Do you agree with my grade? What episode should I do next? Also, check out my reactions to Suits, Better Call Saul, A Few Good Men and tons more: goo.gl/42fKce
Not so much an objection as much as a hypothetical. If a couple were to divorce and be required to split a house as it is over half their combined assets' worth, could they sell it to their young child for a token amount, accept the offer as guardians, and then take turns residing in their child's home as guardians and executors (rather than sharing custody by moving the child from one home to another) thus avoiding inheritance taxes?
I was a Juror in court once, and the court phone rang and the judge picked up, listened for about 10 seconds and then goes "NO I DO NOT NEED VINYL SIDING FOR MY HOUSE" and slammed the phone down. It was the funniest thing I ever seen in my life.
I saw a Local Court Magistrate comment that the prosecution should remember that the [state] police were not known for being particularly forthright with information. My jaw almost hit the floor witnessing that.
There was a rather high profile murder case a few years ago where the Judge's cell phone went off in the middle of the trial. Caused a big stir, had to be embarrassing for the judge, though, especially if he had chewed other's out for similar disruptions...
the rules of fletcher's curse: 1: he may not lie. 2: he may not twist the truth on any way including something as basic a reframing an idea from a different angle. 3: he does not have the option to remain silent. if there is a fact, or angle of a fact, that he knows he must present it loudly. this is what i picked up watching the movie myself a few years ago. the curse is not as simple as "don't speak/write direct falsehoods" like most people think it is.
OBJECTION, rule number 2 is distinctly broken by the fact that when he beats himself up, he never outright says “I kicked my own ass”, he frames it in the context of a man ‘at the end of his pitiful rope’ did it, which means he must therefore have some liberty to twist the truth.
@@ClashBluelight I'm talking about when he talks to the judge about it after the fact, he never says "I kicked my own ass", he bends the truth. I'm not referring to when he speaks to the man who walks in on him.
Seriously they really will. I was a State dependent as a kid and my status as a child did not stop a bailiff during a custody battle between my parents and the State of California from appropriately restraining me when I tried to run to hug my crying mother on the stand.
There a videos of bailiff tackling people on the internet. I'm always looking forward to people commenting with this quote. I've never been disappointed.
@@aeternusdoleo4531 because technically Judge Judy isn't a "real" judge. Television courtrooms aren't completely "fake" in that they decide real cases, but they enforce the decision with contracts between the parties that appear on the show. As such, such courtrooms do not necessarily reflect all of the rules and customs of "real" courts
@@Twisted_Code Judge Judy is definitely a real Judge. She was a lawyer from 1972-1982 and was then appointed as a Judge until 1996 when her show started she is still a genuine Judge on her show she just does arbitration though on it. She has worked over 20,000 cases in her career before starting her show so show her the respect she deserves.
"Who did this?!" "A MADMAN your Honor! A desperate fool at the end of his pitiful rope!" "What did he look like?" "About 6'2, 180 pounds, big teeth kinda gangly."
If I were a lawyer, I'd say: Objection! We cannot prove or disprove that this coital cacophony was rendered by anyone in this courtroom and does not prove "in flagrate dilecto". I move that it should be stricken from evidence.
The thing she says at the end about the children is way too true. It's disgusting when people use their children to hurt their ex and it's why I stopped working in family law. In my opinion it should be considered abuse.
That's why I've long had immense respect for my parents. They separated when me and my two sisters were all under 5. I won't go into what caused it, but the fallout could have devastated us all. My parents kept their problems from us, and both made sure we were always loved, and spent equal amounts of time with each parent each week. They vowed that, whatever differences they had, it just would not be fair to weaponise their children against each other. For them, but obviously more so for us. I didn't even find out why they separated until i was like 15. Unfortunately, nowhere near enough people get as immensely lucky as my sisters and me. (I don't mean financially btw, we've always been dirt poor)
In the state of California, the audio-tape is hearsay, and the act of recording the audio on the tape was invasion of privacy, making it inadmissible in court regardless of whether or not the female voice was that of Mrs Cole.
@@FracturedPixels Well, calling it "hearsay" is just another way of expressing the concern I raised: how do we know it's really her and what she's doing?
Even if it was admissable, (assuming the following happened) Fletcher would have had to prove it was Mrs Cole, and he would've objected when the tape played
Furthermore it could be argued that the people on the tape are only simulating sexual sounds since in reality that is what they are doing. Unless the actors are very Method of course. ;)
I gotta ask: Ever had a moment where you felt like screaming, "STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!" at a client? X3 That's my favorite moment in the movie.
@@jasonbikeracer1 Usually, most cases are open to the public. In japan, in fact, there isn't even an age limit. A toddler could enter the chamber and watch the proceedings. But, in cases that envolve minors, the proceedings are private, in order to preserve their identity and well being
There are thousands of people in the US who would pay great money to watch Jim Carry play one of his characters in person. I’m surprised more people aren’t in the courtroom
I always assumed it was because the Cole Family is rich, so they're either really popular and people want to see the trial or they're family and friends of them.
I honestly don't like the 2 party consent law. We have that in PA as well. There was a guy who's kid was being bullied and he wanted to prove they weren't doing anything to stop the bullying from happening and he recorded a private meeting with some of school staff and they admitted to not doing anything, or something along those lines and he goes, "Got it" and reveals he was recording. They then went on to press charges on this guy for illegal wiretapping. He just wanted to protect his kid and how he's faced with jail time. I also saw where a teen was using his school issued tablet to record people bullying him and he is facing wiretapping charges as well. Sure you don't want people to record you in private places, and there should obviously be laws against peeping, spying, etc. But if you're taping someone who's doing wrong to you or someone else, or threatening you, or someone else...You should be protected
I also believe everyone should have the right to record all conversation and use them as evidence. At the same time, I do understand the 2 party consent law is trying to protect people from answering leading question. Such as if you try to provo someone and anger them enough, the other party might say something like "I am going to kill you". Calibrated leading questions are used very often, especially in negotiation, sales and marketing. It is hard for non train personal to notice if they are falling in the trap of calibrated questions. On the other hand, it is also hard for the court to determine the premise of the questions.
The problem isn’t with 2 party consent per se-It’s that there isn’t an affirmative defense for situations like that. 2 party consent is very important for protecting privacy-Before revenge porn laws became a thing, it was one of the very few ways to sue for that-but there are definitely glaring problems.
In Australia you can only record unannounced for the purposes of accuracy of recall when seeking to safeguard your legal rights or the legal rights of others and never for the purposes of display nor publication. You're allowed to ensure an accurate transcript.
I OBJECT! Her actions doing the last 13 years clearly showed that she would have voided the marriage, by her conducting adultery all the way through since the beginning of it.
My question is, would the marriage be valid, unless maybe it's a common law marriage, but that's usually about 10 years, and I think both parties still have to consent. that part always messed with me.
Objection! Fletcher was unable to stay silent when asked a question because he was unable to lie by omission. He adheres to the court mandate of “the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth”
I always took it as even though he’s a lawyer and that’s how he defines the truth his natural instinct is to lie in any situation so he’s panic lying and just shouting
Objection: the Electronic Surveillance Act of California went into effect in 2016, while the film in question was recorded in 1997, which predates the statute mentioned. Evidence is thereby admissible without consent by any parties involved.
Leon: I object to your objection. CHAPTER 1.5. Invasion of Privacy [630 - 638.55] ( Chapter 1.5 added by Stats. 1967, Ch. 1509. ) Penal code 632 was added in *1967* , which is before the movie was released, states that "A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication... shall be punished by a fine not exceeding... ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year... or both." Therefore, the law Attorney Stone is referring to has existed before both the movie and the law you stated.
@@confusedwhale Potentially more germane to the trial: PENAL CODE - PEN PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680] ( Part 1 enacted 1872. ) TITLE 15. MISCELLANEOUS CRIMES [626 - 653.75] ( Title 15 enacted 1872. ) CHAPTER 1.5. Invasion of Privacy [630 - 638.55] ( Chapter 1.5 added by Stats. 1967, Ch. 1509. ) 631. (a) Any person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line, cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication system, or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 632, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, he or she is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (b) This section shall not apply (1) to any public utility engaged in the business of providing communications services and facilities, or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts otherwise prohibited herein are for the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and facilities of the public utility, or (2) to the use of any instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility, or (3) to any telephonic communication system used for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility. (c) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding. (d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1994. (Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 15, Sec. 428. (AB 109) Effective April 4, 2011. Operative October 1, 2011, by Sec. 636 of Ch. 15, as amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 39, Sec. 68.) Note the date in subsection (d), (c) ostensibly stifles all 'evidence' obtained via surveillance as admissible. So unless, as Mr. Stone suggests, Mrs. Cole was loud enough to be recorded without the aid of any electronic surveillance equipment, this definitely makes the hurtle for the tape to be admitted into evidence that much more difficult. But who knows, maybe they were just in a very echoey room? 😂
I do not understand the basis for 2-party consent. If someone says something to me, why should they have an expectation of privacy? For example, if someone is threatening me or extorting me, why should they be afforded legal protection from me recording their illegal threats to facilitate a rightful criminal prosecution for those illegal threats? I understand 3rd party consent. Or whatever the principle would be labelled to protect against arbitrary surveillance from someone not party to a conversation. But if someone talks to me, I should be able to record it if I choose to prove any future claims I make about what was said TO ME and by whom. Can someone explain why that should not be the case?
@@icmann4296 A recording taken out of context can be misleading. And, generally, people will say things in private that they wouldn't want heard in public. Or someone might brag about having done certain things that they haven't actually done in order to enlarge their reputation. A written law is a bad place to try to thread the needle between entrapment on one side (where someone who knows the conversation is being recorded tries to steer it towards incriminating-sounding statements from the other person) and a record of illegal behaviour on the other.
12:43 My mobile phone went off mid-case when I was called to jury service in the UK. It was a new phone, thought I'd turned it off, apparently not. Started ringing, everyone looked in my direction, I was mortified and ripped the battery out. The judge reminded the court that all mobile phones must be switched off during the hearing, then they carried on.
I second this, and I was actually noticing the fit of your suit mere moments before - true story. So nice work. If anything it got cut unnaturally short, but that's the right side to err on I guess, (the plug, not the suit).
@@chaosawaits I know how you feel. A lot of people feel that way about their lawn too. Speaking of which, if you want a mower than can't cut too short, just go right over to Bob's Grass Emporium and use the code "IRONMAN" for an insane discount on top-of-the-line lawn care products.
You should REALLY cover a movie called "From The Hip" with John Hurt and Judd Nelson. Some really interesting and fun courtroom scenes and tactics in that movie.
@@jiminbang5822 there is no evidence that I have ever. been intimate with anyone, hence my nickname “The Virgin Queen”. I have never had any “friends” like those you refer to... at least there’s no record of it
Objection; A person stating that they were told someone else's age would be considered heresay, but since the birth date and marriage documents show her age (both accurate and falsified), it would not be deemed as such.
I don't see how you can possible be held culpable if you went as far as checking their ID. Like...you as a citizen cannot be expected to be expert enough to spot a good fake ID, and you can't reasonably be expected to go requesting copies of birth certificates or other verification from everyone you might sleep with.
You should do the courtroom scenes from To Kill a Mockingbird. Not only is it an American classic but I personally believe that it's the most legally accurate courtroom movie
Yah that would be a really good one if u haven't done it already. Plus ur kinda linient on the movies realism man. you disagreed with most of the stuff in this one and still a B+
@@eliv127 i like that. Most of the video is just him having a good time and sharing some points of view due to his experience as a lawyer. Its not a hardcore movie review.
I second this motion, but also like to put forward evidence based upon what we know about the legal system. The second book by Harper Lee “go set a watchmen,“ [which would have been her first book, if her publishers did not love the look at scouts childhood so much more than the rest of the story] while disappointing to many fans of “to kill a Mockingbird,“ does not actually burst as many bubbles as you would think. A lawyer is supposed to work for his client and is paid for it, Regardless of what he personally thinks about this client. This means that, as painful as it might be to hear, Atticus finch could defend a black man from rape accusations [completely false] in spite of being racist. Not to mention that Atticus knows that his client is innocent. His personal feelings about race don’t factor into it. So, Atticus could still be a bigoted old man even though the events of to kill a mockingbird did happen.
On the subject of leading questions, I heard a very funny exchange in court a couple of weeks ago. One attorney asked 3 or 4 leading questions rapid fire, and the other attorney stood up to object. He said, "How many leading questions does she get to ask?" Her response, "As many as I want until you object. I'll move on." Judge put his head down to try and hide his smile. It was great.
Objection: Fletcher can't just "remain silent", it's established in the film that he has to speak truthfully when prompted even when he'd rather not say anything
You should review the TV Show "The Grinder" The plot is literally about a TV Lawyer who starts practicing real law with his actual lawyer brother who keeps trying to show him how TV law is completely different from real law.
I liked that show; it's a shame it didn't get picked up for at least another season or two. I'm a sucker for things making fun of rich phonies, whether they're real or not.
@@MadCheshireHat It was hilarious. Rob Lowe was the TV lawyer and Fred Savage was the exasperated real lawyer. th-cam.com/video/FOqYMoIcFXA/w-d-xo.html
@@markwhat3637 which part of the chain do you object to? Some people don't get endorphin for exercising? Some people with endorphin don't get happy or some happy people kill?
I was an eyewitness after the fact in a robbery of a local Burger King. In California. I had given my testimony for the prosecution, so now it was the defense's turn. I had established that I was leaving my second floor apartment when I witness the events taking place. By way of trying to discredit me, the defense attorney knew he was grasping at straws, but he was doing (I assume) his best. It had already been established that the weather was theatening rain. He asked me if I had an umbrella with me as I was exiting my apartment. He actually asked me whether my umbrella had been open or closed as I was trying to exit through my doorway. He was trying to imply that, with my umbrella open, I couldn't have seen what I said I saw. He then comes up with "Was it open or closed?" Which annoyed the hell out of me, and I responded "Trying to go through a door with an open umbrella makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine!" The gallery burst out laughing, and I believe the judge then reprimanded me, but he let my testimony stand. I simply have a very hard time with blatant stupidity. The guy was convicted.
Objection! Throughout the video, you said things along the lines of 'Just because he can't lie doesn't mean he has to tell the truth' but based on the evidence and the film's internal logic, the magic wish doesn't just cause him not to lie but causes him to be honest.
Overruled. What he means is that there's ways that he can make a decent defence for his client without needing to lie. For example, he can object not because "this is bad for my case" but rather "This evidence was against the 2 party consent law" saying that the client was illegally recorded without her consent.
Yeah, I got that as the message from the film as well. I think he’s just commenting more about those moments in particular and how he “could’ve” lied through omission, but the message of the movie was not allowing that. It’s just the way the artists went with it. I do wonder though, how much truth and to whom and when does he have to speak it? Because he was able to kinda truthfully weasel his way out of a couple things, he also didn’t always blah about everything he’s done wrong (like the cop/parking tix scene). So, I think not having a consistent amount of lying or truth telling and having it come on bursts to different people at many different times is why I think he really still felt like he could’ve lied through omission.
Rory Smith the movie established that he couldn’t even lie to himself, by himself in a room with no one else in it, see the pen scene. It also established that he couldn’t lie through omission, doing so caused him to sputter out the truth, see scenes with Greta. The cop’s question when he pulled him over was “do you know why I stopped you” and Fletcher responded with “depends on how long you’ve been following me”. The cop then states: “Let’s take it from the top, shall we?” Fletcher then lists off every crime he committed while speeding. His blabbering about his tickets stems from the further question: “Anything else?” So by omission, he cannot lie either. All of this ties together with Max’s birthday wish of no lying. This wasn’t a black and white wish, it was vague and as such, it applied vaguely and covered any form of lying. “I wish my dad couldn’t lie for one whole day.” And as I’ve pointed out, it is a wide covering thing.
@@notmakingcontent I think the magic makes it impossible for him to say things that could be considered as avoiding the truth if the truth is not defined by factual accuracy, but rather by moral standards (based on the morals of his own superego, presumably). Under this definition, he cannot really weasel his way out of things, and a good example is the cop, where for example, responding with "no" to the question if he knows why he has been pulled over would be truthful, as he doesn't know it because he doesn't know how long he has been followed, but it wouldn't be moral because he may have broken more laws than the cop has seen. However, he can create circumstances under which he doesn't have to weasel his way out of things, such as beating himself up. _This means that the notion of moral truth only affects what he says, not his actions._ That also explains why he explains the laws he broke to the cop, but is still able to break them in the first place, even though he knows that is immoral (proven by the fact that he deems it necessary to disclose the crimes because of the curse). Of course, this also makes it interesting to take note on what Fletcher now considers immoral, because it basically includes everything he would do to make a case for his client, which somewhat makes sense as the "most moral thing" is to be impartial, and a lawyer is, by design of their position in court, virtually never impartial. This means that Fletcher, on some level, values absolute morals over the specific morals connected to the position as a lawyer, where you are only a part of a process that tries to be impartial in its entirety, not in every participant. This could serve to show that Fletcher was never well suited for this profession in the first place, as all of his actions that made him a good lawyer were, while justified in his own mind, still going against his moral compass.
I love that you can tell he really enjoyed this movie and, unlike the other stuff he evaluates, he had seen it before and thought it deserved nearly one hour of analysis and a two-parter special. Good for you. I, too, love this film and am not ashamed of it
YOUR HONOR I OBJECT!!! And why is that Mr. Reed? BECAUSE IT'S DEVASTATING TO MY CASE! Overruled GOOD CALL Literally the reason I watched this video to see his reaction to that
There's a little known law movie called "From The Hip," starring Judd Nelson, who plays a lawyer with very unorthodox methods. Also has a very underrated performance from John Hurt. Would love to see you review that one.
I just want to point out how cool it is that so many commenters actually write "OBJECTION" and take this really seriously. I'm not a lawyer but this is one of the most fun channels on TH-cam
Flynn Livescmd most plugs I’ve seen are 2 minute - 2.5 minute plugs in a 12-ish minute video. This was a 5 second plug in a 25 minute video. I think you’ll survive.
id rather have a plug from the content creator rather than the regular standard youtube interruptions because you can just right arrow key through it unlike some of the non-skippable ads
There are some things I wished you had covered: -The scene where FLETCHER insults every member of the firm and they all laugh. Even if they find him funny, would they still want and/or be allowed to make him partner after saying things like "slut"? -Why wasn't FLETCHER's 2nd question to the lover "And how do you know my client?" and go from there? -When FLETCHER has a change of heart, he tells the judge "I think there's been a mistake" and he replies "Please, it's been a long day and I'm tired." Regardless of the working hours, wouldn't a judge be obliged to double-check if there's something that could affect his verdict? -FLETCHER constantly raises his voice (usually at the judge), exageratedly spits water all over the table, makes jokes about MRS. COLE's hair color and bra size and calls DANA a hag when she objects... and he's not held in contempt until *after* the trial?
Fletcher can't ask the man that question because they had worked out lies to the questions and the curse permitted him from engaging in that kind of deception. He explains that to the two of them in a scene outside the courthouse. The judge isn't obligated to stay, he'd already ruled and Fletcher was making a moral claim not a legal one. I'm no lawyer but I've spent too much time in courtrooms, and I'll also say that if it's time court to end, everybody is ready to gtfo of there. Sitting in court until 5 pm is mind numbing for everyone.
Overruled. The IRS doesn't keep track of birthdays, the Social Security Administration does and shares the information with the IRS. As long as her stated birthday matches what the SSA has on record, no issue will be flagged. Assuming that she doesn't work, then there is a good chance that her date of birth never comes up currently when filing taxes, given that she is not close to being a minor anymore nor close to claiming social security benefits. The biggest reason for the birthday being noticed is if taxes are filed online, as the birthday is used by some companies to help validate identity. However, given the amounts in question, I doubt that the Coles file online instead of having a professional tax preparer.
It's often not. In my jurisdiction (family matters are federal matters in my country), the Court has to exclude illegally obtained evidence unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting illegally obtained evidence - citation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 138. That statute contains matters the Court must consider in making its decision.
I OBJECT! By your own testimony in this video, you convinced me that Liar Liar, while an entertaining movie, should receive a grade no higher than C+ for legal accuracy.
I object to your objection. The grading of the movie is simply opinion. Hence, you may give the Movie a C+ while LegalEagle may give it a B+. It's subjective. Someone else may give it a C or a B-. It all depends on what weight you put on particular errors. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. I, for one, always go with the opinion of the expert. Lol, it's fun to think of things like a lawyer 😅
I love your channel! It would be cool if you did 'Miracle on 34th Street'. It's my favourite Christmas movie and I've always wondered how legally accurate it is
Been looking forward to this one for a while, great stuff! If I ever need a suit, I know where I'm going! In addition to my previous suggestion of Primal Fear, I think A Time To Kill would also be pretty interesting, even though that "final argument" would be difficult to handle without showing it in its entirety, so maybe not. Either way, keep up the great work!
About him not being able to keep his mouth shut if he's not allowed to lie - well, what he's really doing is always speaking his mind, which to a child would be the same as never lying - and seeing as it was the child who made the wish, it kinda makes sense.
*OBJECTION!* It has become apparent by the TH-cam comment section and viewer witnesses that James of Legal Eagle has not reacted to "DAREDEVIL" as of yet and are making a formal complaint. The plaintiffs request a recess so that the defendent may review this evidence and this malfeasance may be exonerated.
@@roshskanthalagan6133 There's definitely not enough Murdock in court... but I wouldn't mind him taking a look at the Aaron James court case scene, but I also don't want him to rip DD apart so much that it's no longer enjoyable to watch mindlessly (if that were the case). The movie however, he should knock himself out with that one. Would love to see.
I would love to see him respond to the Punisher court hearing. No there isn't much of Matt Murdock in that one, but Foggy gets some excellent screen time.
So, while not based in the U.S. Justice System, there is a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called "The Measure of a Man" that deals with several legal concepts and I'd absolutely love to hear you comment on how the show uses them.
Thanks for this - I've watched a lot of "professional reviews TV/movie portrayal of their area of expertise" videos, but this is the first one I've seen by a lawyer, and it was enjoyable, especially part 1. *_OBJECTION:_* No case law exists to establish what an enjoyable "lawyer reviews TV/movie" video would be; therefore the claim it's enjoyable is without merit.
One court scene I really enjoyed is in an episode of The Mentalist where Patrick Jane is the defendant to a murder he committed. I don’t do law anymore, but I still find it pretty interesting afterwards.
@@Georgeilocks Nice, well written a bit repetitive but each season finale with Red John was excellent. Too bad actors Jane and Lisbon never show up in other shows I totally ship them so bad. I think the white guy dating Van Pelt did a lot of different roles after. Tiger Tiger
@@t500010000 Tiger Tiger. I never really found it repentative with the cases it just was kept fresh with the characters and the whole focus on "the mentalist" and the main story of red john. I would have loved to have seen them in other series together but there both doing their own things now. I'm glad they kept the series going after Red John's death to finish Jane and Lisbon's character arcs, a great ending I was happy and sad it ended.
Simon Baker (The Mentalist) was in a TV show called, "The Guardian" where he plays a lawyer who gets charged with some sort of drug-related crime, because he's a lawyer, his father's a lawyer, and he works at a prestigious law firm, instead of going to jail he gets assigned to community service as a child advocate instead. The show ix set in Pittsburgh, PA and ran 2 or 3 seasons. A child advocate is a lawyer for a child, typically for custody cases but there are other situtions where a child may need an avocate. It was an interesting show. (Might fit the theme of this channel actually.) Simon Baker also had a blink and you'll miss him part in LA Confidential as the party guest who quickly becomes a corpse.
You'd think after the supposed beating up Fletcher got and the judge asking if he could continue, Fletcher would just go "I don't want to" or "I can continue but would prefer to go home and rest" The curse prevented him from lying, but apparently did it in the most inconvenient way.
That's a classic. I had to discuss it in a few classes back in high school. Even before I knew the procedural stuff for a jury, I knew that the juror who bought that knife & brought into the court room had be breaking a big law. Though, my ego would've probably had me trying to crush that jury's arguments instead of doing the sensible thing and reporting him. Also, it does seem extremely unlikely that someone just happened to acquire the exact same type of knife the youth bought and just happened to use it to kill that particularly youth's father so soon after the youth claims to have left the apartment. I think that juror straight up got a murderer acquitted. If so, I genuinely wonder why
Uhmm objection, it's actually spelled "segue" and not "segway", unless you're referring to a motorized, two-wheel personal vehicle, in which this case it does not.
I'm so glad I found your channel. I'm not into law, but the way you explain things with a fun movie made this so enjoyable to watch! Great job and I'm looking forward to watching more if your videos!
@@connordorman117 haven't seen the film in a long while but doesn't his child make the wish in front of him? So he knows.the reason that he cannot lie and that it isn't just him going nuts.
I was summoned to jury duty in richmond va and while I left my phone in my car I saw a couple of other potential jurors essentially hide their phones outside of the court building. We also had to deal with some lady who was upset that jury duty takes time and her job was simply too important to spend all day at court. While the rest of us did our duty she loudly whined and was nearly held with contempt. It was really uncomfortable. I meanwhile spent about 4 hours not working on a Monday before being dismissed. Just do your part.
OBJECTION: The PI has the homeowners consent to record all events on his property. The property is under surveillance, and just like you can't object to cameras watching you in a store or business, you cannot use the two-party consent to protect you on someone else's property.
OBJECTION: Carrey wasn't able to object because objecting just for the sake of breaking up the flow of a witness is not honest in his mind. similar to how he cannot ask questions if he knows the answer is gonna be false.
@@vrknyght8207I would say the rules follow as such: 1. Fletcher cannot willing tell a lie nor a half truth (Evidence: 'The pen is blue' scene) 2. Fletcher is compelled to speak his mind even without provocation (Evidence: 'Your boobs are huge' scene) 3. Fletcher is not allowed to ask questions if he knows the answer is going to be a lie (Evidence: Cross examining the Lover) It seems that the rules and nature of the curse display the idea of what a child thinks honesty is. Given that Max is five and he is the one conjuring the curse, it makes sense that these would be the rules.
Matpat did a video on that very movie. As he isnt a lawyer, I cant speak to his accuracy but, he seems to do his research and said that the charges would result in a lifetime in prison.
4:51 So, if recording a video of someone doing a illegal act or video/audio of someone confessing a crime (without their permission in both cases) a case of invasion of privacy or breaking electronic surveillance laws? I`ve seen a lot of scenes where characters who are NOT law enforcement do sting operations to collect evidence against a criminal antagonist in the story then being all smug & heroic about it. I just wanted to know if its really something to be smug about or something to worry about. Also I`m asking not in terms of laws of a particular place but in terms of a general case
All this time I thought i was the only one that wanted this. Hands down one of my favorite movies with legal proceedings as the focal point to the plot. I concur with everyone here!
not a lawyer at all, but I'm curious about the tape. How could the attorney prove that the tape is actually sex and not just, for example, people making sex noises for some other reason. Could that be a path jim carrey's character could have taken?
@@dolphinvenom2779 That one is answered in the movie, he actually does try to use that as a defence but then in the recording she says "You're so much better than my husband." Before continuing.
I’m a new subscriber and loving this channel. One thing I’ve learned is how many films have lawyers enter the well despite it not being allowed - something I never knew. I wonder why so many films have lawyers do this.
I’m sure you have tons of ideas already for this series but figured I might as well put another one forward. I’d love to see a small breakdown of any of the courtroom/lawyer scenes from the first three seasons of Arrested Development. Love the content.
I think strategically invalidating the prenuptial agreement could be achieved by exploring if the respondent signed it under duress, if she had adequate representation independently reviewing the terms of the agreement, and the circumstances under which it was signed (any witnesses aside from a notary). That could go a long way toward getting the client her half of CP. Aside the issue of division of property, the client could make good argument for spousal support based on MSOL. I feel like this never would have gotten to trial. It would have settled long before after months of painful discovery and tens of thousands of dollars of expert accountant fees. Still a great movie!
Yes, a good lawyer would question all of those things, but the story of the movie is that she did have proper representation, the prenup was signed with enough witnesses, and she didn't sign it under duress. She just lied in order to get married to a rich guy when she knew he wouldn't marry her otherwise. So the husband could sue her for fraud. And a good judge would simply grant him an award from her that is (at a minimum) equal to the amount of money she got from the divorce that she wouldn't have gotten had the prenup been in effect plus any extra spousal support she got that she wouldn't have gotten had the prenup been in place. Thus, the case of fraud would have given (again, assuming a fair judge) the husband all the money the ex-wife got from voiding the prenup.
I don't know California privacy laws, but there an argument to be made when the person (a) is in a public space so what expectation does s/he have, and (b) these paparazzi are hired by the celebs to do their job and the celebs turn around and whine about them.
@@caiuswickersham Paparazzi are not hired by celebrities. They are either hired by media outlets or work freelance selling pics to them. The public space thing probably holds up in most cases though.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've lived in LA my whole life, so I think I have a good beginner's understanding of it (and if I'm wrong, hopefully he'll correct me). The issue with privacy is that it's only protected when you have a reasonable expectation of it. For example, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy when I'm in my own bathroom, but I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when I'm walking down a public street. This is true for everyone. There are additional considerations when it comes to celebrities and paparazzi specifically. Because we value the first amendment to such a high degree, the paparazzi generally get a lot of latitude when it comes to things like photos or videos used editorially.* Plus, although they're not public servants, people often think of celebrities as public figures and thus as rightly subject to additional public scrutiny. As for how much of a legal basis there is for that perspective, I don't know. *Commercial use is a different story, though, having to do with the right to publicity rather than privacy.
American courts have judged time and again that it's a First Amendment right to photograph and film whatever you can see from a public place, even if what you are filming is private property (as long as you yourself are on public property). I'm not 100% sure if this includes things like using telephoto lenses and drones to photograph through very distant windows inside private residences and so on, but it's my understanding that it's not directly illegal. (In many other countries that have similar "you can photograph anything you want in public" laws there are nevertheless the restriction that you cannot photograph the insides of private residences, at least in a manner that clearly shows them in detail, especially if there are people. However, it's my understanding that in most of the US there's no such limit.) Of course Paparazzis toe a fine legal line, because they have to be careful about things like defamation, libel and things like posting indecent pictures of people (which is likely to be illegal), or anything that causes real tangible harm to the person being photographed (such as loss of reputation or profit). Some paparazzis also engage in what could be construed as harassment, but from what I have seen, the police and the legal system in the US aren't very eager to start prosecuting people for mere claims of "harassment", so whether such a claim ever goes anywhere is quite hit and miss. Taking someone to court over "harassment" could be a long, arduous and very expensive endeavor, that may end up nowhere (especially since in the US even getting your lawyer fees covered from the opposite party, even if you win the case, is a struggle.)
Do you agree with my grade? What episode should I do next? Also, check out my reactions to Suits, Better Call Saul, A Few Good Men and tons more: goo.gl/42fKce
Not so much an objection as much as a hypothetical. If a couple were to divorce and be required to split a house as it is over half their combined assets' worth, could they sell it to their young child for a token amount, accept the offer as guardians, and then take turns residing in their child's home as guardians and executors (rather than sharing custody by moving the child from one home to another) thus avoiding inheritance taxes?
Better call saul again i loved the first episode you did on it
Can we get your review of a law school classic, "The Paper Chase?"
You should do a reaction episode to Fracture!
LegalEagle Could you please react to A Time to Kill (1996) It’s a great courtroom movie
I was a Juror in court once, and the court phone rang and the judge picked up, listened for about 10 seconds and then goes "NO I DO NOT NEED VINYL SIDING FOR MY HOUSE" and slammed the phone down. It was the funniest thing I ever seen in my life.
That sounds awesome.
Real life is more bizarre than fiction.
That's absolutely hilarious 🤣🤣🤣🤣💀💀💀💀
I saw a Local Court Magistrate comment that the prosecution should remember that the [state] police were not known for being particularly forthright with information.
My jaw almost hit the floor witnessing that.
There was a rather high profile murder case a few years ago where the Judge's cell phone went off in the middle of the trial. Caused a big stir, had to be embarrassing for the judge, though, especially if he had chewed other's out for similar disruptions...
the rules of fletcher's curse:
1: he may not lie.
2: he may not twist the truth on any way including something as basic a reframing an idea from a different angle.
3: he does not have the option to remain silent. if there is a fact, or angle of a fact, that he knows he must present it loudly.
this is what i picked up watching the movie myself a few years ago. the curse is not as simple as "don't speak/write direct falsehoods" like most people think it is.
In other words, he has to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
@@419malice exactly.
OBJECTION, rule number 2 is distinctly broken by the fact that when he beats himself up, he never outright says “I kicked my own ass”, he frames it in the context of a man ‘at the end of his pitiful rope’ did it, which means he must therefore have some liberty to twist the truth.
@@Thegbear no, he was at the end of his rope. and he says "i'm kickin' my ass" which is 100% accurate.
@@ClashBluelight I'm talking about when he talks to the judge about it after the fact, he never says "I kicked my own ass", he bends the truth. I'm not referring to when he speaks to the man who walks in on him.
I’ve learned at least one thing from LegalEagle... “The Bailiff will tackle you.”
The real reason the girl in The Ring is upset is because the bailiff won't stop tackling her.
maybe I want the bailiff to tackle me
Seriously they really will. I was a State dependent as a kid and my status as a child did not stop a bailiff during a custody battle between my parents and the State of California from appropriately restraining me when I tried to run to hug my crying mother on the stand.
Lawyer: "I object!"
Judge: "To yourself?"
LeglEagle: Upheld
Someone in a recent high profile case must have studied law with Fletcher. :P
Reminds me of amber heard’s attorney. OBJECTION! Judge: it was your question Attorney: I still object
"Do not enter the well like that, the bailiff WILL tackle you"
Spoken like someone who knows from experience. x)
There a videos of bailiff tackling people on the internet. I'm always looking forward to people commenting with this quote. I've never been disappointed.
You never see that on Judge Judy...
th-cam.com/video/kEiAUgDa_wI/w-d-xo.html
@@aeternusdoleo4531 because technically Judge Judy isn't a "real" judge. Television courtrooms aren't completely "fake" in that they decide real cases, but they enforce the decision with contracts between the parties that appear on the show. As such, such courtrooms do not necessarily reflect all of the rules and customs of "real" courts
@@Twisted_Code Judge Judy is definitely a real Judge. She was a lawyer from 1972-1982 and was then appointed as a Judge until 1996 when her show started she is still a genuine Judge on her show she just does arbitration though on it. She has worked over 20,000 cases in her career before starting her show so show her the respect she deserves.
OBJECTION!!! That suit advert was too smooth
@@VirtualWil yeah same, guy has a knack for these videos
i literally paused the video to make sure someone mentioned that
hardly even hiccuped the flow of the video
Lmao was thinking the same thing, literally burst out laughing lol fair play, fair play
seamless
Overruled! It wasnthe first advert in a long time that I paid attention to.
Man I love Jim Carrey’s physical comedy aspect to his characters. It’s iconic.
He’s awesome
Could possibly be the greatest physical emotion actor of all time currently.
@@ashenmoonclash Chaplin would be proud
"Who did this?!"
"A MADMAN your Honor! A desperate fool at the end of his pitiful rope!"
"What did he look like?"
"About 6'2, 180 pounds, big teeth kinda gangly."
*covers mouth with hand*
I will ALWAYS have this line memorized from childhood 😅
Plot hole - he is lying with this bit and as he cannot tell a lie he shouldn’t b able to say this
@@coolchrisb He's describing himself because he was the one who beat him lol.
@@themilkmanshallrise1885 he’s not 6ft2
Normal language: They were f*cikng loudly
Lawyer language: They were engaging in conduct so loudly
Sheila Afiah Objection:You switched the i and the k.
Gentlemen’s words in a gentlemen court
OBJECTION!!!! you mean they were fucking loudly.
If I were a lawyer, I'd say: Objection! We cannot prove or disprove that this coital cacophony was rendered by anyone in this courtroom and does not prove "in flagrate dilecto". I move that it should be stricken from evidence.
600th like lets gooooooooo
The thing she says at the end about the children is way too true. It's disgusting when people use their children to hurt their ex and it's why I stopped working in family law. In my opinion it should be considered abuse.
That's why I've long had immense respect for my parents. They separated when me and my two sisters were all under 5. I won't go into what caused it, but the fallout could have devastated us all.
My parents kept their problems from us, and both made sure we were always loved, and spent equal amounts of time with each parent each week. They vowed that, whatever differences they had, it just would not be fair to weaponise their children against each other. For them, but obviously more so for us.
I didn't even find out why they separated until i was like 15. Unfortunately, nowhere near enough people get as immensely lucky as my sisters and me. (I don't mean financially btw, we've always been dirt poor)
OBJECTION: Doesn't the husband's lawyer have to prove it's the wife on the tape? How does the court know it's not actors or another couple?
In the state of California, the audio-tape is hearsay, and the act of recording the audio on the tape was invasion of privacy, making it inadmissible in court regardless of whether or not the female voice was that of Mrs Cole.
@@FracturedPixels Well, calling it "hearsay" is just another way of expressing the concern I raised: how do we know it's really her and what she's doing?
Even if it was admissable, (assuming the following happened) Fletcher would have had to prove it was Mrs Cole, and he would've objected when the tape played
Furthermore it could be argued that the people on the tape are only simulating sexual sounds since in reality that is what they are doing. Unless the actors are very Method of course. ;)
Fletcher does use this objection
I gotta ask: Ever had a moment where you felt like screaming, "STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!" at a client? X3 That's my favorite moment in the movie.
Many times.
Lol I love when Jim Carrey shouted that 🤣🤣🤣
The best advice to repeat offenders, legal, or otherwise, is to stop repeatedly doing any acts, which put you in such a situation, lol.
These are very entertaining. Great channel.
WrecklessEating what’s up Matt Zion!!!!
And formative! Stimulates your brain and pulls society up
WrecklessEating holy shit I didn’t know you guys watched this channel xD
My guy Matt!!!
OBJECTION! This was *extremely* entertaining to the point I subscribed for more.
"Why are all these people in this court?"
Well, Fletcher is very famous for winning against all odds. Perhaps, they came to see his performance.
Do you not need to have business in the court in order to enter the court room?
@@jasonbikeracer1 You can watch, yeah.
@@jasonbikeracer1 Usually, most cases are open to the public. In japan, in fact, there isn't even an age limit. A toddler could enter the chamber and watch the proceedings.
But, in cases that envolve minors, the proceedings are private, in order to preserve their identity and well being
There are thousands of people in the US who would pay great money to watch Jim Carry play one of his characters in person. I’m surprised more people aren’t in the courtroom
I always assumed it was because the Cole Family is rich, so they're either really popular and people want to see the trial or they're family and friends of them.
I honestly don't like the 2 party consent law. We have that in PA as well. There was a guy who's kid was being bullied and he wanted to prove they weren't doing anything to stop the bullying from happening and he recorded a private meeting with some of school staff and they admitted to not doing anything, or something along those lines and he goes, "Got it" and reveals he was recording. They then went on to press charges on this guy for illegal wiretapping. He just wanted to protect his kid and how he's faced with jail time.
I also saw where a teen was using his school issued tablet to record people bullying him and he is facing wiretapping charges as well.
Sure you don't want people to record you in private places, and there should obviously be laws against peeping, spying, etc. But if you're taping someone who's doing wrong to you or someone else, or threatening you, or someone else...You should be protected
I also believe everyone should have the right to record all conversation and use them as evidence. At the same time, I do understand the 2 party consent law is trying to protect people from answering leading question. Such as if you try to provo someone and anger them enough, the other party might say something like "I am going to kill you". Calibrated leading questions are used very often, especially in negotiation, sales and marketing. It is hard for non train personal to notice if they are falling in the trap of calibrated questions. On the other hand, it is also hard for the court to determine the premise of the questions.
In CA recordings can be made of domestic violence
Texas may be hell, but at least we have one party consent.😢
The problem isn’t with 2 party consent per se-It’s that there isn’t an affirmative defense for situations like that. 2 party consent is very important for protecting privacy-Before revenge porn laws became a thing, it was one of the very few ways to sue for that-but there are definitely glaring problems.
In Australia you can only record unannounced for the purposes of accuracy of recall when seeking to safeguard your legal rights or the legal rights of others and never for the purposes of display nor publication.
You're allowed to ensure an accurate transcript.
I OBJECT!
Her actions doing the last 13 years clearly showed that she would have voided the marriage, by her conducting adultery all the way through since the beginning of it.
My question is, would the marriage be valid, unless maybe it's a common law marriage, but that's usually about 10 years, and I think both parties still have to consent. that part always messed with me.
Lol nevermind I got my answer
Objection! Fletcher was unable to stay silent when asked a question because he was unable to lie by omission. He adheres to the court mandate of “the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth”
Makes sense
I always took it as even though he’s a lawyer and that’s how he defines the truth his natural instinct is to lie in any situation so he’s panic lying and just shouting
Objection: the Electronic Surveillance Act of California went into effect in 2016, while the film in question was recorded in 1997, which predates the statute mentioned. Evidence is thereby admissible without consent by any parties involved.
@@darkopz he also made a note that California requires all party consent for recording.
Leon:
I object to your objection.
CHAPTER 1.5. Invasion of Privacy [630 - 638.55] ( Chapter 1.5 added by Stats. 1967, Ch. 1509. )
Penal code 632 was added in *1967* , which is before the movie was released, states that "A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication... shall be punished by a fine not exceeding... ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year... or both."
Therefore, the law Attorney Stone is referring to has existed before both the movie and the law you stated.
@@confusedwhale Potentially more germane to the trial:
PENAL CODE - PEN
PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680] ( Part 1 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 15. MISCELLANEOUS CRIMES [626 - 653.75] ( Title 15 enacted 1872. )
CHAPTER 1.5. Invasion of Privacy [630 - 638.55] ( Chapter 1.5 added by Stats. 1967, Ch. 1509. )
631. (a) Any person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line, cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication system, or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 632, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, he or she is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) This section shall not apply (1) to any public utility engaged in the business of providing communications services and facilities, or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts otherwise prohibited herein are for the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and facilities of the public utility, or (2) to the use of any instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility, or (3) to any telephonic communication system used for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility.
(c) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.
(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1994.
(Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 15, Sec. 428. (AB 109) Effective April 4, 2011. Operative October 1, 2011, by Sec. 636 of Ch. 15, as amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 39, Sec. 68.)
Note the date in subsection (d), (c) ostensibly stifles all 'evidence' obtained via surveillance as admissible. So unless, as Mr. Stone suggests, Mrs. Cole was loud enough to be recorded without the aid of any electronic surveillance equipment, this definitely makes the hurtle for the tape to be admitted into evidence that much more difficult. But who knows, maybe they were just in a very echoey room? 😂
I do not understand the basis for 2-party consent. If someone says something to me, why should they have an expectation of privacy? For example, if someone is threatening me or extorting me, why should they be afforded legal protection from me recording their illegal threats to facilitate a rightful criminal prosecution for those illegal threats? I understand 3rd party consent. Or whatever the principle would be labelled to protect against arbitrary surveillance from someone not party to a conversation. But if someone talks to me, I should be able to record it if I choose to prove any future claims I make about what was said TO ME and by whom.
Can someone explain why that should not be the case?
@@icmann4296
A recording taken out of context can be misleading. And, generally, people will say things in private that they wouldn't want heard in public.
Or someone might brag about having done certain things that they haven't actually done in order to enlarge their reputation.
A written law is a bad place to try to thread the needle between entrapment on one side (where someone who knows the conversation is being recorded tries to steer it towards incriminating-sounding statements from the other person) and a record of illegal behaviour on the other.
i love how you take jim carry's acting as normal. explaining mannerisms would make this video 10x longer.
There is no explaining Jim Carrey's mannerisms.
Wouldn't make for great viewing
Its actually entirely accurate, many lawyers behave this way
12:43 My mobile phone went off mid-case when I was called to jury service in the UK. It was a new phone, thought I'd turned it off, apparently not. Started ringing, everyone looked in my direction, I was mortified and ripped the battery out. The judge reminded the court that all mobile phones must be switched off during the hearing, then they carried on.
Objection! That sponsorship plug was too damn smooth.
Best sponsorship plug I have ever seen. I wasn't even mad
I second this, and I was actually noticing the fit of your suit mere moments before - true story.
So nice work. If anything it got cut unnaturally short, but that's the right side to err on I guess, (the plug, not the suit).
@@IRONMANAustralia An advertisement can never be cut too short, imo
@@chaosawaits I know how you feel. A lot of people feel that way about their lawn too. Speaking of which, if you want a mower than can't cut too short, just go right over to Bob's Grass Emporium and use the code "IRONMAN" for an insane discount on top-of-the-line lawn care products.
I disagree.
Objection! Would you provide a link to a video of a bailiff tackling someone? That would be amazing.
Also the flames are great.
Second the motion
Third that motion.
4th the original motion
5th
@@theramo0 - 6th. In my area, if you ask for permission to approach, it's not an issue.
You should REALLY cover a movie called "From The Hip" with John Hurt and Judd Nelson. Some really interesting and fun courtroom scenes and tactics in that movie.
Seconded!
thirded
I just watched that movie for the first time a couple weeks ago. Would be fun to see him "Lawyer" that movie.
Awesome movie
John Hurt was Always entertaining
R.I.P.
"Gentleman Callers"... I love when Law Dad tries to talk about sex
Says the Queen Elizabeth with many... friends... ;)
@@jiminbang5822 excuse you, but there is no evidence of such a matter.
I ensured that...
@@qelizabeth_i What matter?
@@jiminbang5822 there is no evidence that I have ever. been intimate with anyone, hence my nickname “The Virgin Queen”. I have never had any “friends” like those you refer to... at least there’s no record of it
@@qelizabeth_i Whoa! What am I referring to?
Jumping to conclusions, hmmm?
That bathroom scene ("I'm kickin' my ass...) is one of my favorites of any movie ever.
19:25 Objection, I've never seen "she said she was 18" work as a valid legal defense
Objection; A person stating that they were told someone else's age would be considered heresay, but since the birth date and marriage documents show her age (both accurate and falsified), it would not be deemed as such.
Objection, I knew someone that got busted for having sex with a minor, the girl had a fake ID, and he still got busted for it..
@@peterf.229 ya I had a friend that happened to. It was extremely fucked up
In Florida at least the statute specifically says that it isnt a defense
I don't see how you can possible be held culpable if you went as far as checking their ID. Like...you as a citizen cannot be expected to be expert enough to spot a good fake ID, and you can't reasonably be expected to go requesting copies of birth certificates or other verification from everyone you might sleep with.
When you drop the "big legal bomb" that cracks the case wide open, the judge is required to render a verdict after the mic is dropped.
LegalEagle: Fletcher is really gonna need a new suit.
Me: *spits out coffee cuz I know where this is going.
You should do the courtroom scenes from To Kill a Mockingbird. Not only is it an American classic but I personally believe that it's the most legally accurate courtroom movie
I second this
agreed
Yah that would be a really good one if u haven't done it already. Plus ur kinda linient on the movies realism man. you disagreed with most of the stuff in this one and still a B+
@@eliv127
i like that. Most of the video is just him having a good time and sharing some points of view due to his experience as a lawyer. Its not a hardcore movie review.
I second this motion, but also like to put forward evidence based upon what we know about the legal system. The second book by Harper Lee “go set a watchmen,“ [which would have been her first book, if her publishers did not love the look at scouts childhood so much more than the rest of the story] while disappointing to many fans of “to kill a Mockingbird,“ does not actually burst as many bubbles as you would think. A lawyer is supposed to work for his client and is paid for it, Regardless of what he personally thinks about this client. This means that, as painful as it might be to hear, Atticus finch could defend a black man from rape accusations [completely false] in spite of being racist. Not to mention that Atticus knows that his client is innocent. His personal feelings about race don’t factor into it. So, Atticus could still be a bigoted old man even though the events of to kill a mockingbird did happen.
On the subject of leading questions, I heard a very funny exchange in court a couple of weeks ago.
One attorney asked 3 or 4 leading questions rapid fire, and the other attorney stood up to object. He said, "How many leading questions does she get to ask?"
Her response, "As many as I want until you object. I'll move on."
Judge put his head down to try and hide his smile. It was great.
Link
Do you have to object to each question? or can you just object to the whole set? Do you have to clarify each thing you are objecting to?
You can object to a line of questions
PLEASE TELL ME there is a "court tv" type recording of that exchange.... one cannot be human if one doesn't wish to view that exchange!
Definitely mind games
"Voidable. Sort Of. Maaaybe. That Is NOT The Game." Hilarious
Objection: Fletcher can't just "remain silent", it's established in the film that he has to speak truthfully when prompted even when he'd rather not say anything
You should review the TV Show "The Grinder" The plot is literally about a TV Lawyer who starts practicing real law with his actual lawyer brother who keeps trying to show him how TV law is completely different from real law.
Yeah he should do that one!
sustained and i completely agree
I liked that show; it's a shame it didn't get picked up for at least another season or two. I'm a sucker for things making fun of rich phonies, whether they're real or not.
@@nmotschidontwannagivemyrea8932 this show actually sounds interesting; it was canceled? That sucks.
@@MadCheshireHat It was hilarious. Rob Lowe was the TV lawyer and Fred Savage was the exasperated real lawyer. th-cam.com/video/FOqYMoIcFXA/w-d-xo.html
Wouldn't the judge have started to question Fletcher Reede's sanity at some point and had him removed????
I agree but then again we forget...its just a movie
Sustained
Judges don't have a big enough IQ to notice those things.
Fletcher refered to him as "the "honorable" ", implying that he is rumored to be incompetent.
The judge actually does acknowledge this. He’s exercising a lot of discretion out of “sheer morbid curiosity.”
Legally Blonde!!! Exercising gives you endorphins, endorphins make you happy. Happy people don't kill their husband.
It's "Happy people just don't shoot their husbands" lol.
@@RedRoseSeptember22 Exactly. Knives or poison or something instead
Objection Transitive arguments
so you were in.......the shower....
@@markwhat3637 which part of the chain do you object to? Some people don't get endorphin for exercising? Some people with endorphin don't get happy or some happy people kill?
I was an eyewitness after the fact in a robbery of a local Burger King. In California. I had given my testimony for the prosecution, so now it was the defense's turn. I had established that I was leaving my second floor apartment when I witness the events taking place. By way of trying to discredit me, the defense attorney knew he was grasping at straws, but he was doing (I assume) his best. It had already been established that the weather was theatening rain. He asked me if I had an umbrella with me as I was exiting my apartment. He actually asked me whether my umbrella had been open or closed as I was trying to exit through my doorway. He was trying to imply that, with my umbrella open, I couldn't have seen what I said I saw. He then comes up with "Was it open or closed?" Which annoyed the hell out of me, and I responded "Trying to go through a door with an open umbrella makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine!" The gallery burst out laughing, and I believe the judge then reprimanded me, but he let my testimony stand. I simply have a very hard time with blatant stupidity. The guy was convicted.
Objection! Throughout the video, you said things along the lines of 'Just because he can't lie doesn't mean he has to tell the truth' but based on the evidence and the film's internal logic, the magic wish doesn't just cause him not to lie but causes him to be honest.
Overruled. What he means is that there's ways that he can make a decent defence for his client without needing to lie. For example, he can object not because "this is bad for my case" but rather "This evidence was against the 2 party consent law" saying that the client was illegally recorded without her consent.
Yeah, I got that as the message from the film as well. I think he’s just commenting more about those moments in particular and how he “could’ve” lied through omission, but the message of the movie was not allowing that. It’s just the way the artists went with it.
I do wonder though, how much truth and to whom and when does he have to speak it? Because he was able to kinda truthfully weasel his way out of a couple things, he also didn’t always blah about everything he’s done wrong (like the cop/parking tix scene). So, I think not having a consistent amount of lying or truth telling and having it come on bursts to different people at many different times is why I think he really still felt like he could’ve lied through omission.
Rory Smith the movie established that he couldn’t even lie to himself, by himself in a room with no one else in it, see the pen scene. It also established that he couldn’t lie through omission, doing so caused him to sputter out the truth, see scenes with Greta.
The cop’s question when he pulled him over was “do you know why I stopped you” and Fletcher responded with “depends on how long you’ve been following me”. The cop then states: “Let’s take it from the top, shall we?” Fletcher then lists off every crime he committed while speeding. His blabbering about his tickets stems from the further question: “Anything else?”
So by omission, he cannot lie either. All of this ties together with Max’s birthday wish of no lying. This wasn’t a black and white wish, it was vague and as such, it applied vaguely and covered any form of lying. “I wish my dad couldn’t lie for one whole day.” And as I’ve pointed out, it is a wide covering thing.
@@notmakingcontent I think the magic makes it impossible for him to say things that could be considered as avoiding the truth if the truth is not defined by factual accuracy, but rather by moral standards (based on the morals of his own superego, presumably).
Under this definition, he cannot really weasel his way out of things, and a good example is the cop, where for example, responding with "no" to the question if he knows why he has been pulled over would be truthful, as he doesn't know it because he doesn't know how long he has been followed, but it wouldn't be moral because he may have broken more laws than the cop has seen.
However, he can create circumstances under which he doesn't have to weasel his way out of things, such as beating himself up. _This means that the notion of moral truth only affects what he says, not his actions._ That also explains why he explains the laws he broke to the cop, but is still able to break them in the first place, even though he knows that is immoral (proven by the fact that he deems it necessary to disclose the crimes because of the curse).
Of course, this also makes it interesting to take note on what Fletcher now considers immoral, because it basically includes everything he would do to make a case for his client, which somewhat makes sense as the "most moral thing" is to be impartial, and a lawyer is, by design of their position in court, virtually never impartial.
This means that Fletcher, on some level, values absolute morals over the specific morals connected to the position as a lawyer, where you are only a part of a process that tries to be impartial in its entirety, not in every participant. This could serve to show that Fletcher was never well suited for this profession in the first place, as all of his actions that made him a good lawyer were, while justified in his own mind, still going against his moral compass.
Yeah, it's not that he can't lie. He has to be 100% honest and truthfull, including giving all the relevant facts.
I love that you can tell he really enjoyed this movie and, unlike the other stuff he evaluates, he had seen it before and thought it deserved nearly one hour of analysis and a two-parter special. Good for you. I, too, love this film and am not ashamed of it
I need to rewatch Liar Liar.. its my second favorite Jim Carrey movie, my top favorite is Me, Myself and Irene.
@@peterf.229 I think my favourite is The Truman Show. But I've never watched Me, Myself and Irene.
YOUR HONOR I OBJECT!!!
And why is that Mr. Reed?
BECAUSE IT'S DEVASTATING TO MY CASE!
Overruled
GOOD CALL
Literally the reason I watched this video to see his reaction to that
"You're Honor" ?
@@johannesdolch he is honor
You're honor, I'm object.
Best line in the movie haha
There's a little known law movie called "From The Hip," starring Judd Nelson, who plays a lawyer with very unorthodox methods. Also has a very underrated performance from John Hurt. Would love to see you review that one.
Robin "Stormy" Weathers! My high school Creative Writing teacher had us watch it. Great flick!
I just want to point out how cool it is that so many commenters actually write "OBJECTION" and take this really seriously. I'm not a lawyer but this is one of the most fun channels on TH-cam
chaosawaits Lets hope hope memelords don’t ruin it by trying to be funny when they eventually reach a million subscribers.
@@lzi9452 2 years and 2 million
Except like 90% of youtubers. They don't respond to comments.
How about reviewing the court proceedings from the Netflix show Daredevil, specifically season 2’s trail of the Punisher
i thought about that, honestly daredevil has lots of cool legal elements to it, not just the punisher trial @LegalEagle
Yes!! This is the one that goes on the list!
That would be great!
Season 1 Episodes 1 and 3
Season 2 Episodes 2, 6 and 8
You could also show how Matt was a horrible lawyer. He missed part of the trial because of personal issues instead of asking for a continuance.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you do a product placement. Organic, quick, and simple.
Ads increased the quality of non-paid for content. They are incredibly valuable for content creators and the audience because of this.
Flynn Livescmd most plugs I’ve seen are 2 minute - 2.5 minute plugs in a 12-ish minute video. This was a 5 second plug in a 25 minute video. I think you’ll survive.
id rather have a plug from the content creator rather than the regular standard youtube interruptions because you can just right arrow key through it unlike some of the non-skippable ads
Flynn - it was one sentence and, shockingly, he didn't even mention the name of the brand. Cry a river.
People have also been asking where he gets his suits in comments, so it's relevant on those grounds as well.
"Who did this?!"
"A mad man, Your Honour! A desperate fool at the end of his pitiful rope!"
Still one of my favourite lines in movie history.
I love that the "Think Like a Lawyer" pose is the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney pose.
Your sponsored content is so elegantly merged into the video, it's actually convincing me that the products must be good.
There are some things I wished you had covered:
-The scene where FLETCHER insults every member of the firm and they all laugh. Even if they find him funny, would they still want and/or be allowed to make him partner after saying things like "slut"?
-Why wasn't FLETCHER's 2nd question to the lover "And how do you know my client?" and go from there?
-When FLETCHER has a change of heart, he tells the judge "I think there's been a mistake" and he replies "Please, it's been a long day and I'm tired." Regardless of the working hours, wouldn't a judge be obliged to double-check if there's something that could affect his verdict?
-FLETCHER constantly raises his voice (usually at the judge), exageratedly spits water all over the table, makes jokes about MRS. COLE's hair color and bra size and calls DANA a hag when she objects... and he's not held in contempt until *after* the trial?
Fletcher can't ask the man that question because they had worked out lies to the questions and the curse permitted him from engaging in that kind of deception. He explains that to the two of them in a scene outside the courthouse. The judge isn't obligated to stay, he'd already ruled and Fletcher was making a moral claim not a legal one. I'm no lawyer but I've spent too much time in courtrooms, and I'll also say that if it's time court to end, everybody is ready to gtfo of there. Sitting in court until 5 pm is mind numbing for everyone.
Have you thought of reviewing “Grandma got run over by a Reindeer?” There’s a very drawn out courtroom scene and tis the season 👀
Seconded
Third
Forth
5th!!
33rd
The Trial of R Kelly from the Boondocks should DEFINITELY be reviewed :D
Objection: Would red flags not go up with the IRS when the Cole's did their taxea and Mrs. Cole's stated birthday and her actual birthday don't match?
IRS dosne pay that much attention.
@@carolmarie1979 your individual experience does not justify the normal tendency for most or all people.
Why should there be red flags? The only thing the IRS cares about is knowing that “here comes tha money!”
Overruled. The IRS doesn't keep track of birthdays, the Social Security Administration does and shares the information with the IRS. As long as her stated birthday matches what the SSA has on record, no issue will be flagged. Assuming that she doesn't work, then there is a good chance that her date of birth never comes up currently when filing taxes, given that she is not close to being a minor anymore nor close to claiming social security benefits. The biggest reason for the birthday being noticed is if taxes are filed online, as the birthday is used by some companies to help validate identity. However, given the amounts in question, I doubt that the Coles file online instead of having a professional tax preparer.
The IRS only care about getting as much money as possible, not if your marriage license is valid or not
Objection?: This is civil court not criminal. The judgement to allow the evidence (obtained legally or not) is up to the judge.
It's often not. In my jurisdiction (family matters are federal matters in my country), the Court has to exclude illegally obtained evidence unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting illegally obtained evidence - citation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 138. That statute contains matters the Court must consider in making its decision.
@@sheriff0017 Sooooo, it's up to the judge.
I OBJECT! By your own testimony in this video, you convinced me that Liar Liar, while an entertaining movie, should receive a grade no higher than C+ for legal accuracy.
I object to your objection. The grading of the movie is simply opinion. Hence, you may give the Movie a C+ while LegalEagle may give it a B+. It's subjective. Someone else may give it a C or a B-. It all depends on what weight you put on particular errors. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. I, for one, always go with the opinion of the expert. Lol, it's fun to think of things like a lawyer 😅
Here's one for you: the Chewbacca Defense from South Park.
This!!!
Impossible even for him
It just doesn't make sense.
@@AleXannon92
I even found a wikipedia article for The Chewbacca Defense. That does not make sense!.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
I love your channel! It would be cool if you did 'Miracle on 34th Street'. It's my favourite Christmas movie and I've always wondered how legally accurate it is
Tianna Salvati-Taylor sustained
Been looking forward to this one for a while, great stuff! If I ever need a suit, I know where I'm going! In addition to my previous suggestion of Primal Fear, I think A Time To Kill would also be pretty interesting, even though that "final argument" would be difficult to handle without showing it in its entirety, so maybe not. Either way, keep up the great work!
What the hell are you doing on this channel?? Jeez, coincidences :P
Primal Fear! Yes, I'd love to see that!
Well, looky looky, I found a sentence that doesn't rhyme. What a nice surprise.
“Hey guys, it’s NintendoCapriSun here.”
A Time To Kill is such a dumb film, just emotional manipulation of the simplest kind.
About him not being able to keep his mouth shut if he's not allowed to lie - well, what he's really doing is always speaking his mind, which to a child would be the same as never lying - and seeing as it was the child who made the wish, it kinda makes sense.
OBJECTION! He's not José Canseco 24:56
*OBJECTION!* It has become apparent by the TH-cam comment section and viewer witnesses that James of Legal Eagle has not reacted to "DAREDEVIL" as of yet and are making a formal complaint. The plaintiffs request a recess so that the defendent may review this evidence and this malfeasance may be exonerated.
Honestly. Not sure there is much legal drama in daredevil for him to look at
@@roshskanthalagan6133 There's definitely not enough Murdock in court... but I wouldn't mind him taking a look at the Aaron James court case scene, but I also don't want him to rip DD apart so much that it's no longer enjoyable to watch mindlessly (if that were the case).
The movie however, he should knock himself out with that one. Would love to see.
@@roshskanthalagan6133 There are loads of court cases in that show. Matt Murdock is a lawyer in that one.
I would love to see him respond to the Punisher court hearing. No there isn't much of Matt Murdock in that one, but Foggy gets some excellent screen time.
So, while not based in the U.S. Justice System, there is a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called "The Measure of a Man" that deals with several legal concepts and I'd absolutely love to hear you comment on how the show uses them.
The Drumhead would also be a potential candidate.
whoiswillo good shout! I would love to see that episode reviewed as well!
I would also like to add encouncter at farpoints trial.
Death Wish from Star Trek Voyager would be interesting, too :)
@@AscendingAce fair point. I withdraw my question.
"So click on the playlist, and I'll see you in court" that makes it sound like you are threatening to sue me if I click on the playlist
Thanks for this - I've watched a lot of "professional reviews TV/movie portrayal of their area of expertise" videos, but this is the first one I've seen by a lawyer, and it was enjoyable, especially part 1. *_OBJECTION:_* No case law exists to establish what an enjoyable "lawyer reviews TV/movie" video would be; therefore the claim it's enjoyable is without merit.
One court scene I really enjoyed is in an episode of The Mentalist where Patrick Jane is the defendant to a murder he committed. I don’t do law anymore, but I still find it pretty interesting afterwards.
Mentalist is so good I'm glad I'm not the only one who enjoyed it lol.
@@t500010000 Yeah, definitely one of my favourite TV series.
@@Georgeilocks Nice, well written a bit repetitive but each season finale with Red John was excellent. Too bad actors Jane and Lisbon never show up in other shows I totally ship them so bad. I think the white guy dating Van Pelt did a lot of different roles after. Tiger Tiger
@@t500010000 Tiger Tiger. I never really found it repentative with the cases it just was kept fresh with the characters and the whole focus on "the mentalist" and the main story of red john. I would have loved to have seen them in other series together but there both doing their own things now. I'm glad they kept the series going after Red John's death to finish Jane and Lisbon's character arcs, a great ending I was happy and sad it ended.
Simon Baker (The Mentalist) was in a TV show called, "The Guardian" where he plays a lawyer who gets charged with some sort of drug-related crime, because he's a lawyer, his father's a lawyer, and he works at a prestigious law firm, instead of going to jail he gets assigned to community service as a child advocate instead. The show ix set in Pittsburgh, PA and ran 2 or 3 seasons. A child advocate is a lawyer for a child, typically for custody cases but there are other situtions where a child may need an avocate. It was an interesting show. (Might fit the theme of this channel actually.) Simon Baker also had a blink and you'll miss him part in LA Confidential as the party guest who quickly becomes a corpse.
I would love for you to do Legally Blonde 1 & 2 and the court scene in Big Daddy
Yeeeeeeees
Yea, i'm kinda surprised that wasn't the lead in. I'd love to see what you think of the ammonium thioglycolate defense.
I approve this!
Yeah, please do Legally Blonde!
Big daddy yes
13:45
Objecting to himself.
A joke in 1997, reality in 2022. In the Amber Herd Johnny Depp trial.
Thats what I was thinking.
Her lawyer kept on doing it to all of his questions
You'd think after the supposed beating up Fletcher got and the judge asking if he could continue, Fletcher would just go "I don't want to" or "I can continue but would prefer to go home and rest"
The curse prevented him from lying, but apparently did it in the most inconvenient way.
This was fun! I'd love for you to do 12 Angry Men (1957) next. That's one of my favorite law movies.
Already did part of it in a prior episode. Will eventually do the whole movie.
That's a classic. I had to discuss it in a few classes back in high school.
Even before I knew the procedural stuff for a jury, I knew that the juror who bought that knife & brought into the court room had be breaking a big law.
Though, my ego would've probably had me trying to crush that jury's arguments instead of doing the sensible thing and reporting him.
Also, it does seem extremely unlikely that someone just happened to acquire the exact same type of knife the youth bought and just happened to use it to kill that particularly youth's father so soon after the youth claims to have left the apartment.
I think that juror straight up got a murderer acquitted. If so, I genuinely wonder why
Just wanna say the segway into the lawyer suit advertisement was goddamn genius lmao
Uhmm objection, it's actually spelled "segue" and not "segway", unless you're referring to a motorized, two-wheel personal vehicle, in which this case it does not.
I'm so glad I found your channel. I'm not into law, but the way you explain things with a fun movie made this so enjoyable to watch! Great job and I'm looking forward to watching more if your videos!
I really, really want to see you do Daredevil. Like, a LOT of Daredevil. Like many episodes.
up this comment.
Hey thanks for making these videos! I really love them, super entertaining and informative.
Could he have like, called himself off the case with the excuse that he is very clearly having some sort of psychological break?
I guess he had accepted the curse by that point and did not sincerely believe that he was mentally ill
@@nowandaround312 remember he cannot lie. So he cannot claim illness if he isn't actually ill.
@@lilymarinovic1644 but he probably isn't thinking he is cursed, wouldn't he think that his inability to lie is some form of mental condition?
@@connordorman117 haven't seen the film in a long while but doesn't his child make the wish in front of him? So he knows.the reason that he cannot lie and that it isn't just him going nuts.
@@lilymarinovic1644 I thought the kid made the wish while he was at work.
I was summoned to jury duty in richmond va and while I left my phone in my car I saw a couple of other potential jurors essentially hide their phones outside of the court building. We also had to deal with some lady who was upset that jury duty takes time and her job was simply too important to spend all day at court. While the rest of us did our duty she loudly whined and was nearly held with contempt. It was really uncomfortable. I meanwhile spent about 4 hours not working on a Monday before being dismissed. Just do your part.
You should do, "Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law" next.
I second this!
Motion carried...court adjourned
Everybody get in here!
did ya get that thing I sent ya?
Oh my god, yes!
I'm just here for words like "persnickety" and phrases like "gild the lily". Love this channel!
Persnickety caught me off guard for sure hahahahaha. Guild the Lily not so much, but I bet my listening to Adam Carrola has jaded me to that one 😆
OBJECTION: The PI has the homeowners consent to record all events on his property. The property is under surveillance, and just like you can't object to cameras watching you in a store or business, you cannot use the two-party consent to protect you on someone else's property.
No, but it can protect her because it's also her house.
"The Man Who Sued God" with Billy Connoly would be great to see broken down, as the case in the film is quite interesting.
This is a new one of my favourite channels. It gives me a deeper understanding for U.S. law.
OBJECTION: Carrey wasn't able to object because objecting just for the sake of breaking up the flow of a witness is not honest in his mind. similar to how he cannot ask questions if he knows the answer is gonna be false.
One is just good legal tactics, the other is suborning perjury which would land him in a heap of trouble.
@@caiuswickersham we don't know the full rules of the curse and how it applies itself on fletcher
@@vrknyght8207I would say the rules follow as such:
1. Fletcher cannot willing tell a lie nor a half truth (Evidence: 'The pen is blue' scene)
2. Fletcher is compelled to speak his mind even without provocation (Evidence: 'Your boobs are huge' scene)
3. Fletcher is not allowed to ask questions if he knows the answer is going to be a lie (Evidence: Cross examining the Lover)
It seems that the rules and nature of the curse display the idea of what a child thinks honesty is. Given that Max is five and he is the one conjuring the curse, it makes sense that these would be the rules.
“Your honor I object!”
“On what grounds?”
“Because it’s devastating to my case!”
“Overruled.”
😂😂
I object. In ca divorce proceedings the parties are "petitoner" and "respondent"
I absolutely LOVE this channel 🙌 a real lawyer giving real info on these Hollywood law movies! So many things I didn't realize were real or fake!
Do the movie mrs.doubtfire next, there's a lot of broken laws there
Yes please that would be awesome
a walk by fruiting ;) that has to be illegal
Yes!!!
Matpat did a video on that very movie. As he isnt a lawyer, I cant speak to his accuracy but, he seems to do his research and said that the charges would result in a lifetime in prison.
Aaron for those that don’t know matpat runs the show film theory
4:51
So, if recording a video of someone doing a illegal act or video/audio of someone confessing a crime (without their permission in both cases) a case of invasion of privacy or breaking electronic surveillance laws? I`ve seen a lot of scenes where characters who are NOT law enforcement do sting operations to collect evidence against a criminal antagonist in the story then being all smug & heroic about it. I just wanted to know if its really something to be smug about or something to worry about. Also I`m asking not in terms of laws of a particular place but in terms of a general case
Primal Fear. Primal Fear. Primal Fear. Changing plea halfway through a trial. One of my favorite films.
How about a react to a Judge Judy episode?
Or Judge Joe Brown. He could do the episode involving my parents. It was glorious.
Lol yesssss that would be interesting
Or judge Rinder lol
Yyyyaaaaasssss
@@RabblesTheBinx Or the episode with my parents. The guy's a jackass.
I'm convinced that DJ wears joggers instead of matching buttons for his suit top when making these lol. Great video, keep up the quality content!
I Objectively fell out of my chair in laughter. Overruled.
Great video.
I know you did a small legal review on My Cousin Vinny, but would you be interested in doing an entire episode devoted to it?
There is a scene with a beautifully articulated continuance request from Vinny involving discovery.
Yes please!
Yes, i would want to see that as well!
All this time I thought i was the only one that wanted this. Hands down one of my favorite movies with legal proceedings as the focal point to the plot. I concur with everyone here!
So much this!
not a lawyer at all, but I'm curious about the tape. How could the attorney prove that the tape is actually sex and not just, for example, people making sex noises for some other reason. Could that be a path jim carrey's character could have taken?
Ianal but I think this goes under reasonable doubt?
I would want to bring up When Harry Met Sally to prove that you can hear those noises without engaging in the act. :)
Also how can he prove that it wasnt his client and that the client paid him to record the two having sex so he could divorce her and not have to pay
@@dolphinvenom2779 That one is answered in the movie, he actually does try to use that as a defence but then in the recording she says "You're so much better than my husband." Before continuing.
@@lich109 It's not like there's not such a thing as kinky role play.
OBJECTION! This is not the second episode of Better Call Saul.
Right? Do every BCS episode
I’m a new subscriber and loving this channel. One thing I’ve learned is how many films have lawyers enter the well despite it not being allowed - something I never knew. I wonder why so many films have lawyers do this.
I’m sure you have tons of ideas already for this series but figured I might as well put another one forward.
I’d love to see a small breakdown of any of the courtroom/lawyer scenes from the first three seasons of Arrested Development.
Love the content.
Barry is very good
Chareth Cutestory?
I LOVE this channel I learned so much that I wouldn't have learned anywhere else, thank you so much for making these videos!
Sir, have you watched "Ernest Goes to Jail?" In that, a crooked lawyer arranged a switch between a CRIMINAL, and an INNOCENT MAN!
@24:50; I've asked this on a later video I think - but is *this* what it looks like when the bailiff tackles someone?
I think strategically invalidating the prenuptial agreement could be achieved by exploring if the respondent signed it under duress, if she had adequate representation independently reviewing the terms of the agreement, and the circumstances under which it was signed (any witnesses aside from a notary). That could go a long way toward getting the client her half of CP. Aside the issue of division of property, the client could make good argument for spousal support based on MSOL. I feel like this never would have gotten to trial. It would have settled long before after months of painful discovery and tens of thousands of dollars of expert accountant fees. Still a great movie!
Yes, a good lawyer would question all of those things, but the story of the movie is that she did have proper representation, the prenup was signed with enough witnesses, and she didn't sign it under duress. She just lied in order to get married to a rich guy when she knew he wouldn't marry her otherwise. So the husband could sue her for fraud. And a good judge would simply grant him an award from her that is (at a minimum) equal to the amount of money she got from the divorce that she wouldn't have gotten had the prenup been in effect plus any extra spousal support she got that she wouldn't have gotten had the prenup been in place. Thus, the case of fraud would have given (again, assuming a fair judge) the husband all the money the ex-wife got from voiding the prenup.
Question: With California's privacy laws, how do paparazzi function? I'm just curious.
Sanna G that’s a fair point
I don't know California privacy laws, but there an argument to be made when the person (a) is in a public space so what expectation does s/he have, and (b) these paparazzi are hired by the celebs to do their job and the celebs turn around and whine about them.
@@caiuswickersham Paparazzi are not hired by celebrities. They are either hired by media outlets or work freelance selling pics to them. The public space thing probably holds up in most cases though.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've lived in LA my whole life, so I think I have a good beginner's understanding of it (and if I'm wrong, hopefully he'll correct me).
The issue with privacy is that it's only protected when you have a reasonable expectation of it. For example, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy when I'm in my own bathroom, but I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when I'm walking down a public street. This is true for everyone.
There are additional considerations when it comes to celebrities and paparazzi specifically. Because we value the first amendment to such a high degree, the paparazzi generally get a lot of latitude when it comes to things like photos or videos used editorially.* Plus, although they're not public servants, people often think of celebrities as public figures and thus as rightly subject to additional public scrutiny. As for how much of a legal basis there is for that perspective, I don't know.
*Commercial use is a different story, though, having to do with the right to publicity rather than privacy.
American courts have judged time and again that it's a First Amendment right to photograph and film whatever you can see from a public place, even if what you are filming is private property (as long as you yourself are on public property).
I'm not 100% sure if this includes things like using telephoto lenses and drones to photograph through very distant windows inside private residences and so on, but it's my understanding that it's not directly illegal. (In many other countries that have similar "you can photograph anything you want in public" laws there are nevertheless the restriction that you cannot photograph the insides of private residences, at least in a manner that clearly shows them in detail, especially if there are people. However, it's my understanding that in most of the US there's no such limit.)
Of course Paparazzis toe a fine legal line, because they have to be careful about things like defamation, libel and things like posting indecent pictures of people (which is likely to be illegal), or anything that causes real tangible harm to the person being photographed (such as loss of reputation or profit).
Some paparazzis also engage in what could be construed as harassment, but from what I have seen, the police and the legal system in the US aren't very eager to start prosecuting people for mere claims of "harassment", so whether such a claim ever goes anywhere is quite hit and miss. Taking someone to court over "harassment" could be a long, arduous and very expensive endeavor, that may end up nowhere (especially since in the US even getting your lawyer fees covered from the opposite party, even if you win the case, is a struggle.)
I'd really love to see an analysis on movie"law abiding citizen".
11:09
Objection: That was too smooth of a self-promoting plug