Real Lawyer Reacts to A Time To Kill (full movie) // LegalEagle
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.lin... ⚖️
Check out the best documentaries and non-fiction movies on CuriousityStream at curiositystrea... LegalEagles get a free account for 31 days.
Unfortunately, racial issues come up in our judicial system. A Time to Kill deals with those issues head-on, in a gripping way. Even though this was a more serious legal movie than I tend to deal with on this channel, it was fun to take a look at Grisham’s first legal thriller. You can tell that some of the nuance of his later works is missing here, but the story is incredible. I missed this when it came out in 1996 (and I don’t think this one gets played on cable -- for obvious reasons).
(Thanks to CuriousityStream for sponsoring this video and helping to make this channel possible)
★ A Few of My Favorite Things★
(clicking the links really helps out the channel)
Custom Suits: legaleagle.lin...
Ties: fave.co/2ImLY9I
Tie Clips/Bars: amzn.to/2WIQ6EE
Pocket Squares: amzn.to/2UfsKtL
▶ Why Indochino Suits? (50% off Premium Suits + free shipping) [legaleagle.lin...]: Off-the-rack suits NEVER fit right. Indochino makes fully custom suits that fit perfectly using any material I want, with all of the options I want. And they cost 1/3rd of what normal suits costs. I’ve purchased them with my own money for years, so I’m thrilled they are now a sponsor.
▶ Why Ties from TheTieBar? (Free shipping on orders over $50) [fave.co/2ImLY9I]: Normal ties are too fat. Skinny ties are too skinny. So these days I only wear ties that are exactly 2.5” wide. They are fashionable without being hipster. You see them in all of my videos. TieBar ties are perfect, come in every color I want, and never cost more than $19.
▶ Why these Tie Clips? [amzn.to/2WIQ6EE]: It’s really hard to find affordable tie clips that are the right size (1.5”), look good, and are great quality. These tie bars are all three. Plus the 3-pack gives a variety of styles. They pair perfectly with 2.5” ties from TheTieBar (above).
▶ Why these Pocket Squares? [amzn.to/2UfsKtL]: I like my pocket squares perfectly, well, square. Like straight-out-of-Mad-Men square. The only way to do that is with a stiffer material that keeps its shape. I’ve exhaustively tried dozens of pocket squares, and these are by far the best. It’s how I get the perfectly flat pocket square you see in my videos.
--------------------------------------------------
I get asked a lot about whether being a practicing attorney is like being a lawyer on TV. I love watching legal movies and courtroom dramas. It's one of the reasons I decided to become a lawyer. But sometimes they make me want to pull my hair out because they are ridiculous.
Today I'm taking a break from representing clients and teaching law students how to kick ass in law school to take on lawyers in the movies and on TV. While all legal movies and shows take dramatic license to make things more interesting (nobody wants to see hundreds of hours of brief writing), many of them have a grain of truth.
New episodes weekly! Subscribe here:
www.youtube.co...
You can find more Real Lawyer Reacts Here (including my reaction to Suits, Better Call Saul, A Few Good Men and tons more): goo.gl/mmzShz
This is part of a continuing series of "Lawyer Reaction" videos. Got a legal movie or TV show you'd like me to critique? Let me know in the comments!
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta: / stellathelegalbeagle
For promotional inquiries please reach out here: legaleagle@standard.tv
In the book, the “now picture her as white” speech was given in the jury room by one of the jurors during deliberations
And that quote gets to the heart of the case.
If Carl Lee Hailey had been white and the rapists black, that same jury would have found him "not guilty."
Just one of the many reasons the book is better. Still a great movie though.
Sheila Rough what! This was my dads favorite movie. Mine too. How’d you find that? Id like to know more!!! Super interested. Thought this was a fictional story until last week
emily Mcymme it is fictional it’s the first novel by John Grisham Read it many years ago its one of his best
@@theLatestkraze Most of it is fictional though. Grisham did see a young black girl talk to a jury about getting raped and beaten, the fiction starts with her father killing the assailants.
Objection: Your Honor, Mr. LegalEagle has not presented us with any evidence he wears pants in his videos.
@Jacob Dorvinen
It's a famous quote, often attributed to Carl Sagan. Here's one explanation of it: "For instance, imagine I am investigating whether or not my neighbor has a dog. If I look in their yard and see no doghouse, this is an absence of evidence, so the conclusion that my neighbor has no dog is at least consistent to believe, if not also true. But, it could also be the case that my neighbor does have a dog and they just keep it inside. So, the absence of evidence cannot conclusively prove the truth of the proposition."
www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2o66wm/can_someone_explain_to_me_absence_of_evidence_is/
@Jacob Dorvinen My bad!
@@eastvandb In this case I'd say that the absence of evidence is evidence that the evidence is absent. No claims are made about the pants being there or not. And yeah, I'm a pedantic child :p
@Jacob Dorvinen - say what again!
he has no legs 😳
Objection: "This is not a realistic looking-courtroom". This is incorrect. What you are seeing is the _only_ courtroom available in a tiny rural county in the South. I have been in multiple courtrooms that looked just like this, and the older the courtroom is (and commensurately the less income the county has), the more likely it is to look this way. Your statements about why it's a bad courtroom are 100% accurate - it's difficult to hear, the crowd noise is terrible, and one judge demanded that the shackles on the inmates be covered in pipe foam so that the chains didn't rattle against the hardwood floor to create additional noise distractions. The audience and the jury have difficulty understanding what is being said, and all in all it's a terrible place to try a case, much less a capital murder case.
And yet, in at least 5 courtrooms in AL, 2 in TN, 1 in GA, and 1 in MS that I have observed, they do it anyway.
Same in VA.
Sustained. The court room in my small Texas town is of similar layout and was built in the 60s. I was in there for jury selection two years ago. The plaster is literally falling from the ceiling.
Ah the south, home of all those "law and order" politicians that like to spend more on commercials about them executing people than fixing up courtrooms.
It always fascinates me how the politicians “tough on crime” seldom put that energy towards funding the criminal justice system, and really just give cops more leeway.
Yeah, pretty sure the lawyer probably is a more reliable source on this topic.
"Overruled. This better be good, counselor!" -approximately 99% of movie judges and 0% of real judges
"I'll allow it, but you'd better be going somewhere with this..."
Another great performance from Judge Who Allows Everything
("...but watch yourself, McCoy.")
Gotta make the cases more exciting, because real court is boring.
Is this a punishable cliche on Everything Wrong With yet? So sick of hearing that line.
@@JoybuzzerXYes. I was on a jury once. I was so excited hoping we'd get a murder or something. It was a fraud/financial advantage by deception case. The guy had been writing rubber cheques all over the place, not paying his bills, taking luxury cars for a test drive and not returning them, something, something. It was so boring. The only highlight was the defendant's ex-girlfriend testifying where she roasted him endlessly.
I desperately want to see a legal drama where a lawyer steps into the well and gets body checked by the bailiff now
Gwendoline Barr me too lol.
Lawyer: “ Shirley you are you allow me to enter the premises without getting tackled by the bailiff. Bailiff “ Sir I’m warning you you enter this without permission I will be forced to tackle you.” Lawyer” i’d like to see you try” Baliff” OK you asked for it” Madison Sue’s for peace
Stuff like that is why comedies are usually more accurate than dramas.
SNL courtrooms are more accurate than Good Wife one's.
@@tyrant-den884 Never thought about It that way but... It does make a lot of sense. Dramas usually want to focus on the more "elevated" (to be Aristotelian) aspects of any given situation, while comedy will face the mundane and everyday aspects.
A lawyer being tackled would be realístico, but also lower our view on the dignity of that character.
That said, The Good Wife had a lot of small comedy bits sprinkled here and there, so...
@@edisonlima4647 but getting body checked is slap stick. Maybe its possible to make it small comedy, but it would be tricky, and unless the whole episode was meant to be more comedic than normal, could ruin the tone.
Someone blacking a defendant who was defending them-self from stepping into the well and saying "uhh, we dont actually do that in real life." could be a good little comedy as everyone is a little awkward but the judge is trying to cut them some slack because of course they wouldn't know a lot if this.
Objection: you should sell "The bailiff will tackle you" merch.
Even a shirt depicting a lawyer getting tackled in the well would be awesome
Nice to see a fellow dwarf fortress fan
@john fitzgerald yes! objection sustained! I would definetly buy a shirt with that:)))
-andise.
Lol love it!
Objection! Seeing as the book was published in 1988, the story is set in the early 80's and Batson v. Kentucky was decided in 1986, it's very likely that the practice of using peremptory strikes to dismiss all black people from a jury was still upheld at that time (probably leading to Batson).
Terrence Koeman
I concur with this objection
I withdrew my objection
And at least *mention* that this is still a situation that is extremely likely to occur today, and aside from the dramatic additions of telling the audience what they're doing?
There is very, very little chance that this will result in any problems for the prosecutor.
Just checked, and the Grisham novel this movie is based on was set in 1984, so for sure Batson v. Kentucky wouldn't apply here.
Sustained!
Objection: the omission of Miranda warning is not the only issue with the pre-arrest conversation. That shoe has been improperly handled & contaminated as evidence. A defense attorney could argue it was never in the truck, and any physical evidence was obtained during this interaction.
I was looking to see if anyone posted this. That shoe should have been photographed, handled with gloves, bagged and turned in as evidence. You're right, handling it like that would have ruined it's usefulness as evidence.
I thought the omission of miranda rights wasn't grounds for mistrial anymore.
I was thinking the exact same thing. He had no gloves and the chain if custody is a disaster.
@@genxer1 Amen
That shoe had probably never been in the truck; was just a red herring for the sheriff to assess the men's reaction to it. It worked.
Objection! Your honor, the prosecution stated that there are now "100% more lamps." However, this implies that there were, in the past, lamps, and that that number has doubled (increased by 100%). However, there were never any lamps previously, and therefore the percentage increase in lamps is undefined.
I object to your objection on the grounds of math because, you know, math.
To expand on this notion, since there were exactly 0 lamps before and there is exactly 1 lamp now, the percentage increase (and indeed the multiplicative increase) is larger than any real number (and thus undefined in the context of the real numbers). In some number systems with a a single well-defined infinity (such as stereographic projections of ℝ²), the percentage increase could be considered exactly infinite, while in many other number systems where infinities are rigorously defined (such as the hyperreal numbers), it would still be undefined.
Wow! This convo tho!!
Further on the motion, percentages being a representation of multiplication (I.e 100% = x2) means that no matter how many times you multiply it, 0 lamps doubled, tripled and so on, is still 0 lamps. The statement that should have been made is, “now with 1 additional lamp” if one was attempting to make a true statement. Addition being the mathematical formula used to explain the phenomena where a variable can increase by a single integer and give relevance to a multiplicative measurement hence forth.
Come on... Give him a break, he is a lawyer and lawyers don't know math... That is why they are lawyers.
However! And potentially giving him the benefit of the doybt: what if (and only if) there is another lamp in the front, he mentioned being in the same room, just another wall, there are potentially another 2 walls that we haven't seen, therefore there might be another lamp and this one being a new lamp makes it an accurate statement... Because if there was 1 lamp and now he has this one that we can see... Wouldn't 2 lamps be 100% more lamps than the prev single lamp?
Objection: A TIme to Kill is set in 1980, 6 years before Batson V. Kentucky so the Racial Strikes Kevin Spacey's character makes would, for the time, hold water.
Overruled: they mention that the mental patient had been in a mental institution for over ten years from a case from 1985 at bare minimum it’s 1995 in the movie
@@Missing_Nin The book and movie are actually set in 1984
Objection: you should sell "The bailiff will tackle you" merch.
I’m very confused so is it set in 1980, 1995-ish, or 1984?
Yeah that’s the point. He is pointing out how movies stack up to realism based on the law. That means the law *today* not the law in the 1900s.Obviously he couldn’t do that. He is pointing out both the fiction/non fiction differences and the time differences in the law.
Objection: The John Grisham novel, in which the screenplay was based, has the story set in 1984 (still set in Mississippi). At the time he was writing the novel, John Grisham was a bar-certified, actively practicing lawyer (which is loosely based on an actual case he himself watched). At the time the novel was set, Batson v Kentucky had not been decided by SCOTUS, and thus does not apply to the novel. With that said, Akiva Goldsman, the man who wrote the screenplay based on the novel, may have set the story of the screenplay post 1986, but because he's not a lawyer, he should not be held to the same legal standard as Grisham nor should he be expected to shepardize Grisham's novel for adaptation, so Batson should not be used as a mark against the story. There's a historical precedence for members of the jury to be all one race, specifically white, in the South, and the story reflects that reality, pre Batson.
The Sheriffs vehicle is a 1996 GMC 1500.
@@captcaboose9940 because the film was made in '96, but still set in the 80s. That's the set dresser/production team's decision on the vehicle. It doesn't negate the fact that the movie is based from the book and set in the 80s.
And often post-Baston, being honest.
@@kristenyoung3289 The film wasn't set in the 80s though, as they reference Dan Baker being tried in 1985 and being in a mental institution for 10 years
@@timmcgrath8030 That's why the OP addressed that and gave Goldsman a pass for not going back to research every single legal technicality in the original text to update it for the 1996 and post-1996 audiences.
My grandfather was a lawyer from the deep south. He lived in a relatively small, secluded and, isolated community that basically acted just like this. Like the judges were way too personable with the local lawyers and run the town to their personal liking. It was vwey corrupt. He said the attorney that was prosecutoring you and your defense lawyer would literally go to each others bbqs on the weekend. And he was there in the 60s and 70s so the racism was hard-core. After we watched this movie once he told me what would have happened back in the day in reality, was the judge and cops would have been part of the kkk and so they would disclose to the members what time the guy would be transfered or moved to the courthouse to let them just kill him.
Thats sounds pretty nightmarish; facts too it wasn't uncommon especially back then for local authority figures to be Klansmen. Like the 1964 Mississippi Burning murders, the perpetrators were the local police who had ties with that branch of the Klan, killed those three Civil Rights activists.
Very well said! 👊👊✊✊👏👏👏
It seems like "the bailiff will tackle you" is this channel's version of doctor Mike's "chest compressions, chest compressions, chest compressions", which is to say, a likeable catchphrase we would never want to be left without.
“The police can’t use this kind of overwhelming force just because they don’t like what this person has said.”
Big oof from 2020
Insanity, at this point, would be an understatement if some of the politicians we have at the moment were to be put on trial.
I was literally coming down to the comments today because of that moment/quote.
I am from a small town in Ohio they do what they want if you can't handle the interrogation people die all the time around here
Wonder how many of us will be here for this, lmaoo
Took the words right out of my mouth!!
"The police can't use this level of overwhelming force"
This aged well
BladedFish Yes, it did age well, actually. LEGALLY they aren’t supposed to, you twit. I’m really getting annoyed with all the dramatic and edgy comments of this nature. The man was speaking purely from a law standpoint, which I guarantee he knows better than any dumbass talking about or mocking it in the comments. For that matter, I most likely do too. Stop with the theatrics. You’re not clever or profound. Damned obtuse people these days…😑
@@Armaldo468 but the fact they do (and have been getting away with it so far) means that they *can* "use this level of overwhelming force".
@@Armaldo468 We're saying that "legally they can't do that" is the stupidest reaction to PEOPLE WHO OBVIOUSLY DID THAT. Go on. There's a robber coming into your home. Stand up and say "BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!!!!!!!" Did you alter the fabric of reality? Did they stop robbing your house because you reminded them that it was illegal?
@@Armaldo468
No - he portrayed it as somehow unrealistic because they could theoretically get in trouble, when it is par for the course. He left that part out. In many videos he has pointed out things as realistic even though legally wrong or questionable - not here.
@@Armaldo468 "LEGALLY they aren’t supposed to, you twit." I mean Legally you're not meant to destroy someone's house. Yet the law protects those actions. The difference of Written law, and practiced law.
Objection. I actually work as a bailiff and I can guarantee that if I tackled the DA for my county, I'd be fired. Granted no lawyer I've worked with slowly approached a witness while raising his voice in a badgering way like that.
So what do you think was he justified in killing the to guys who rape his daughter
How many people have you tackled?
Objection!! The prosecutor was caught doing little boys. Does that mean every case he tried and got a conviction could possibly be overturned?
What does the Bailiff do if the DA approaches the witness in an augmentative manner?
OBJECTION! Of course you’d be fired if you tackled the DA if they’ve never slowly approached the witness raising his voice and badgering the witness because that statement tells me that the DA’s you’ve been in court with have behaved well. Perhaps if you could share any experience where any of the DA’s in the cases you were the bailiff whom approached the witness and made themselves that close in proximity to the defendant without the judge ordering the DA to back away or to have yourself remove/tackle the DA?
Objection! "The police can't use this level of force..." Oh you mean legally.
With Qualified Immunity, also legally. Cops have been getting away with literal murder under that statute, in court!
What?
Marcel de Jong Qualified immunity is only in reference to civil issues.
Objection sustained. I'll allow it. You may continue
Objection! In light of recent events those police actually showed immense restraint.
Your perspective on these videos really does change after having actually served on a jury cause you get first hand experience of what court really is like. Was a juror for a nasty criminal case with tenuous evidence which made me appreciate the fact that in these legal movies there’s almost always a slam dunk. A clear piece of evidence or confession that makes everything clear when in reality a lot of criminal cases are rarely cut and dry. It’s your job as the jury to make what you believe is the best decision with what you’ve been given, even if you wish you had more to work with.
There is also an issue with people who desperately need to return to work and may be inclined to vote for whichever verdict gets them out of there the fastest. They may not say it out loud, but you can tell that some jurors are not all that invested in the case and just wanna get out of there.
Objection: Your honor, that is actually infinite percent more lamp.
Clearly he didn't study mathematics.
My hero.
Objection to the objection: your honour due to mathematical inverses the previous statement is incorrect
Don’t check my math on this but I think infinite percent more lamp would mean all of existence is now lamp.
@@ultru3525 multiplicative
THANK YOU for pointing out how Kevin Spacey handled evidence WITHOUT gloves or protective wear. It's always a annoyance when I see it.
You know, watching back over this now, I couldn’t help but think that the prosecutor in the Kenosha shooting trial took Kevin Spacey’s character in this movie as his role model ☠️
But he missed the arrest scene in the bar where the officer was handling the shoe without gloves or it being in an evidence bag
yeah.... that is certainly one of the worst things Kevin Spacey's ever done.
LegalEagle: "This is completely improper! Borderline illegal!"
Everyone: "Well yeah, that's kinda the point of the picture."
@@MissKitae The funny thing is the book did not have a lot of these court errors that I remember. Might have to reread it to make sure. I remember I kinda was upset about all the changes Hollywood made to the book.
@@stephm5871 The book was written by a criminall attorney with a decade of practice In the state were the action takes place. I doubt that any courtroom error appeared, unles it was intentional.
@@mancubwwa damn if only they could've kept that accuracy for the movie
@@kinjalkadakia6933 It's difficult to do that in the movie, for example when the prosecution's psychiatrist was on the stand, the prosecution did spend an hour discussing his credentials and it was a point that he was preachy kind of prosecutors who likes to repeat everything 3-4 times but it's hard to do that in a movie
and the point of his channel is to point those things out, even if those things are done intentionally.
Objection: Some of the cases you use to argue Spaceys legal strategy sets him up for possible appeal seems to have come from years AFTER this story takes place, as the case it was based upon took place in 1984. Therefore, those rulings were not in effect, and his racist prosecution strategies were not uncommon in the south at the time.
Prosecution still remove people from the jury pool based on race even after Dobbs, they just use different language now, e.g. "they live in the same general area", "they work in similar fields of work", "they come from the same socioeconomic background" etc. The New York times legal podcast (can't recall the name) did a whole show about how Dobbs is effectively meaningless and that nothing has changed since then.
I wished that he would've have brought this up during the video.
@@malin9314Did mean Batson and not Dobbs? Dobbs was the recent abortion SCOTUS decision.
Racist prosecution is still a MAJOR problem in this country, and I sadly don't see it getting any better. Prosecutors are still pushing for stiffer sentences based on how much more melanin a defendant has to his/her skin.
Still doesn't change the fact that the case should've been given a mistrial or change of venue if there's rioting and attempted assassinations outside.
I don't know why "The bailiff will tackle you" is my new favorite thing, but it is.
I want a “the bailiff will tackle you” shirt with a cheesy stick figure drawing
Objection!
15:18 - "Kevin Spacey's hands dirty everything they touch, apparently."
Murder in the court.
One thing about this that Legal Eagle apparently missed is that the prop used is what is called in some circles a "rubber duck" IE a prop used to look like a loaded weapon. It is a very good point that for a real trial the magazine would be removed and the bolt locked to the rear, but since the prop's firing chamber is cast from black rubber it does not have a removable magazine.
At a distance it's easy to mistake for the real thing since some parts are actually metal. For an M-16A1, the easiest way to notice is actually to look at the magazine. A real magazine has more detail to it than what you see on a rubber duck. Another is to look at the bolt chamber, though that's only visible from this side. The dustcover of most rubber ducks is cast rubber, and thus can't match the shape of the real thing perfectly. Also since the bolt assembly is cast as part of the upper receiver there's no gap between the bolt and upper receiver. The details of the shape of the bolt are also slightly different.
Hehe, I've handled the real thing more than once in the military.
@@marhawkman303 what you have said is accurate, but we have to consider it in context for the reality of this film. That is to say that in real life, the film makers used a prop for the gun, but when the prosecutor played by Kevin Spacey presents the gun to the witness, he does so asking if it is the gun that was used to commit the crime. This suggests that, in the reality of the film, it IS the real weapon and everything about how it is handled is done incorrectly in that reality.
The film makers should have just gotten a better prop, or just used photographs as suggested. A better prop or real gun might have been too expensive or to hard or difficult to transport to where the movie was being filmed. Photographs of a real gun might have been a better choice for many reasons.
@@jeremiahgriffin9521 Oh I'm not disputing that a photograph would have been a good idea. I'm simply explaining why the prop appears to be a loaded weapon. :) In the fictional universe it's probably NOT loaded, but that's not how it got filmed in real life.
@@marhawkman303 a prop for the movie, yes but I wonder if an unscrupulous DA would bring a prop gun into the court as a kind of theatre to show off how dangerous a loaded, ready to kill weapon looks to the jury without the sanitized plastic cover and evidence tags
@@misterjoshua5720 scare tactics are old tricks and old tricks as they say are often the best.
"There's no reason to have a conversation." Obviously you have never lived in the small town world of The South. There is a conversation for every occasion, no matter whats about to happen
This is a legit statement you made.
Yes sir you go to the store you hear the stories of three customers before you with the clerk before you get out of there
I think he's talking about the arrest part, in which case he's right. The police won't explain a thing. They should have their guns drawn yelling at them the to get on the floor.
Recently watched 'Just Mercy,' and they showed the same thing in that. The sheriff has a chat with Jamie Foxx's character for a few minutes before arresting him.
I think Marten explains it best in the 4th panel here: questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=327
I've heard that.
Speaking as a lawyer who practices in the south, the courtroom is very similar to many found in small town courthouses
Objection: We have seen time and time again that the use of force rules do not apply to police officers all that often.
A second objection: The reason he made conversation is that rural police officers often know their community very well and that leads to a more relaxed atmosphere when interacting. Despite what proper procedure may be, I have personally witnessed rural police hold a conversation leading up to arrest.
Also, conversation can be used to either deescalate a situation *or* escalate it depending on the wants and needs of the officers involved
Patrick McGoohan as the judge. A far cry from being the Prisoner.
Objection. It's not 100% more. There was no lamp to begin with so you can't quantify the percentages of which more lamp there is.
There are infinitely more lamps.
@@kirche5 well, yes and no, mostly no. The number of percentages that there is more of lamps heads towards infinity if we look at what the limit is, however, in the most literal sense of looking at it, it 'is' not infinity.
True enough though could have been expressed the other way and it would have worked the old set had 100% fewer lamps.
I just assumed he used to have 1/2 a lamp in the shot, thus, with a full lamp, he now has 100% more lamp.
@@Kevin-mj6th I believe that something like a basic mathematical fact is generally the sort of thing that you can simply stipulate provided that the other party doesn't object. The problem of course would be if this was a court he has just asked the court to stipulate that 0*(100/100)=1 this of course is demonstrably and incontrovertibly false as any $1 calculator will confirm.
Generally it's the conclusions and interpretations drawn from the raw data and numbers that are a matter of subjective opinion not the numbers and mathematics themselves as math is defined to be non-ambiguous.
I could be wrong on this but pretty sure that this is usually how this works mostly because there is little point in wasting the courts time arguing whether 2+2 is in fact equal to 4 as basic arithmetic is not exactly controversial.
Objection "100% more lamps" is a lie. Before you had no lamps, 100% more of 0 is still 0. You have an infinite% more lamps
Sustained. It's a universally known fact that law school is for people who stink at math.
Great exchange. The Jury approves
Before there was light, so a lamp could rationally be postulated, however none were visible. Now, all of one lamp is visible, an increase of of one over none means 100% of a lamp is added to the set.
@@tysonwalch8985 I should have gone to law school I sucked at math adn failed as a scientist :P
Probably too late to submit into evidence.
0 + (0 * 1) = 0
"Kevin Spaceys hand's dirty everything they touch apparently." Oh my godddddddddd
Kevin Spacey is lowlife. Let it go..
Noah Hickey ikr! Sick burn!
@F
Hey if you don't get it, what rock have you been living under? Go google Kevin Spacey and see what happens..
@@thecaptain2281 Are you being intentionally dense or do you legitimately not understand everyone in this thread agrees that Spacey is trash?
@@UltimateKyuubiFox
That depends on how you read the statement by the OP.
"I think I was a little young when this came out" - Jesus. That line made me feel old. It came out the year after I graduated high school.
I was in college, I think. So, hello Old Person. I'm ancient. 🙂
"Most US courts replaced the M'Naughten rule in the in the 1950s..." It's still the '50s in much of Mississippi.
And Grisham would now, it's where he studied and practiced law before he became a full-time writer.
And I bet during the 50s it felt like 1920s there.
Speak that truth bro!
Yeah, no. No it isn't.
It's nice to see stereotypes & bigotry in action.
Just want to say that there are some lawyers who retire and then serve as veteran legal counsel, essentially giving veterans like me who have $0 (or less, a lot less) pro bono legal aide, nearly unlimited help, just because they like to do it, and want to help
thank you
Objection: System is "supposed" to be colorblind, but history has shown us it is anything BUT colorblind
Besides from not colour blind you’re also shit out of luck if the other party has more money or when you yourself don’t even have enough money to go to court.
You're absolutely correct....believing that laws outweigh race in this country is naive.
@@kimberlydavis7322
@@peaknonsense2041 you know it's actually extremely rare that the police officers get severly punished? Correct?
@@notomnithegodking Sure. Because unlike some, I understand that most cops don't go around murdering people so they don't get prosecuted for it.
I like the new corner. Warmer atmosphere.
Same, it's a REALLY nice corner and I hope to see more of it in future!
#Lamp4TheBar
Go lamps!
It's fine I guess, I like plants and natural lighting so I preferred the window. But this isn't bad.
@@catxtrallways In this case it feels a bit more confined compared to the previous, but on it's own it's no bad.
It's actually undefined percent more lamps, but he's not a mathematician :)
Objection, Not mentioning the father killed the rapists as it was the core of the story was a bit confusing.
Objection, in a previous scene, he was talking to Samuel L Jackson and Samuel Jackson asked him to be his lawyer.
Yeah, if I recall correctly his announcement was meant to exposit for the audience that he has agreed to represent Carl Lee.
*29:00** "Now imagine she was white...."*
Samuel Jackson's characters face be like _"You said What Now??"_ XD
For what I recall, the lawyer got the Idea from a conversation with his client in which he raised kiiiinda the same thing, so it was not a shocked or offended face but more of a "so you DID listen, huh?"
So it Goes it was like ‘HE WENT THERE!’. And yes he did say ‘if you were on the jury what would it take for you to set me free?’.
It's a clever move on an emotional appeal, if an unethical one. It's also problematic in that it assumes racial prejudice of the jury in them not being able to empathize with someone with a different skin color.
TealWolf26 at the time and place most of those people hell most white jurors today cannot and do not empathize with brown people. That’s just how it is
@@brokenquill9277 Yep sorry, I forgot I was talking about humans for a second.
Objection: you always say you will answer to Objections and you never do! you should be held in contempt and lying under oath! (lol)
Well, he's a lawyer, so..lol.
Objection!! The prosecutor was caught doing little boys. Does that mean every case he tried and got a conviction could possibly be overturned?
@@swiperthefox777 no
swiperthefox777
Objection!
Irrelevant to the matter at hand.
@HKZ P no they dont
OBJECTION! The system may be colorblind, but I think it's pretty safe to say the Jury in this case isn't.
I don't Like how when Kevin Spacey want's white people it's sooo horrible, but when Matthew wants a specific jury it's called Voir Dire and completely OK... I think Jury should be random as long as they qualify to be on a Jury, but why is either side ever involved in saying they like or don't like someone... Shouldn't that be conflict of Interest?
@@kraven4444 the jury is supposed to represent the community at large. If you remove all of the white people or black people from the jury depending on how it would help your case, and say its 50-50 (or in the case of fictional Clanton, MS, 70% white and 30% black) that is doing a disservice to the community. You missed the point, of what he was saying about the legal aspects.
Kraven the issue wasn’t explained well by the video, so I’ll give it a shot. Essentially, when a jury is called it is called as a larger pool called a “panel.” So, for example, in Dallas County for a murder they may call 120 people to be part of the jury panel. It’s from that point that the attorneys operate Voir Dire, which is subject to independent court rules.
So, the prosecution and defense each get a number of strikes they get to use - a specific number of strikes for any reason (beyond a reason for race via Batson) and a specific number of strikes for cause, where they have to justify it based on questions asked.
There are two important things to know. 1st, Voir Dire in a lot of cases in Texas lasts less than 30 minutes, so any plan to stack a jury in your favor is really hard to do. Secondly, each side gets the same number of strikes to keep it fair - theoretically set up to where each attorney picks half of the 12 jurors.
As far as what Kevin Spacey did vs Matthew, it’s just precedent. The Supreme Court has stated that you can’t remove someone based on race alone because this practice was common and getting all white jury’s for black defendants. The jury’s would deliberate for a couple hours or even minutes and come back with guilty verdicts, in many cases when the defendant was later exonerated. The implicit prejudice or bias that may be present due to race is likely not present for the reasons that Matthew was presenting - people with families, etc. Wanting a sympathetic jury because of their circumstances vs striking someone because they are of a specific race is a different thing. However, the Batson test really isn’t that tough. If there were 3 black men in the jury panel, the prosecutor could strike all three without having to show cause. If the defense raised a Batson challenge, then a separate hearing would take place where the defense would make their claim that the men were struck due to race. HOWEVER, the prosecutor can respond with literally anything else. “I didn’t like how juror 1 looked at me; I didn’t like how juror 2 smirked; I didn’t like how juror 3 answered the question.” Therefore, Batson is a pretty weak standard.
Anyway, I’m sure that was way too much info. That’s what a couple years of law school will do for ya. 👌🏻
@@kraven4444 true randomisation would have had a greater possiblity of near/all white jury, and an imbalance of gender s well.
@@andrewdg95ify Have any of your law professors explained that the plural of "jury" is "juries?" You wrote "jury's" instead. I don't think that means what you think it means.
Objection! There isn't 100% more lamps! Since the base amount was 0, there is infinity percent more, since percent increase is based off of the original amount!
lol
Objection to your objection! Infinity is not a number therefore you cannot have infinity percent. Even if you could, lim x->inf 0*.01x is still 0.
@@infinitelyexplosive4131 #Objection! to the objection of the objection! 1/0 is not calculable as it is infinite.
Beat me to it.
@@trischas.2809 Objection! + or - infinity is more accurate because zero has neither a positive nor negative value!
Objection you should have played the whole closing argument it is one of the greatest cinematic monologs off all time
Yup.
Overruled, it’s probably too long for him to do so without getting this auto-flagged for copyright. 😅
Surprised you didn't talk about jury nullification, which is basically what happened in this case.
He's a lawyer, of course he's not going to talk about jury nullification
He's not allowed ;)
@@MenkoDany I don't see why a defense lawyer wouldn't want to draw attention to it, the whole OJ legal team basically relied on nullification. Prosecutors are the only ones that like to pretend it doesn't exist.
@@loonachan because I'm pretty sure he could get disbarred. Because technically its a jury ignoring the law.
@@tylerdurden788 It would only be improper if he tried to instruct a jury to override the law. There's nothing wrong about talking about it in the abstract. My guess is he didn't go into it because it would be a long and nuanced conversation, and people have strong feelings about the general premise.
Could you react to, To Kill a Mockingbird
Charlene Samuel I believe they in the process of creating a To Kill a Mocking Bird Broadway play that’s going to debut soon?
@@tannerwilson4843 It's already playing.
YES!!!!
Well, he talked about the Kavanaugh hearing, which is basically the modern equivalent.
"You would probably not want ton bring an M16 into the actual courtroom ..." As the Rittenhouse trial has shown the proper thing to do is to bring the rifle into the courtroom and then point it at the jury.
For one thing it's almost certainly an AR-15, not an M16, unless it was stolen from the local National Guard armory.
@@Caseytify according to the book that is a M16A1 that was smuggled back from Vietnam by Friend that was in the army. To add to that both colt and armalit made full auto AR-15 platform rifles for direct sale to civilians in the 60's and 70's when the NFA machine gun registration was open. Those rifles where marketed and stamped as M16 rifles.
Should have just made it a shotgun for the movie. Everyone in the south has a shotgun. A few buckshot manage to catch the deputy’s leg, still works.
@@OhYeaMista that's what I thought too, even a hunting rifle would have been more appropriate.
Have you done legally blonde yet? I need that analyzed, stat.
Off the top of my head I can already hear the claims. First of all Argumentative actions by Elle Woods. The fact that the the opposing council does not call for a recess after the new evidence is brought to light
Also the entire crux of Elle woods case is that the girl who killed her father was still wearing a perm even tho she took a shower lol the fact that a murder went straight to trial within a week is insane
Hypothetically, she could have gotten another one.
The point of the argument was that the fact that someone who gets perms often would know better than to take a shower after just receiving one, thus showing that she was lying about where she was and what she heard.
The police can't use excessive force? Technically no but.. you know
...but they _can_ effectively define "excessive". Dude I'm from Spokane. Otto Zehm. Trust, I know.
@GM Steelhaven fair...
Least they still talk about that shit, tho, like this town so back-berth, most dumb shits blow an aneurysm tryna remember _either_ damn verdict!
Johan Öberg welcome to the US
I think in this case it is not about whether they will use it but that it will be a legal disadvantage later on in court.
@GM Steelhaven It was pretty excessive. I think spitting on a cop just earns a punch to the jaw from just one cop.
"I think I was a little young when this came out"
suddenly I feel every one of my years
I think we need some “The Bailiff WILL tackle you” merch,
I second this.
-andise.
All in favor say "aye."
Aye.
Aye
Have you done "The people VS Larry Flint please and thank you
When the courtroom was first shown, my immediate thought was "to kill a mockingbird".
"The system is supposed to be colorblind" Yeah, but it's not
Objection! Sadly jurisprudence in in the South that far back was not as constitutionally faithful as it should have been. This prosecution's misconduct was more than possible then and likely probable.
I agree, it's okay if he wants to analyse based on CURRENT laws and stuff, but he should make clear that's his gimmick.
It's a strange thing but though the film feels like it's from the 50's or 60's, if you pay attention to the cars and tech... it's clearly contemporary to the year it was made. The book was written late 80's and the film was 96 I think.
The movie takes place in the mid-1990s
@@nachofilament294 And the kind of misconduct seen in this movie takes place in the South (and the North, and the West and every where else) as recently as 2019.
@@simonmacomber7466 Everyone in this thread was saying it took place long before modern day.
Loved your review, but you forget, this movie happens in 1984. I can tell you from person experience about how openly racist this country was in the 80s. In the the late 80s, my Marine rifle company was sent to Minnesota to train reservists in tactics. Once we settle in the base, we had a briefing about the area. We were told that it was not recommended for black Marines to go into the local town alone.
I love your videos, please keep up the great work.
"Was" openly racist?
You do realize that the case Grisham based this on was completely race reversed, right? That the kids were white and the perpetrator was black?🙄
Dude, trying to explain to folks up north that sundown towns STILL exist (and that they aren’t all in the South!) is a pain. I make especially sure to stress that reality to black friends heading down the east coast, get them a map, etc.
Obviously they experience racism anywhere, but the deadly kind that’s trenched into every person of influence in said towns, not so much. This ain’t ancient history, not by a long shot.
@@LuckyBones77 I've heard some stories from truck drives about "sundown towns" all over. There are even problematic areas in Northern California.
Yep. Like a lot of the issues of race or corruption here did and do exist in the rural south. I could absolutely see this happen in rural Mississippi at the time, hell I could see it happen there now.
Objection: Have you ever practiced law in the Deep South?? My guess is that, while you're right legally, this movie is slightly more realistic politically than it seems.
You're right. It's actually was based on a case John Grisham watched as a law student.
Yeah this seems like it could be handwaved as set in a particularly backwards area.
This type of “politicking” goes on all over the country. Prosecutors get chummy with judges and cops all the time.
This guy is a ignorant as a child, oblivious to the harsh realities of corruption. Get a clue my man
This movie isn't set in 1932.
Also, you missed a point at 3:59 if the shoe was really found in their truck, it would be a key piece of evidence in the case, and the officer would be wrong to carry it with him, contaminate it with his finger prints, and show it to the perp.
"Kevin Spacey's hands dirty everything they touch, apparently." I missed that somehow when I first watched this.
"Most US courts replaced the M'Naughten rule in the in the 1950s..." It's still the '50s in much of Mississippi.
Well hes portraying a dirty prosecution lawyer...so doesn't he fit the role well?
"In closing arguments you're not allowed to put improper emphasis on the victim's race"
Objection! The earliest precedent I can find for this is from 1986, this book is set in, and was likely written in, 1985
Movie is set in 95 if you watch it or even this video. Patient admitted in 85 and kept 10 years.
Same way with many movies vs books to update the relevance to current audiences
@@stevenhoward1233 as a seesaws Sara’s t
@@stevenhoward1233 a a aasDsa dear e as aasS as dat
Okay I’m stsrtttrr
@@stevenhoward1233 draft at aa as
"Thank you doctor, your credentials speak for themselves"
"Heh no they don't!" Love that take XD
Objection: you can not admit someone for being “insane” that is a legal definition. You have to have a medical diagnosis.
Objection: i like your opinion on this movie however, reality has shown that the movie is pretty close to how the judicial system is presented in the south. The work by Bryan Stevenson demonstrates that injustices are still present today.
Assuming that it is set when the book was written, then it is set in 1989, 30 years ago.
30 years ago is not today.
@@scotcheggable
It would have been WORSE thirty years ago.
I WAS PULLING MY HAIR OUT THINKING THE SAME THING! Even the 90s where bad.
i love the way he completely skips what happens prior to mcconaughey stating he is jackson's attorney. he has not even bothered to tell us what jackson has done to need an attorney, nor has he even bothered to SHOW jackson! stunning.
One objection at 5:45 disregarding the lack of Miranda for a moment; The suspects have let the police know that they will not leave willingly earlier on. So while the use of force maybe in question, if you have an actor who has indicated and showed that they will not be taken willingly, the use of force is taken up a notch as they've indicated resisting arrest which could cause harm to the patrons of said bar.
Not arguing just offering a difference of opinion. 3+ years as a Corrections Officer.
Force was likely necessary there, but not as much as was used. In essence all the guys did was choose to not help the cops out with arresting them and telling them to buzz off. You don't need to help the cops with arresting you, as long as you don't physically resist (and going limp or just "making them work for it" doesn't count) they can't manhandle you.
rjh00 True. I mean breaking a bottle is excessive and I could have pointed that out better. Perhaps pulling the asp baton
@@Arjay404 Dude basically established resisting arrest by his confrontational dialogue and declaration of non-compliance with a subtext of potential violence given the setting.
Force was inevitable and a sneak attack the more effective use of force in this case.
Are you going to object or sustain to my argument? lol
Good video! One objection: Miranda does apply unless there is custody. Guys in the bar weren’t yet in custody and we’re free to answer or not answer questions. Miranda warns wouldn’t be read until after the arrest was completed.
I think he was stating that the entire conversation/confrontation was pointless and that it would have been more advisable to simply place both men in custody immediately before Mirandizing them instead of engaging in theatrics and questioning them about the shoe (where any answers would be inadmissible) and thereafter provoking an altercation with some... Constitutionally questionable use-of-force.
"the police can't use this kind of force" *looks into the camera like i'm on the office*
And three months later they're STILL upset that we actually want to hold them to that.
@@FlameDarkfire trust me i know :(
Theory: Police can't use overwhelming force because they don't like what was said.
Reality: *bang bang bang*
There’s a difference between can’t and won’t.
Objection: How has he never done legally blonde?
Uh phrasing
I desperately want him to do a review !
“The police can’t use this kind of overwhelming force”? Objection - Maybe change “can’t” to “shouldn’t”, they can do it and some do, but generally are protected by saying they can use force when necessary and all force is necessary, and by qualified immunity doctrine. We have this play out IRL time after time.
Thank you *SO* much for not showing the beginning. Watching that at eleven years old scared me for life
Svinja who the hell made you watch this movie at 11?
@@pokemaster123ism Is it bad that I want to watch it now (I won't say my parents kept me away from stuff, seeing Hellraiser's pinhead at like 12) Maybe the parents thought horror was better than history.
Scared or Scarred? I hope you're not still scared.
@@pokemaster123ism I watched it around that same age as well, though no one made me. I watched it of my own free will and it was the first movie to make me cry.
whatever wimp
OBJECTION: 100% more lamps of 0 = 0 lamps!
I move for a mistrial.
Your honor, if you consider the number of lamps he has now, he has 100% of that number more than he had before.
@GM Steelhaven Ha, stand
Oddly, I noticed that too. I though "That should be infinity percent more."
Ok
Also to add: insanity pleadings I’ve seen are quite difficult to obtain. You can’t just plead insanity either, whenever during trial etc…
0:35 Objection, an increase from 0 to 1 lamps is not a 100% increase unless 1 lamp is the maximum amount of lamps. a 100% increase would mean either doubling something or reaching the maximum from 0 (example: a full glass is 100% fuller than an empty glass due to the limitations of the glass)
Objection! I would like to see you review the Lincoln Lawyer. Matthew mcconaughey plays a defense lawyer for a guilty party. The movie talks about how he cant find his own client guilty and he cleverly subverts the proceedings to assist the police. I would like to see your take on it.
How is this an objection? It's not supposed to be used as some "hey look at my post" thing.
@@Linerunner99 "As always be sure to comment in the form of an objection which I will sustain or overrule" 1:01-1:06
@@athane8358 He doesn't mean he wants every comment on the video to start with it. He doesn't reply to every comment, only to actual objections to legal issues discussed in the videos. lol
@@Linerunner99 I know, I was being cheeky
@@athane8358 I'm glad that I'm not the only one who wants to see him review this film
Objection! As someone who hasn't seen the movie, this video was very confusing. It wasn't until halfway through the video when the judge says they *aren't* trying the rape, but the murder of two men that I had to look up a synopsis of the movie to see what the hell was going on. I was very confused as to why the prosecution would be wanting to strike black jurors while the defense wants less racist ones. I feel like that central part of the plot should have at least been mentioned.
I watched this movie one time many years ago, but I remembered that the main trial was of Carl Lee killing the two men who were found not guilty of raping his daughter... not very well explained by our LegalEagle.
Yeah, I was pretty lost in all the "which side wants which jurors" bit too, since I haven't seen the movie either.
I guess there was no legal scenes in between the bar scene and the next scene with the cameras.
I agree. I got confused that Kevin Spacey was the prosecutor (I mean, he plays the slimy corrupt villain role so well its hard to think of him in a defense attorney role) and that the conversation regarding the change of venue was him trying to keep the trial where it was instead of getting it moved to a more sympathetic venue.
He said that he wasn't going to show the graphic details of the assult -- that should have been the clue to go look up a synopsis, And the two rapists/attempted murderers weren't found not guilty, Carl Lee killed them the next day as they were on their way to be arraigned in the court house.
Objection: The judge claimed that a fair and impartial jury could not be found anywhere in Mississippi. Given that Mr Lee is entitled to a fair and impartial jury, the judge is committing a miscarriage of justice by allowing the case to continue at all
The police making the initial arrest also potentiallycompromised evidence. Carrying that shoe and slamming it on the bar raises all kinds of questions.
Yes!
Objection... I would like to see a review of "The Judge" with Robert Downey Jr and Robert Duvall.
"I think I was a little young when this came out"
A Time to Kill came out when I was exactly 10 months old, to the day. I saw it when I was probably 10-12. I am currently 25. There's no excuse!
Watching R rated movies at ten years old?? 🤔 I was a senior in high school when this movie came out. I certainly would not have been allowed to watch this fantastic but disturbing movie at ten yrs old.
@@Lookn4Gsus - That's entirely dependent on the parents and the content they allow their children to watch. You state that you personally wouldn't have been allowed to watch a movie like this but that doesn't mean that's the case for everyone else. Also (as I'm sure you know), kids find ways to watch R rated or "adult content" all the time without their parents knowledge. I vividly remember sneak watching the movie Pretty Woman when I was 11 years old back in '91 while my parents were away at work, not to mention the countless other R rated movies I watched as a kid when my parents weren't around or when I was with friends and their parents weren't around. Then there's all the times my friends and I snuck into R rated movies as pre-teens and teenagers back in the 90s. Good times. lol
No excuse for what, exactly? Is it some crazy sin to have never seen this movie? I'm approximately the same age as Legal Eagle and I saw this movie when I was in my late twenties. Are you going to poop your pants if I admit that I still haven't seen Jurassic Park? NO EXCUSE!!!!
“(This) came out when I was exactly 10 months old.”
Me: I saw this in theaters and didn’t need a fake id or to sneak in. 😩
Damn I’m old. 😂
Tell me you've never practiced law in rural Georgia without telling me you've never practiced law in rural Georgia.
Oh god. I just love how you make use of fair use, so as to have the right to show the movie, by grading it at the end AND teaching law, so no one can reasonably claim it.
You really are a lawyer.
Objection! 100% of 0 is still 0. Adding 1 lamp is not adding 100% more lamp when the previous lamp count was 0.
I love your stuff. The first one I watched was on A Few Good Men and then I got hooked. The scenes about the DA knowing people, a biased judge, and the jury deliberating at dinner were about establishing the hurdles that Brigance had to overcome to establish how great his closing argument was. That argument was actually given by a juror in the book.
This was in Mississippi. People in Mississippi don't use gun safes. One mistake that movie and TV writers make is that they apply the laws from where they're from to places that don't have those laws. Most states don't require any sort of registration for guns of any kind, for instance, yet they write stories as though they do.
I was lucky to see a special showing of this movie, before it was released in theaters. The movie was so awesome that I can't even remember the name of the movie I was there to see at the time. I believe that this story takes place in the late 70's or early 80's.
Objection: You underestimate what racist people will do to get the job done, especially against a minority.
Ah, duh po blak man! He still OH-pressed.
As much as it pains me , overruled : speculative ,no precedent/example cited.
@@loverofthemilf you cannot deny that they were oppressed to hell and back in the past. Some sick fucks still exist who will go to great lengths to be bigots even though most of the time they wont admit it in public (showing that the vast majority of people do not condone racism...which kind of proves your overly cynical implied argument,that black people aren't officially oppressed anymore )
True but it also isn't inherent.
@@eval_is_evil I would like to enter into evidence the entirety of /The New Jim Crow/ by Michelle Alexander
When I read the novel by Grisham, I also wondered why the DA didn't point out how this killing required a lot of forethought and planning you couldn't expect from a certifiable madman.
In the discussions between the defence lawyer and his colleagues, it became apparent that they hoped the jury would sympathize so much with an avenging father that they would acquit him however flimsy the insanity plea was.
Maybe that's how a jury works in the rural Mississippi of Grisham's imagination...
Now we know why Kavin Spacy is so good playing Villains in the movies, He was a villainous person in real life.
Allegedly* but yes probably
lach10211 well he admitted to it soo not allegedly
Jury selection is so weird in the States. Where I live the jury is selected by a computer at random from the electoral register. They'll give you a list of names of people involved in the case and you have to declare if you know any of them. If you don't, you really don't have a choice - you have to do your jury duty.
What country do you live in?
Watching this in June of 2020 really changes the video...
Could you review another heavy drama please? Specifically, "Sleepers". An amazing film but very emotionally heavy. I thought it might make a good review because Brad Pitts character purposely loses a murder trial as a means of getting revenge on those who abused him as a child. It is so clever and emotional... just make sure to have a puppy near by after for some emotional uplift.
I would love to see his reaction to Sleepers! I both love and hate that movie.
and if its too heavy, check out “Sleeper” a really funny movie.
Can you please review the Lincoln lawyer.
17:57 - Correct.
In the Derek Chauvin trial a foremost pulmonary specialist Dr Martin Tobin spent a lot of time discussing his experience, education, and expertise for the court before going on to answer questions specific to the case.
Suggestion for a LegalEagle film reaction: To Kill A Mockingbird.
It would also be interesting to hear further thoughts about "Better Call Saul". They get into a class action lawsuit later in the episodes, or perhaps hearing a reaction to the brothers' legal feud would be more entertaining.
Just for giggles, I would love to hear what you have to say about the court scene in Ghostbusters 2. :)
Terrible movie. So probably a terrible scene
OBJECTION!
If you say it's a terrible movie, that means you've seen it, so you would know whether or not the court scene is good or bad. If you say the court scene is "probably" terrible, that means you don't know, which suggests you haven't seen the movie and can't say whether or not it's terrible.
Furthermore, whether a movie is good or bad is subjective and opinions are - with rare exceptions - irrelevant in court.
YOU JUST GOT LAWYERED SON
@@gamepocalypsegaming278 Objection! Lawyered is a made up word.
I've never seen the movie, so I can't compare them, but the book "A Time to Kill" is amazing and I would love to know how the procedures in the book compare to the real world (at least, the procedures for the time).
This is definitely one of those examples where the *era* it is set in is going to factor in to things, such as what cops are able to get away with.
Objection on the basis of style. I want a sidebar to address your choice of ties and pocket squares. Basic blue and standard white may be appropriate courtroom attire but they lack visual flair online. There is so much you can do beyond them! If it please the court, I'd love to see you experiment with bolder patterns and colors for your ties paired with small-scaled contrasting patterns in complimentary colors for your pocket squares. Several GQ fashion ordinances support my argument. Allow me to conclude by saying I thoroughly enjoy your content. Thank you for teaching me something every time you post a video!
The jury finds no fault with this claim and support the decision----------------
Some one has a crush on the Counselor
@@johnconnor4040 that is unsubstantiated.
@@johnconnor4040 I'm guilty as charged
@@johnconnor4040 Who knows she just might have one, I just want to see what he will look like in flamboyant purple suits. Leopard print is also an interesting idea.
Review Pysch Season 1 Episode 12 "Cloudy... With a Chance of Murder"
Need a shirt...
"The Bailiff will tackle you!"
I'd get one...
Since we're going over "Bad legal arguments that movies seem to think would be a slam dunk" I'd love to hear you talk about the Saw franchise: or, more specifically, how many people in universe, and out of universe, seem to think that John Kramer wouldn't actually count as a serial killer "Because he never actually physically killed anyone" and gave them the choice of "Mutilate yourself or this Rube Goldberg I made will kill you".
Objection! The shoe of Carl Lee's little girl found in the rapists' pickup is inadmissible in court as evidence because the cop handled it improperly. Lol! I mean he just slammed it on the countertop unbagged and unmarked! (I also watch a lot of crime shows. Haha! Don't know how accurate THOSE are though.)
And...you've only recently watched A Time To Kill?! 🤨😒 I'm judging you a little right now. Haha! This is the episode I've been looking forward to most!
Writing this from the Philippines, by the way. I know our legal system is way different than yours, but I still find your channel really informative and entertaining! Been a fan of your channel for awhile now. Looking forward to more.
Also, you broke my heart when you said How To Get Away With Murder was riddled with inaccuracies. Broke. My. Heart.
☺😊
The exterior shots of the town were filmed in Canton, MS, about 12 miles north of Jackson. Accross the interstate they built a soundstage for many interior scenes. The NG troops in the movie were actual troops from the MS Army NG 112th Military Police Battalion hired as extras to be themselves basically.
Got to testify as an expert witness in Federal Court in New Orleans. After 20 minutes of the prosecution establishing my credentials the Defense actually conceded my expert status and didn’t question me themselves.