you have to infer what he must have meant because he's dropping words that make the sentence legible. That is vague AF. You can't accept that because Rafi has framed himself as the hero taking on big evil corporations but here he is playing word games with a woman who is giving this nice young man the benefit of the doubt he doesn't deserve and he's betraying her trust.
@@Treblainethat’s exactly my point. I knew this guy was full of shit after his comments on doctors, business owners, etc. It’s funny how he portrays every other profession as greedy bad guys when he’s not only a lawyer, but a sketchy one at that.
When you said "him"..... Did you mean his car, or actually see the person thru all the glass and recognize THE UNIQUE driver?.... I'm guessing the lawyer meant the car, and the subject in the depo / stand meant the person himself, not the individual car?.... Lady should have asked to clarify during the depo.
"I don't remember that deposition word for word and the way you read that was not how I usually speak" - nice and vague and can introduce doubt without committing perjury or seeming argumentative
Never say anything about how fast the other car was going. Unless you seen them coming from a distance. I had a insurance lawyer try to hang me up on this one time.
Her attorney: "I would like to ask if the reason you didn't see the man before the accident is because you only saw the car and not the driver?" Her: "Correct" Her Attorney: "And the reason that you didn't know how long you saw his car before the impact is because he was driving faster than your rate of perception?" Her: "Correct!" Her attorney: "So how did you know the defendant was the driver of the car?" Her: "Because he was present in the car' drivers seat when the impact happened and the car was no longer too fast for me to see the driver." Her attorney: "The prosecution tests, Your Honour."
when the lawyer hands you an envelope and says "that's your deposition" you know you're cooked
Yeah but he destroyed his case here. She didn’t see him a minute or so before it was just 2seconds before he’s proving his client was going fast and didn’t give the person on the stand time to actually judge his speed.
@@cosimfre2651I’m pretty sure he said the case was she pulled out in front of the client. It doesn’t matter if the client was speeding or not, if she didn’t have time to judge the distance than she definitely did not have time to pull out in front of them
@@cosimfre2651 He said he won 1.5mil on this case, so I guess he didn't destroy it completely. :P
He won the case for his client
Uh oh !!
Thank god you told me I can change my deposition within 30 days 😮
Bill Clinton: "this information really would have been helpful at the time"
AMEN! 🙏🏾✝️ Be thankful that GOD woke you up today! Luck isn’t real, GOD IS! Pray for everyone! Please do not call people fools! None of us are worthy! But remember, GOD hates the, not the sinner! Please do not use THE LORD’S NAME in vain! Please do not swear on anything!! AMEN! 🙏🏾✝️
@@aiden_jaisonThe bots are back...
You really can't change your mind. The 30 days is to correct errata (technical changes where the transcriber misheard or mistyped), not substantive changes.
@@aiden_jaisonnobody cares about your invisible sky daddy broski.
Please upload more of these in court footages. They’re so fun to watch
Definitely better than the videos of him rambling about sleepovers.
@@subaru4920you can disagree with him but it’s pretty crazy to call that sleepover video rambling when it’s very obviously concise and well communicated and resonated with hundreds of thousands of people.
@@subaru4920you can just admit you hate your kids.
I understand both sides. I like the thing about sleepovers because my partner and I plan on instituting the same rule and it's nice to hear other people think through the same stuff (she's 5 months pregnant). On the other hand, I could see how someone that follows this channel would be annoyed by content that they deem completely unrelated to the legal stuff.
@@subaru4920yeah, why would we want to bring awareness to child sexual abuse and promote parents being extra cautious to make sure their kids aren't in the situation to be sexually abused.... thats a weird way to say you want less people aware and more people putting their children in situations to be abused. I know the internet is a crazy place but come on, you hebephiles will do whatever it takes for just promoting more opportunities to sexually abuse kids
She probably knew she was at fault and forgot the story she was going with 😌
I think she probably didn't want to admit that her driving did not reflect awareness of the other driver, but also wanted to use her knowledge of how aggressive the other driver was driving against them.
Most people have either done it or seen someone do it, where a driver will notice you and how you intend to steer your vehicle, but another person is essentially in their way and doesn't yield or change lanes to accommodate the other person. Often this matters when people merge from a highway or change lanes.
So it seems like she's the asshole who saw someone driving fast and chose to make lifer harder for them, and her decision led to an accident.
@@codyhumble7855 In other words, she caused the accident but tried to skew her story to appear not at fault... but she forgot her "story" while in court.
If you've ever watched Judge Judy, you can see how often people forget what their sworn testimony was and they tell a different story.
our minds create memories from nothing all the time... its very plausible it wasnt intentional
@@heartofdawnlight Intentional or not, she pretty much got caught in a lie. When you get questioned in legal cases, they tend to be very thorough to try and get the full consistent story and make sure they get all the details. Unless you are well prepped by a lawyer or just a great liar, it's hard to lie throughout the whole process without getting caught. Usually, the liar doesn't mess up their story and out themselves 🤣.
One of my favorite things to hear as an adjuster “I never saw them but they were speeding.” Because asking for someone to explain how they are both able to see and not see someone at the same time results in hilarious answers.
Yes, sometimes people lie in legal proceedings. But sometimes lawyers make people seem to be liars, when they are not lying.
There are other ways to judge if someone is speeding, perhaps not to the exact mph, but strength of impact and aftermath devastation and damage, can reveal excess speed as partial cause of accident.
There are liars and there are lawyers
@@davidhughes4785hard to judge impact because not every accident is the same and people i feel like - majority of the time attempt to brake before accidents. Making the impact appear to be slower.
Ive been in 3 accidents (passenger all 3 times. And all 3 have been all the same amount of dmg. (Even tho one was driving (hopefully the speed limit) which was around 35, and like 5 mph the other 2 times.
What don't you get? You look before turning. You don't see a car so you proceed with the turn. Then there's a collision. It means the other car was flying
I had a women two at me for "speeding" while I was stopped.
@NikoBellaKhouf2 if there's a blind corner you might have a point.
That's usually not the case.
Not as dramatic as Suits, but effective 😅
Extremely close.
Because it is REAL LIFE instead of a made for TV drama.
It is surprisingly close, he just lacks Harvey's swagger. @@AgnOudistic
@@1nm1 you so smart could not have figured
@@keiton9512tbh with the beard, he gets pretty close. Beardless Rafi is obviously professional, but he isn't "cool" yet
The stenographer going ham in the corner:
They are very talented
Movie hackers be like
It's fascinating that stenographers still have jobs with today's technology.
On average, they are around 200 wpm
@@MarkHall-cf6ji Not really. There isn't really anything fast enough and as capable at real time transcription with near enough accuracy compared to the human brain
Holy shit. After many months of watching him, I finally realized he looks like the main guy from Suits
That, and he gives off Matt Murdock vibes.
The "Wish" version
Harvey Specter or Mike Ross?
@@Greybeardmedic Omg I just realized both their names are Mike
@@Greybeardmedicgives me Mike Ross vibes
Lawyering is so passive aggressive 😂
100% asshole
When you have lawyers for family members... 😂
thats not what passive aggressive means.
being passive aggressive is agreeing with what someone says to their face and then doing the opposite out of spite when they are not around
@@SteveB-nx2uono
@@adj98 yes. you just do not understand the phrase.
passive aggressive people wont argue with you,
they wait until you leave then arrange everything the way you dont like it.
they agree to your policy and then ignore it.
that is what being passive aggressive means.
if you ask me to wipe my shoes at the door, and I agree then never do it - THAT is passive aggressive behavior.
especially so if I intentionally track dirt in.
{What is an example of passive-aggressive?
For example, someone who engages in passive-aggressive behavior might appear to agree - perhaps even enthusiastically - with another person's request. Rather than complying with the request, however, he or she might express anger or resentment by failing to follow through or missing deadlines.}
Something tells me you won the case
$1.5 million
@@MikeRafiLawyercongrats! :]
@MikeRafiLawyer how much do you make as a lawyer? To me, it looks fun but I could never get into it, I'm just curious though.
@@GregoryWurther lawyers at top firms can make multiple hundreds of thousands in their first few years
He probably made more than his client.@@GregoryWurther
This is why the police caution in the uk says “it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court” basically if you don’t mention an important part (allegedly seeing the driver speeding on the highway) when questioned it can cause many problems for you in court.
This wasn't about her omitting something. She contradicted herself. In one part she said she didn't see him coming. In another, she said she he was speeding. How would she know he was speeding if she didn't see him? She changed her story to make the other guy seem more at fault. This is very different than simply omitting something from an earlier statement. Also, I think in another clip of this case it shows that there was more she said in court which contradicted her earlier statements. Basically, she discredited herself because she kept changing her story.
@@xboxblakeyjnr8280 not a criminal case
@B1gBoyPants it could be her doing that purposely or it could be memory lapse from the accident. I've had 4 not at fault accidents since 2018.. some of the details from some of the accidents I still mix up, I however suffered concussions in most of them and went on to be diagnosed with post concussion syndrome.. the 1st accident I was in an out of consciousness and only have what I remember and what I was told so I definitely mess things up. Also, how much time passed since the accident to court? Memory is never as fresh and she could be having a traumatic response. Accidents are traumatic period. Don't be so quick to judge without all of the facts. Again, may be she is in the wrong and changing her story but may be she suffered injuries or trauma response.
@@angyllerobinson5910 regardless, it shows that her testimony is not necessarily reliable, which was the point. Even if it isn’t deliberate on her part
i dont understand... she said clea😮rly said she didnt see him but saw his car
😭 watching your videos are so fun I hope you win every single case that you get pray🙏🏾
I don’t know why or how but it was really entertaining to watch that just the utter calmness 😅
Oh, my dumb ass totally was like, "I mean yeah, seeing your client vs seeing your clients vehicle are two completely different things, whats this prove?" Lol
I’m thinking the same thing. Am I missing something? A person and a person’s car are two different things?
@@mattstephens6432they really aren’t frankly
Yes they are. One is a human being another is an object. So…they’re different things.
@@Gggggoose no. Colloquially and commonly these terms are used interchangeably. It is disingenuous and moronic to pretend otherwise.
@@SolitaryLark It’s in bad faith, and disingenuous, to assume she thinks so. Especially as some “gotcha” moment. Weak.
Never been more satisfied than finally clicking the second part and it is the second part
Yea that is a big nono if someone’s questions and answers are like that.
Like what? Sounds okay to me.
@@IcedLancemaybe in general conversation but in court they deal with things in absolutes not “I know he was going fast because I saw the car but I have no idea how to quantify the speed because I don’t know how long I saw it for” which is essentially what her answers boil down to
@@FirstLast-vv6lvShe didn't say any of that though and you even misunderstood the last question.
I don't need to stare at a car with a stopwatch to know if it's speeding. If I'm driving at the speed limit and I see a car going faster than me, I can tell it's speeding.
This is more about her contradictory statements. In this trial she says that she saw his car on the road coming before the crash, contradicting her deposition.
@@ryanrzjr She said she saw the car, and she said she didn't see the person driving. I don't see these as contradictory. The only time I see other drivers is when I'm standing at a red light.
Fuck watching lawyer shows
Lets just watch a lawyer do his job.
That seems like a Perry Mason moment.
I hope more videos like this one are in the pipeline. Videos like this do a great job of demystifying the courtroom and some procedures for us.
Thanks, Mike!
This clip was perfectly unremarkable AND perfectly punctuated with the Tapes’ owner saying, “and that’s it”.
I want to see more of something like that here
I work as an auto claims adjusters and this always makes me laugh when I get a situation like this when getting someone’s facts of accident. My thoughts are always, “If you saw they were going fast why did you continue to pull in front of them?”, “If you didn’t see them before the impact, how do you know they were going fast?” You can’t have this both ways unless someone else or video can corroborate it.
I took my AAERT CER exam not too long ago, and i remembered this short, and it helped me get a question right😅
It’s amazing to me that a lot of trial Lawyer activity in the courtroom is like acting. It’s like a performance you have to be comfortable with being in front of an audience. You have to be comfortable with performing and almost kind of teaching the jury your side. Not only is it intelligence and memory, but it’s like you’re directing and acting out of play all by yourself, executing the story in front of everybody and the manipulating it to your advantage or your clients advantage. That’s amazing use of all kinds of skills. I guess now I have a different appreciation for lawyers wears before I only had negative experiences so I only had a bad opinion.
I like how he keeps adjusting his suit , it shows awareness but I think that better tailoring is the answer because some would be distracted and lose the plot.
we need more of these court videos
We need more judges to allow filming
@@MikeRafiLawyer True I expected them to not allow it. Nicely done on your end
The Egos in that room could fill the Milky Way Galaxy.
Love the courtroom content!
As someone who designs court recording systems, please talk into the microphone my man. Love your stuff
Maybe consider the user as opposed to your design.
@@Candyman757Any attorney who cares about their case will dress, speak, stand, walk, handle exhibits as if the client's case depends on it, cuz it does. Or he can demand recording systems in all the courtrooms in the world accomodate his pacing around.
@@suesholin7398 exactly. These recordings are also paramount for appeals. You can’t fix poor recordings after the fact.
As someone who uses court recording systems: seconded. I fucking cry when the lawyer moves and starts coming though on multiple channels.
If she had an attorney present in that courtroom, they are an ass- else they would have issued an objection to your line of questioning. Someone can "notice" a car without "seeing" the driver! OBJECTION SUSTAINED!
No one cares if she saw the driver or not. Everyone knows this is about the car. If she saw the driver/car before the impact or not
He wasn't questioning her on the stand, so there was nothing to object to. He was having her deposition read into evidence.
I wouldn't object. That just looks like you're trying to hide something. I'd clarify on redirect and get the jury to distrust opposing counsel.
I was in a depo and it was high anxiety. But just the truth if you have nothing to hide.
Cool short. Seeing as most of your viewers aren't lawyers it might be nice to offer some backstory or reasoning what any of this means.
And that's it.
He’s attacking the witness’ trustworthiness (impeaching her) by reading her deposition testimony (testimony that she gave under oath prior to trial as part of discovery) into the record (meaning the judge or jury can access it during deliberations), which likely contradicts the evidence she have prior to the video starting. This gives the jury a reason to doubt the accuracy of her testimony, and makes it more likely that they will side with his client on the matter.
Idk what’s better. Watching the court case or seeing Mike in action. They were both great. 😎
So, she didnt see the human correct? But she did see the vehicle?
Yeah, she didn't see the driver, and she wasn't counting the seconds before impact or whatever.
Nothing in her answers sounds suspicious. She's human.
This is a part 2, she was being inconsistent about when and where she saw the car. Not a slam dunk, but definitely negligent.
This is part 2.
In part one she is giving her testimony in court where, to paraphrase she says "I saw him very far away about 30 seconds, so I thought I had time to cross, but when I saw again he speed up dangerous levels and hit me. Its his fault because he was going to fast, if he wasnt going fast I would have time to cross the intersection."
Which contradicts her deposition being pretty much: "I started crossing before I even knew or was aware he was there. I never saw him or checked before I started turning. I didnt saw him when I cross. I know he was driving fast because when I got out of my vehicle AFTER the impact, he was there, so its my only logical conclusion (at the moment to cover myself)."
That is the same way I interpreted the question. I like most of Mike's content, but showing this off as a big gotcha is lame.
@@LimakPanThat's not how that works. Why do you sound like you're defending the liar? She said she did see him (his vehicle). She then said she did see him and didn't know how long before the crash (an obvious lie). You don't need to count the seconds to come up with an answer to something so simple. She could have said, just before the crash, or a couple minutes before the crash. She could have said anything if she knew the answer, but she didn't know the answer because it was a lie.
"did you see my client" I would be asking; "in what context". "I didn't see your client but I saw his car." I find it interesting that people are so intimidated by lawyers. Some of them aren't as smart as they want us to believe.
Stellar impeachment, perfectly by the book. Unfazed by her answer that she didn't know. You do great work Mike.
It’s not impeachment it’s perjury.
I bet you're a Biden voter... Just floating through life, without a care in the world or a thought in your head
Smooth tactics of being able to create “questions” that still allow you to make statements. “Is that correct/did I read that correctly?…” smart!
He asked her if she saw his client. To me, that means the client, as in the person. Not his car.
Whoa I had jury duty last September and it was with that judge.
"did you see him before the impact?"
"no"
"so if you didnt see him before the impact, how did you know he was speeding?"
"cause i saw his car"
dude seriously i cannot wrap my head around her logic💀
I appreciate how well the videos are linked together, how easily you can go between them due to the link above the description
You asked if she saw your client before the crash. (No.) You didn't ask if she saw your client's CAR before the crash. (Implied yes.) Hypothetical: she saw a car before the crash, and it was going fast, and afterwards she saw your client get out of the driver's seat, but that was the first time she saw your CLIENT - after the crash.
Yeah really confused me. I thought there must have been another point because it was a poorly worded question.
The problem wasn't that she didn't distinguish between seeing the car or not it's that she had a different answer in part 1 which nobody clicked through to. That's why he breaks out the deposition transcript. She said that she saw him before then in court but did not see him before then in the deposition.
@@jplayzowBut she did say she saw him in the deposition. She just did not know/specify how long before the crash
@@jplayzowshe never said she saw the driver. In part one she said she saw the car coming from the highway
In court before the deposition was brought out: "I saw him speeding off the highway sir"
_I saw him_ is directly said by her earlier
This deposition proves directly she was lying under oath (since deposition is also done under oath of course)
This kind of happened to my mom. The guy who crashed in to her said he knew she was speeding because he didnt see her lol the cop thankfully saw through that right away
My man been watching Suits, lmao
But the first question said she didn't see him 30s to 1 minute before. Crashes happen way quicker than that.
She didn't lie at all. She even said she saw his car. You just didn't ask about the proper time frame when she did see his car. There's nothing about your questions that imply the ones after the first are referring to the same 30-60 seconds before the crash.
One of the questions was how long before the crash did you see him. She still didn’t know.
Second, go watch the first part, she says she saw him speeding off the highway. Yet she still decides to pull out in front of a speeding car. Makes zero sense.
She is changing her story cause she knows she needs to put the blame on the other driver. He could have been speeding, but her deposition is more than likely right. She never saw him.
Found the woman in the video 😂😂😂😂
“In the 30 seconds-minute before the crash.” Aka within one minute before the crash. It is not “before 30 seconds of the crash did you see the car” it is “in the 30 seconds before the crash”
She saw the car driving fast, but did not see the driver, before the impact. She wasn't certain how long before the impact she first saw the car. She saw the client was the driver of that car after the impact. So she answered truthfully as the question was asked with literal interpretation.
So when you have 30 days to make changes to the deposition you still have to be under oath?
Yes, but every change is apropriatedly recorded so you can have an history of versions
I work in the insurance industry, and I tell people all the time that, "I didn't see them," is not a defense.
Lol she didn't witness anything 💀
Feels just as good as picking the right options during cross examination in Phoenix Wright lmao
Maybe I’m missing something but you can see someone’s car and how fast they are going without “seeing him”. The way the question was worded leaves it ambiguous and therefore should be easy for the other lawyer to counter.
thats not what the point was, she claimed he was driving fast, but she didn't see him, or the car before the crash happened
so clearly she doesn't know how fast he was going, looking at damages/ car, is not seeing someone going fast, the question wasn't ambiguous, it was just the result of making the point she didn't see him go fast at all
The point is simpler than that. In the part 1 video, she claimed she saw his client speeding on the highway long before impact. However in the deposition, she claimed she did not see the client at all until impact. The contradiction in her testimony is enough to have her deemed untrustworthy and therefore impeached.
@@redakdal why would you need to? You can tell from the damage how fast someone was going. She said she saw the car before it hit her, just not sure for how long...
But that's not what she said.
She did not see him. She DID see the car. She does not know how much time passed between her seeing the car, and the crash.
I don't see any contradiction in that.
I fail to understand this. She saw the car, not the person, for a certain amount of time that she does not recall, during which she saw the car going fast. How exactly does this win the case?
Technically, perhaps she never saw the “client” as he stated. Seeing the person and seeing the person’s vehicle are two different things.
But he asked if she saw the client. She didn't. She saw the vehicle, though. Those are 2 separate things.
its not, the last question did her in, she said did not see his car before the impact as well, which means she couldn't of seen him speeding
In court a moment earlier: "I saw him speeding off the highway sir"
_I saw him_
I'm a forensic engineer and this is absolutely what I do for a living, summarizing depositions into my report to highlight inconsistencies. Good job!
You’re a cunning man, the zeal and passion you exude is contagious. Wouldn’t want to come up against you on the legal battlefield.
It must suck to be a lawyer. Such unpleasant people.
When I lie, I always go through the story several times in my head to get all the details hashed out.
He asked “did you see my client?” He didn’t ask “did you see his car?” Two very different things.
Car and person are the exact same thin unless the argument is: he wasn't the one driving or he wasn't there. Like wtf are you even talking about
@@scotttillinghast9665 BS. He asked did you see him, she said no. Of course not, he is inside the car, maybe up higher than her. She told the truth, I didn't see the person, I saw the car.
They aren’t
@@smokinjoe4709frankly that’s fucking nonsense. No reasonable person would argue this. And that’s why she lost. We all know she’s and they were using him interchangeably with his car.
@@SolitaryLarkAs someone who is neurodivergent that is exactly how my mind works and the fact that you are unwilling to believe anyone can possibly think that way is why I almost got charged with my brother's murder even after they caught the actual murderer. Because like you the police get to say no one thinks like that, and they get to convince the jury that no one thinks like that. But several percent of the comments in this chat show that people do think like that. Even if we are the minority we do exist, kind of like left handed people are a thing even if they are a minority you can still buy baseball gloves and golf clubs for them. So don't write off neurodivergent thought patterns as not existing because you don't use the same equipment.
Always love the "I didn't see him. But I saw him"
Lawyer asked, "Did you see my client?" Try identifying a complete stranger inside a car based on a pre collision sighting.
An OBJECTION! moment Phoenix would be proud of.
Thanks for linking part 2 in part 1! Love the content and love the ease of navigation
Don't think that would work on me if I was on the jury and instead might convince me your client was speeding. Instead of discrediting her, I interpreted the responses as "was going so fast they came out of nowhere", not a legal argument but something we all witnessed with speeding cars.
Yep, rewatched that a bunch of times. Sounded like the car wasn't there to be seen until the second before impact, i.e. your client was speeding.
It the part 1 of this she said she saw him speeding from the highway on the merge lane. She said in her deposition that she didn't see him with in 30 sec/when she hit him. The fault was she can't both not have seen him until she hit him and saw him coming of the ramp of a highway. Both cannot be true.
@@Ma5jay5dontxdoxthat Ah, okay. Based off of this single clip this is in no way a "gotcha" moment.
@@bludolfinopalit's amazing how you can be a smartass and simultaneously too stupid to see the "part 2"
Watch part 1 😂 she says she seen him on the highway coming and in this clip she didnt see him lol
Holy crap. Thats you. You badass kickass lawyer you!!!!! You're alright.
“You’re under oath during that time, right?”
Objection, leading question
I think it's cross examination, so leading questions are allowed
@mcfarofinha134 yeah he's questioning the other person involved in the crash so this is almost certainly cross examination
I love this. More content like this, please, and thank you.
Can't she just say " i didn't see him, i saw the car."
Thats not the answer sge gave in the deposition tho...
She said this in court before the deposition was brought out: "I saw him speeding off the highway sir"
_'I saw him'_ not 'i saw his car'
Her deposition contradicts what she said earlier
@@simsom4343 "him" or "car" is the same thing. not a real impeachment there.
@@tradetrek That is kinda my point, they are all using 'him' and 'his car' interchangeably, that's my entire point actually
The actual thing this short is about (it's a part 2 btw) is that she had contradictory statements in her deposition vs in court (both are under oath), so she lied under oath
Darn it. I seem to be the only one here lost.
The kid from Suits really was a lawyer all along 😲
Most of the time you only noticed someone who's about to hit you in the final 3 to 5 seconds.
30 seconds to a minute it's too long before a crash because you have a moment to do something about it.
That's why you follow the 10-second rule when you drive behind someone.
You should be able to stop safely within 10 seconds no matter what speed you are driving.
That was a disingenuous question you asked her.
I agree, he actually would have been better off making it appear like she told the truth when she said she saw him coming off the highway before he hit her (in a different video) because then she clearly saw it was unsafe to change lanes and did so anyway.
She said she didn’t see the driver. She didn’t say she didn’t see the car, I don’t see what you won here? Also 1 minute before any crash even at 100 miles an hour the car is going to be very very far away, 1,500 ft, of course you won’t see the driver, you may see the car though.
Lawyers are notoriously flimsy when it comes to time, 30 seconds can be enough time to to have a 4 course meal or so short a human can't even comprehend what happened in that amount of time depending on which one helps their case.
@yodaami 1 minute at 100mph would be 8,796 ft away... also, with no obstruction, most people can see about 3 miles (horizon) or around 16,000 ft.
@@marcgatlin2641 oops typo on the distance. You can’t see the face of a person driving at that distance! Or do you think you can? A person can actually see millions of miles, it’s how we see the stars. But you certainly cannot see the driver of the car that Elon Musk sent out. My point was he asked 2 very different questions, which she gave 2 very different and non contradictory sensible answers to. And he seemed to think he’d made a win. Mind you half the population is by definition below average intelligence, so I suppose he fooled them well.
I was a juror in a criminal case and the defense attorney tried the same exact strategy. Same cadence and everything
Given the trajectory of the car after pact you could surmise that the other car was traveling at excessive speed but without more details it's hard to say for certain
Your honor. I will prove a "logical fallacy" akin to high school questions or logic from a person under a high stress situation answering questions under oath.
Seeing the client and seeing client's car are two different things
More of this. I like the court room footage. Especially in short form.
“Did you see him 30 seconds to 1 minute before the crash”
“No”
“Then how did you know he was driving fast”
“Because I saw him”
“Sounds to me like you never saw him”
Anyone in the jury with an IQ higher than 5 realizes how long of a time 30 seconds is before a crash.
"Because I saw him" obviously within 30 seconds of the crash.
Rafi clearly bait and switches from "did you see them in this particular time frame" to "then you didn't see them AT ANY POINT before the impact".
It's like asking "30, 60 years ago were you attending this school?" no (because I attended to school about 5 years ago)
"If you never attended this school before 2024, how can you know what happened in the school" what?
It's a rhetorical trick, he said "IF you didn't see him before the impact, then how did you know how fast he was going" it is posing a hypothetical that isn't true. He tricked her into a contradiction by posing a bogus hypothetical that she wasn't clever enough to robustly contradict.
When he asks when she saw the car and she honestly responds she doesn't know when that's entirely consistent with her seeing the vehicle within 30 seconds but not sure when.
@@Treblaine The previous question was not at WHAT time within 1 minute of the crash did you see the car, but did you see the car (at any point) within 1 minute of the crash and she said no. When she says no that means she is stating she never saw the car within 1 minute of the crash (at least not before impact).
@@1nm1 if that is what he meant, he knew (or should have known) that phrasing it in sloppy way he did would create confusion he could exploit by manufacturing a contradiction.
It barely has any grammatical structure "in the 30 seconds 1 minute or so before the crash, did you..." That's grammatically incoherent, you have to infer what he must have meant because he's dropping words that make the sentence legible.
That is vague AF.
You can't accept that because Rafi has framed himself as the hero taking on big evil corporations but here he is playing word games with a woman who is giving this nice young man the benefit of the doubt he doesn't deserve and he's betraying her trust.
@@1nm1he said or so after his jumbled mess of a sentence. Or so means more than 30 seconds to a minute.
@@Treblainethat’s exactly my point. I knew this guy was full of shit after his comments on doctors, business owners, etc. It’s funny how he portrays every other profession as greedy bad guys when he’s not only a lawyer, but a sketchy one at that.
I had to sub. You have a interesting channel
This looks so scummy
Cringe 😖🤢🤮
It's like watching Harvey or mike rattle a witness 😂😂
Why don’t you bend your right leg
Power move
It does but the size of his pants and the fact that his knees hyperextend hide his leg movements quite a bit
When you said "him"..... Did you mean his car, or actually see the person thru all the glass and recognize THE UNIQUE driver?.... I'm guessing the lawyer meant the car, and the subject in the depo / stand meant the person himself, not the individual car?.... Lady should have asked to clarify during the depo.
"I didn't see them before the crash but I saw them speeding before the crash"
Thank you so much for linking the other part 🙏🏻🙏🏻
"I don't remember that deposition word for word and the way you read that was not how I usually speak" - nice and vague and can introduce doubt without committing perjury or seeming argumentative
Never say anything about how fast the other car was going. Unless you seen them coming from a distance. I had a insurance lawyer try to hang me up on this one time.
Damn they really turned Phoenix wright into a real thing
Rule #1 of lawyering. Never ask a question you do not know the answer to!
Just took me months of watching you to realize in this video you look like Mike from Suits. Very fitting
The shorts are great but real life scenarios are even better
We try to film as much as we can, but it’s still difficult to get judges to OK it
I don't know how these lawyers sleep at night getting bad people off
Her attorney: "I would like to ask if the reason you didn't see the man before the accident is because you only saw the car and not the driver?"
Her: "Correct"
Her Attorney: "And the reason that you didn't know how long you saw his car before the impact is because he was driving faster than your rate of perception?"
Her: "Correct!"
Her attorney: "So how did you know the defendant was the driver of the car?"
Her: "Because he was present in the car' drivers seat when the impact happened and the car was no longer too fast for me to see the driver."
Her attorney: "The prosecution tests, Your Honour."
When in court. Remember the answer "I don't know" is better than an answer that you really don't know but make uo
She didn’t see him.. but she did see the car.. 😂😂😂
Clean shaven Mike Rafi is one of the most unsettling things I've ever seen oddly enough
"I didn't see him" followed immediately by "I knew how fast he was going because I saw him."
Thanks for linking part 2!
This is why you get a lawyer, it’s cheaper to pay a lawyer than pay the insurance company 😂
always clarify the questions - see him versus see his car...
Undergrad Mock Trial flashbacks, great to see how we did it in practice is actually how it works irl.
I thought that was Mike from suits for a few seconds 😂
She looked at his driver's license, it stated: "He was driving fast." 😂
Thought this was a scene from "the rookie" for a second😂