ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 พ.ค. 2024
- Devin Stone, adjunct law professor and host of LegalEagle on TH-cam, joins WIRED to lay down the law and answer your burning questions from Twitter. When is a grand jury used over a regular jury? Is there a line between free speech and what's considered hate speech? Why invoke the fifth amendment if you're innocent? Watch as Devin answers these questions (and plenty more), on Law Support.
Director: Justin Wolfson
Director of Photography: Kevin Dynia
Editor: Richard Trammell
Talent: Devin Stone
Line Producer: Joseph Buscemi
Associate Producer: Paul Gulyas; Brandon White
Production Manager: Eric Martinez
Production Coordinator: Fernando Davila
Casting Producer: Nicole Ford
Camera Operator: Rahil Ashruff
Sound Mixer: Brett Van Deusen
Production Assistant: Francis McNeil
Post Production Supervisor: Alexa Deutsch
Post Production Coordinator: Ian Bryant
Supervising Editor: Doug Larsen
Additional Editor: Paul Tael
Assistant Editor: Justin Symonds
Still haven’t subscribed to WIRED on TH-cam? ►► wrd.cm/15fP7B7
Listen to the Get WIRED podcast ►► link.chtbl.com/wired-ytc-desc
Want more WIRED? Get the magazine ►► subscribe.wired.com/subscribe...
Follow WIRED:
Instagram ►► / wired
Twitter ►► / wired
Facebook ►► / wired
Get more incredible stories on science and tech with our daily newsletter: wrd.cm/DailyYT
Also, check out the free WIRED channel on Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, and Android TV.
ABOUT WIRED
WIRED is where tomorrow is realized. Through thought-provoking stories and videos, WIRED explores the future of business, innovation, and culture. - บันเทิง
Thanks for having me, WIRED! (And yes, people, now I know that "petit" is French, not Latin. You are technically correct...the best kind of correct)
big fan of your stuff, nice to see you on @WIRED
Follow-up question on the objection question: don't lawyers object to certain aspects of opposing council's arguments, even if they know the judge will most likely overrule them, due to that's the only points in a trial where they could potentially file for an appeal? For example, a prosecutor brings in an "expert witness" to testify, the defense doubts the validity of the competency of the witness, so he'll object, even if he believes the judge will overrule him so that he could later file for appeal on that specific reason if he needed to.
Well.... French IS Latin based so you didn't miss the mark by far. lol
9:25 that's exactly what AI is well positioned to do soon, if its progress goes as AI companies hope it will. It will have millions years of experience behind its back.
You're very underrated with your references. Nice futurama quote.
I was on a petit jury once and had to remind my fellow jurors that the defendant choosing not to testify didn't make them "seem guilty." Spending time on a jury and seeing just how dumb people deciding your fate can be was the single biggest deterrent to committing crime than anything else I've ever encountered.
It's almost always advised the defendant NOT testify, so that's worrisome
yea i was in a petit jury too, most of them didn't even pay attention and was just going for majority vote and trying to get out as fast as possible.
Couldn’t agree more. Two people on the jury with me wanted to vote guilty immediately because they wanted a cigarette. A nurse wanted to vote guilty because the defendant had medicine in an unmarked container which is illegal (according to her). The defendant wasn’t charged with that…
Anyone reading this… just don’t commit crimes lol.
I think that's because of Hollywood. In any movie or TV show it's always the guilty that don't talk.
@@MyRegardsToTheDodoin reality the guilty talk more than anyone.
as someone with anxiety, I have no doubt I'd look like the guiltiest person to ever walk into any courtroom.
lol. Don't worry. As long as you're good-looking, you'll be acquitted.
(I'm a Legal Expert because I've watched a lot of Hollywood movies & tv shows)
That’s probably just your anxiety making you think that
people always think im lying when im not, i have autism and i smile in bad situations like arguments so i'd probably look really guilty
This is my argument against a lie detector test too 😂 I have 2 diagnosed anxiety disorders (I like to joke they were buy 1 get 1 free) and I don’t react like a “normal” person 😭
@@mverus9460I tend to chuckle and even laugh at times, so I would be screwed.
I was in Pre-law and you cannot imagine my shock when I see this dude walk in as a guest speaker. Great guy IRL and that was a lecture I was on every word.
I took a pre law class and realized the minutiae of law was not for me. Lawyers specialize in the details...and trial lawyers specialize in using language to form a perceived truth.
One of the best answers I’ve seen to “how/why would you defend a client who is clearly guilty” is to make sure the police and prosecutors follow the rules. Even if a given person is guilty, defense attorneys are there to make sure the process was followed, no corners were cut, no rules were broken, no funny business occurred. It may not make a difference for the clearly guilty client, but it’s not just about them. It’s also about the next defendant and the one after that and the one after that. The police and prosecutors must also obey the law, and someone has to put them to the test to make sure they stay honest and don’t get sloppy.
It's also about making sure the verdict sticks. People walk due to funny business.
Exactly, it's not that they *like* defending obviously guilty people. It's that you can't just rat them out instantly and skip the entire process when every single human being is entitled to that defense, no matter how mustache-twirling evil they are. If you want to keep that as a truly equal process, you have to let the evil ones have it too or it's not equal.
Granted, certain cases might show some do indeed like defending those people, but my seemingly naive faith in humanity tells me that's an incredibly extreme minority of defense lawyers.
Also, "innocent until proven guilty" is the foundation of any fair legal system. No matter how obviously guilty someone appear to be, until the verdict is declared, they are innocent and thus deserved to be defended like one.
I think a further question related to this would be 'are defence lawyers required to explain that they aren't always able to get the defendant acquitted if the evidence is overwhelming, or are they required to generally explain what a defendant should expect in the context of the trial they are due to be involved in?'
A lawyer in a courtroom will have a different demeanor to that of a lawyer with their client at an interrogation.
Most lawyers don't want criminals on the street, but if a case is lacking aspects to be able to convict they will be limited in how they can appease their conscience and not loose any reputation.
Exactly. You can't just arbitrarily decide that someone doesn't get due process, because then there are no standards and the entire system breaks down.
Even when he's on a completely different channel Devin still wants to see you in court.
Maybe he's always in court and is getting lonely, so it's an invitation.
I didn't even realise I wasn't on his channel lmao
You better see him in court or else he'll see you in court.
I know I was like isnt this law support
I had to do a double take at the thumbnail
So many people seem to always forget that defending somebody doesn't always mean proving their innocence but rather making sure that their human rights aren't violated. Regardless on if we think somebody "deserves" those rights, it's part of the law and needs to be upheld.
Well said. I don't live in the US but we also have a "modern" justice system.
As so, it's an adverserial system where one side promotes a guilty verdict and the heaviest sentence, while the other the opposites. And by arguing they (hopefully) reach the best conclusion given our laws.
And, of course, the defense side will be the guardians of the due process and constitutional prerrogatives.
As I've seen it put, the defence lawyers job is not to prove their client didn't commit the crime. It's to interrogate the prosecution's conclusions and if they've failed to properly prove guilt, expose that.
@@ecyor0Well said
Very true.
Thank you for that one about the fifth. I’m so sick of people saying, “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.”
“If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.”
Exactly. Tell that to innocent people who spent decades in prison (only to be exonerated with new evidence much much later-- or worse the ones who died in prison erroneously convicted).
Some people are bad witnesses, guilty or not - being open to cross-examination really opens you to a lot of bad things. There are some people that just are unlikeable too, and it makes you more susceptible to being hated by the jury. That clouds their judgment, even if they are supposed to just look at facts and evidence.
There's a huge difference between a random person being told that and someone refusing to testify to defend themself in court.
There is, in fact, no difference. In both cases, they are lying.
@@jbjacobs9514 that’s a good point about being unlikeable. Imagine a known white supremacist or registered SO taking the stand. They could be giving the most honest, air tight testimony there is, but the jury is still going to be thinking to itself, “Do I really want to trust this monster?”
Even the most heinous criminals deserve a defense, otherwise we have no legal system.
Yup, it's a job that I couldn't do, but needs doing.
Which tbf, is probably true of most jobs (including my own some days)
The sad part is today you will find many people against this. Which i always caution them that, that kind of stance is very dangerous and for obvious reasons
@@TAKIZAWAYAMASHITA fairly sure alot of people don't actually find it obvious, I've long since stopped assuming sense was common.
But yeah, lots of laws that allow for "increased reach" of the legal system might seem like a good idea as an honest law abiding citizen... Assuming you unconditionally trust all law enforcement personnel, and all possible future governments.
The best way to explain it, in my opinion, is that the job of the prosecutor is to build a strong a structure as they can, and then the defence lawyer looks for and targets any weakness in it. If the case holds up enough that 12 random people are sure that the defendant did it, then they are convicted.
Therefore the prosecutor *needs* the defence lawyer because if both perform at their best, then any conviction that is made is going to be really strong, and thus inspire confidence in the system. If a prosecutor wins because the defence was bad, and then it's overturned at appeal, it makes the prosecutor look just as bad, and the justice system with it.
This is often why prosecutors and defence lawyers get on with each other. They are just doing their jobs as competently as possible
And that is why the 5th is so important (even though it looks bad when used to the layperson). No matter how slam dunk any case looks, that does not mean anything, just like in 12 Angry Men. Which better yet, we do not know of the kid did it or not by the end of the movie, we just know what the jury decides, since legally that is all that matters.
Regarding a defense lawyer: The best explanation my law professor has given me is "Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, even someone guilty. Especially someone guilty. The job of a defense lawyer is to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial."
Actually I think a better way to see it is that a defence lawyer ensures there is a fair trial so the guilty don't walk free! We don't want monsters getting off on technicalities so we really need good defence lawyers to make sure they get banged up fairly. If the trial is unfair the accused could be protected under double jeopardy laws. Could you imagine a child predator with many victims getting off on a technicality and then being free to go back onto the streets to offend again and all their previous victims never getting the chance to see justice. That's why we need defence lawyers.
because "screw the innocent" right?
Freudian slip? Probably not.
John Adams (1735-1826), as a young lawyer the future president served as counsel for the defense in the trial of eight British soldiers accused of murder during a riot in Boston on March 5, 1770. Adams thought it crucial the Brits have a good lawyer. They were found not guilty by the way. Witnesses were way too confused over which soldiers fired into the crowd.)
@@CD-vb9fiinnocent people get screwed when criminals don't get defended.
A defense attorney cannot get a guilty person off. Only a terrible Prosecution can do that with bad evidence and malpractice.
@@TheFakeyCakeMaker Like has been said before in this thread, it's the prosecutor's job to make sure the guilty don't walk free. They're the ones who need to bring evidence and all that to convince a jury of someone's guilt (or lack thereof). It's the defense attorney's job to make sure, even if you *are* guilty, the sentence you get is fair. If you're innocent, the only fair verdict is acquittal. If you're not, the punishment shouldn't outweigh the crime. Not how it works out most of the time, but those are the brass tacks of it.
The way the 5th amendment was explained to me in school was this. It's to avoid implicating yourself in questions that have no right answer.
For example, you are in no way an arsonist, but get asked this question "Did you stop lighting fires?"
If you say no, because you never started, then it sound like you're still lighting fires.
If you say yes, because you aren't lighting fires, then it sounds like you used to.
The idea being that you could use the 5th amendment to avoid answering a question like this that is pretty much a trap.
I think a good lawyer would object to that as a loaded question
my answer is, I still light campfires or smthing
Def true. "When did you stop beating your wife?"
I would think that would be a 'leading' objection, but are you allowed to reject the premise of the question so they're forced to rephrase, or are you limited to answer it or don't?
No, the 5th Amendment was not included for the purpose of prohibiting questions that assume facts not in evidence. That was explained to you in school VERY poorly.
I gotta say I appreciate how fast you blaze through your questions and answers, rat-tat-tat, then on to the next, with no unnecessary nonsense. You covered a lotta ground in 14 minutes. Thank you.
Lawyers don't have time to waste.
He really speaks like a lawyer, he is GOOD
@@wortygoblin He's a very experienced corporate lawyer. He also runs a great TH-cam channel called "LegalEagle."
I"m such a fast talker that I love watching fast talkers. I watch Technology Connections and I have to speed his videos up because he talks sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo slowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. lol
I sometimes need to lie down after listening to him speak that fast.
I like how he explains the technical stuff so clearly and simply without coming off as condescending it makes it way easier to listen to what he has to say
He jas a channel with more than 1 mill sub
His channel is phenomenal for this reason!
Every lawyer should aspire to be able to do this.
Yeah, never did I think I'd be so into a lawyer talking about the law. I've been subbed to his channel for like a year now. Lol😂
@@dionstewart7394 I have for like, 2. It's crazy, whenever something law related happens, I appreciate his explanations so much in helping me get a better understanding. Infotainment at its finest!
it's frustrating when people ask why you wouldnt testify if youre innocent. anything you say can and will be spun against you, testifying opens the door for you to be cornered and to sound guilty even if you arent.
They're the same people that talk to cops. Dont assume these institutions are on your side.
@@kellylyons1038 so many times I get irrationally angry at someone because I read a news article about them getting arrested for something stupid and it's because they talked to cops. Even when the cop is being nice to you, even when the cop is there to deal with someone else... it is never in your interest to talk to them. Shut up.
@@teamcoltraIf someone robbed you, you should talk to the police, so they can catch the criminal and give you your stuff back.
Actually, if you're the victim of most crimes, you should talk to the police.
@@me-myself-i787 If something bad happened to you, you should probably talk to the police. If the police show up at your door, you should probably speak as little as possible.
Right? They literally tell you - "Anything you say can AND WILL be used AGAINST you" - the prosecuter's job is not to make sure you get a fair trial, it is to convince people that you are guilty.
about pleading the fifth: I remember seeing a law professor talk about how a client thought "Hey I'm innocent so I'm going to talk so I appear helpful" . He WAS innocent but what ended up happening is that because he talked about certain details they then tried to pin a different crime on him. So yeah don't talk unless you have a lawyer present
As a lawyer, I found this examplary - very good presentation. Don’t let the breakneck speed of the presentation fool you into thinking any of this was spontaneous, these are all well thought through answers. Thank you very much for this presentation.
I was on a petit jury for a murder case, and up until the defendant testified before sentencing, we were probably going to give her less time than we did. She was just awful at...everything. Lied even when caught doing so, didn't seem upset by what she'd done, etc. Her lawyer failed her on that. Pleading the 5th is important. Sometimes, it's best to keep your own mouth shut.
What a lot of people also don't know is that, a lawyer can only recommend you to take the 5th, but if you WANT to testify? They can't really stop you. Lots of people become too cocky/arrogant and believe they'll be fine even if they take the stand and end up shooting themselves in the proverbial foot.
@@satanhell_lord Yeah, I honestly think they convinced her to do it as an act of desperation, though. The defense lawyer had shown his incompetence repeatedly. In the end, don't really know.
Well, if they were an unabashed murderer, I don't feel bad that they got actual justice by circumventing their own avenues out of it.
@@MrBrock314Except 99% of people who testify to "prove their innocence" aren't murderers, and not all murder is immoral.
@@RaeIsGaee murder by definition is immoral. Not all HOMICIDE is immoral, but when it isn't it isn't typically charged as murder (with exceptionally rare exceptions which, when they happen at all, are usually subjective)
I wish devin addressed that even the most well known “frivolous” lawsuits are actually just propaganda. If you look into many of them, such as the McDonald’s hot coffee incident, it isn’t frivolous in the slightest.
he does have videos about that on his channel at least
Ironically, I scrolled past his video on that topic in the recommendations before seeing your comment. Score one for the algorithm, I guess.
Yeah, the whole thing about the McDonald's Hot coffee incident was that they were serving cups of coffee that were exceptionally hot... in some cases at or near the boiling point... and overfilling the cups so that one bad movement and "TSSS! AAAAAAHHHHH!"
They should have been using more substantial cups AND not filling them so dang full that one lapse in concentration could make you spill it on yourself.
That topic is literally one of his most popular videos
@@christopherkidwell9817 and the lady only asked for her medical fees, which were absolutely required with how bad and extensive the damage was, were talking extensive and deep burns, not a mild scalding and a few blisters, was ancient, and mcdonalds was /on record/ as being aware of, and warned to fix, how dangerous the coffee was. she got as much as she did to force mcdonalds to finally fix the issue.
Pleading the 5th is the best thing you can do. Regardless of guilt. The police can use anything you say against you, but not to help you. So you simply misremember something you think won't matter and before you know it, you've convicted yourself.
Or, in some cases, you'll get yourself convicted of obstructing justice even if they can't prove intent.
I would certainly recommend asking for a lawyer when being recorded/interviewed. Even if you're innocent, you can screw up your story and put yourself under unnecessary pressure.
never, ever talk to the police
guilty or not
Never make the mistake of thinking the police have come to help you. They have come to make an arrest.
They literally tell you why you should plead the 5th when they arrest you: "Anything you say can be used against you in court." This doesn't change if you're innocent.
Exactly, anything can be twisted against you
The real problem with lawsuits is that you don't have to win them in order to hurt your opponent or beat him into submission. With a sufficient power/money imbalance, a plaintiff can bully a defendant with just the threat of long, expensive litigation.
ie a SLAPP suit.
@@Desmaad Which is why there are Anti-SLAPP laws. I wish all states had Anti-SLAPP laws in place.
@@VidGamer123 Off-topic but I will never not find it awesome that the acronym for these suits is SLAPP, and that the kind of laws used to protect against them is called anti-SLAPP.
It sounds so silly and it's awesome.
I was in a civil restraining order case against a neighbor, who DID literally threaten the judge in some email correspondences. He accused her of being a drug dealer and a human trafficker. Of course those documents got brought into evidence by me very quickly.
statement of an opposing party! big error
@@batgwill Got the 5 year restraining order real fast.
@@SeraphsWitness Sounds like a peach of a neighbor. Sorry you have to deal with that.
@@igmusicandflying Yea, he was sadly mentally ill due to a serious car accident years back. Thankfully they just got evicted a couple months ago. I do wish them the best.
I am an attorney and somewhat regularly appear when the other side may not have an attorney. An astonishing number of people fail to think "I should be kind and respectful to the judge that is deciding my case". People are dumb
EVERYONE deserves a fair trial. Because the moment you make an exception, you may have just started a chain of events leading to YOU being that exception!
It’s rare, but an appeals court can throw out a conviction if the defense attorney was ineffective.
@@patricksheldon5859the judge himself can throw out a guilty verdict if he thinks the jury acted erroneously and with emotion instead of evidence.
:side note: judges cannot flip a not guilty verdict only a guilty verdict for obvious reasons.
A friend of mine works with AI in law. He's told me that some of his colleagues rely on it so much that they didn't even notice when it started referencing cases that didn't exist. So I don't think it will be replacing lawyers any time soon.
Should always keep in mind that 'any time soon' could be just around the corner. Think how long we've had smartphones, or the internet, or cars. It hasn't been a long time.
This host has a video about that on his LegalEagle channel, discussing a case that happened this last spring where it was found a lawyer used AI to generate court documents with fake cases.
Whenever AI does get good enough, the first law professionals to disappear will be the paralegals, who are the ones who do most of the research and writing for the lawyers.
@@TimoRutanen my man the first cars were built over 100 years ago. Tell me again how that isn't a long time?
@@TimoRutanen It was not good enough 50 years ago, it is unlikely to be good enough in 50 years time
...if good enough means one innocent person goes to jail, it's too soon
If I’ve learned in undergrad (not becoming a lawyer, maybe): it’s no longer about knowing every single thing, it’s about knowing how to research and interpret the things you need.
This is true of many specialties. I've studied at university (not law) and have some very specific bits of knowledge ready in my mind mostly about the topic I wrote my thesis on, and a bunch of just more general knowledge on the topic. But if someone were to ask me a very specific question in my field there's a good chance I don't know it of the top of my head. I just know where to look for it and how to verify that what I found is correct.
Still, people with those questions will almost always go like: _"What.. you don't know X? Didn't you go to uni for that?"_
I like to tell people that my computer science degree just means I can google stuff.
For me it's all about recognizing patterns and understanding the system. Obviously such assumptions wont always be right, but that's okay during points not requiring pinpoint accuracy. For when I do need to be accurate, I just wont assumed. Understand patterns and the system also helps me just memorize things than if I were just trying to relearn everything each I learn a new topic. Recognizing patterns helps quicken the studying process and thus increases study ability.
@@dragoslove Fun anecdote: I'm a software developer, and for a brief time I was asked to help interview new devs, since I had the technical expertise that the hiring managers didn't. One of the candidates we interviewed over Zoom was "having camera trouble", so he went camera-free. We asked him a relatively simple question, and while he was hemming and hawing, we clearly heard him typing the question into Google. And then he answered... incorrectly. As we discussed him once he'd left the call, I was like, "So... you all heard him Googling, right? He refused to say he didn't know a thing, Googled it, and *still* got the answer totally wrong. So he's dishonest *and* can't Google. I think we say no to him..."
Thats how it works in every field, the human brain is not made to be a database, it was designed to think. We have papers and computers for storing knowledge, skill is the ability to find that stored knowledge.
Give whomever finds the experts a raise 🎉 They find the best people
The expert, expert finder.
His channel legal eagle is great!!
not for this one,he is pretty famous,so its easy to find him
@@theeuglyduckling9476that's a helluva thing to put on your CV: "I find experts 😂
@@theeuglyduckling9476That person could have their own video answering questions
When I was on a jury for six days, not once did the judge tell us to disregard anything. What did happen was, a lawyer would ask a question, the other lawyer would object, and the judge would immediately send us back to our room. That happened several times. I got the impression that the judge was anticipating what each side was going to try, and knew when to nip it in the bud.
Prosecutors have one goal and it’s not to convict a guilty person, it is to convict the person who is charged.
10:45 "How do lawyers know all the laws" I loved your answer.
I think back to words of wisdom I learned when going to school. 'School is where you learn to learn'. This professor's philosophy was that a successful student is not one that can just memorize a bunch of stuff.
A successful student is one who can research and understand the information in their related field and then apply it when needed.
A teacher told me "You don't have to know everything, just how/where to research"
"Learning is what remains when everything that was taught is forgotten"
Always love seeing Devin Stone pop up unexpectedly. He is so good at explaining the law in a way that non-specialists can easily follow. One of the best TH-camrs out there.
Yeah, sure he is. Other TH-cam lawyers make fun of him. He's the one who had the most ridiculous take on Captain Marvel. Apparently if you push down the top of someone's map, that entitles her to break your arm and steal your stuff.
@@caulkins69???
I was on a grand jury once and the way I remembered the difference was that a grand jury just decides if there is enough evidence that they should go to trial. The petit jury has to be convinced guilty beyond a reasonable doubt while the grand jury just has to be convinced to doubt innocence.
One of the things I respect about lawyers is what he remarked about being careful and covering edge cases. In my years of programming, I have not once not had issues with my code handling edge cases. This is basically what lawyers do, but they can't run unit tests all day to figure out the problems before pushing it to QA.
The fifth amendment part is really important. A prosecutor might try to make you look stupid or take things out of context, even if you did nothing wrong. It's usually best to just exercise your right to remain silent and not give them ammunition.
Just don't try this in Canada as there's no such right and being silent actually is bad. You do have a right to an attorney but in court, you have to answer questions here.
@@SLD-bz9so I am not sure. But, I thought you still had the option of refusing to testify in court. But, if you choose to testify at all then you have to answer questions the Judge is okay with.
It is also just a lack of understanding of the law. I mean the whole Assault and Battery thing... it would be trivial for a smart prosecuter to trick an average person into confessing to assault. " I walked up to him angrily with my fists clinched and screaming at him, but I did not touch him".
@@MrBrock314 In Canada "Any person charged with an offence has the right:
not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;"
It’s important for people who are guilty, have poor comprehension skills, or know something nefarious.
"Anything you say can and will be used against you" is ESPECIALLY true in a court room. With all the people watching, prosecutors trying to get you tripped up in your own words, the fact that being on trial has drastically life changing outcomes either way, and just the general stress that comes with having your life turned upside down and inside out by the whole ordeal, I think I would always plead the fifth. Ain't no way I'm keeping my composure up there.
It can not be overstated that it is really easy to incriminate yourself. That's why the 5th exists. Most people who choose to represent themselves fall into this legal trap. I was once on a jury where a woman chose to represent herself and she didn't realize that she confessed to the crime with her opening statement. The judge immediately ended the trial right there, the jury didn't get to vote on anything.
Regarding "knowing every law", you can think of it like another insanely complicated field like medicine. Just like doctors, lawyers like to specialize in one area. There are lawyers that can handle common legal issues, like there are General Practitioners, but if your specific problem is beyond them they will refer you to someone who specializes in that field instead.
Lawyers can specialize in even seemingly overly-specific areas too, like DUI (or DWI or whatever it's called in your area) defense. Plenty of lawyers out there who handle nothing but divorce cases. Just like a doctor that specializes in disorders of the foot, or the jaw, or eyes.
exactly. goes for so many legal topics/areas, like estates (most lawyers that handle estate law handle ONLY estate law), personal injury related specifically to medical malpractice, or traffic accidents, or premises liability, etc... There's bankruptcy lawyers, landlord-tenant lawyers, real estate attorneys, and a whole range of corporate litigators that specialize specifically in mergers and acquisitions, securities, contracts, etc etc etc... But regardless what your specialty is, the most important purpose of law school is to teach you how to research law and apply legal theory, same way medical school teaches doctors to research medicine. It's impossible for any human to know everything, even within a highly-concentrated specialty, but by teaching them how to approach things they don't know, we can produce great lawyers and doctors.
It's the same way in the antique business- Whether extremely specialized or a more general dealer, our strongest advantage is knowing how to effectively research, and if something is beyond you then knowing the right people to ask, more so than knowing everything off the top of your head.
Reminds me of how veterinarians go to med school to learn about 5000 different kind of animals, and people are surprised that they aren't flawless in their diagnosis of said animals.
Also about pleading the fifth: as a layman, I’d say it’s not just about being innocent; it’s about not appearing guilty. Maybe you didn’t do it, but you still were… close to the crime scene… or had an argument with a (murder) victim… or had a motive… or don’t want to reveal you cheated on your spouse…
So you might look guilty while being innocent.
There is also the fact that lawyers, police officers, and detectives all have years of experience leading a person into saying what they want or sneaking in enough doubt for the jury to question the person's innocence. Pleading the 5th both at trial and while under arrest is the smartest thing anyone, whether guilty or innocent can do, just like none of us would jump into the ring against prime mike tyson or Mohammed ali none of us should testify to these people when our freedom is at stake.
In continental Europe it is a normal thing for the accused to give a statement on a court hearing. They don't have to say anything, because everyone has a right not to incriminate themselves. It is sometimes useful for a person to speak on his own behalf. But it's not a jury that hears it but the council consisting of the judge (or more judges) and a few jurors. So attorneys have to convince this council, and not only laypeople as in UK or USA. I couldn't imagine being judged by a group of people who don't know the law. People are idiots, and who's to say these idiots aren't the ones invited for jury duty.
Moreover, if you are innocent, there probably isn't anything you can add to the discussion. I wasn't there and I didn't steal it and I didn't see anyone steal it and I don't know who stole it?
People also have the right to privacy, and they may not want to share what they were doing or who they were with, or what their relationship with someone was, etc
Or the testimony would just...require you to reveal details that you don't want to reveal for personal reasons.
Holy crap, a crossover I never thought we’d see
I took a couple law classes and also wondered about the sheer volume of laws. I was told law school doesn't teach law. It teaches you how to think like a lawyer.
If you live in a country with Common Law you'll have zero chances of committing all the laws to memory. In a Civil Law system (the reasonable one of the two, in my opinion) it's likely that you end up studying "all the laws" in law school. Of course the laws and the procedures change constantly, despite the legal system, so studying them one time is never enough, but it's a good start
Seems like law is a bit like any kind of tertiary study, in that it teaches you how to research, familiarity with the framework & research resources of your field, and some current industry knowledge, but you'll always be having to learn more to keep up...? Basically a "learn how to learn" situation. Oh, and of course some of the jargon - every specialist field has pleeeenty of that, & law is no exception! 😄
@@MegaProudAlbanian So much. What a law actually says is far less important than how the law is being treated. Nobody designs a code of law as if they're defining a contract whose letter is being magically enforced, so simply reading the law doesn't tell you a thing about what's legal. You need to learn how to do the research before you can try to understand what the laws really mean.
*sheer
Learning how to think and research is the key.
I mean even if I commit every law currently on the books to memory, that law will be subject to constant changes both large and small in future, so it won't do me good in the long term.
People who equate having "the right to free speech" and "being allowed to say anything without social repurcussions" really show how much they rely on hard set rules to tell them what's right and wrong. Explains a lot when you think about it.
People might also plead the 5th to avoid giving testimony that might hurt a relationship or their business in some way.
There are a number of reasons someone might plead the 5th.
Its definitely not just an easy indicator of guilt.
Another important aspect of the "How can lawyers defend people that are clearly guilty?" question is that it's very necessary to ensure that the government (meaning: the police officers that produced most, if not all of the evidence, and the prosecutor that puts it together into a legal case) hasn't broken any of the restrictions placed on it to get that evidence or made any wild interpretations of the law to twist something entirely reasonable into a crime. Even people who commit crimes still have rights that the government isn't allowed to violate to hasten the process of convicting them. The police and prosecutors are already constantly dancing on the line of what they're legally allowed to do and it's a huge part of why the justice system in the US is as broken as it is.
Criminals getting off the hook while the police and the prosecutor don't get any punishment besides losing the case for taking "shortcuts" that violated the defendant's rights is the compromise the system is currently at. If there were personal legal consequences for going over the line of legality while they dance on that line, police and prosecutors would refuse to gather a lot of evidence that's within the line, and far, far more criminals would be getting off the hook for a simple lack of evidence. Legal ambiguity over how much police were even allowed to do in their investigations, and what, if any consequences there are for violating suspects rights was a big part of why there was an increasing amount of public outcry in the US during the final decades of 19th century: disorganised police forces lacking in any statewide (much less nationwide) standardisation kinda sucked at finding the perpetrators of high-profile crimes during the rapid urbanisation of the Reconstruction era and proving their suspects were actually guilty.
On the other hand, if any evidence gathered became legal just because it eventually proved a criminal guilty, the fundamental philosophies behind arguments against allowing atrocious things like torture to extract confessions start falling apart: if the supreme duty of a criminal court is to sort out the facts, then what reason is there to deny the government any methods they deem necessary, no matter how invasive, to produce those facts? Not only that, but it would create a strong incentive for the government to fabricate incriminating evidence to justify any violations of the defendant's rights which they've already made that didn't produce the evidence they were expecting.
TLDR: A defence lawyer doesn’t get you off, but ensures you get a fair trial. Where there’s no corruption and the law is followed correctly.
@@notmenotme614And to ensure a fair trial, both the defence and plaintiff/prosecution must be competent.
And to follow up to the people who respond with "Well if a lawyer gets a guilty person off with a technicality..." the police have a burden to do their job correct. If the police didn't handle evidence properly or the prosecution didn't follow the law, it's not the defense's fault that the person was innocent. It was the cop or the prosecutor who screwed up. Sure they are mad, they might say things about defense lawyers but that's just their own ego not being able to admit their own faults.
@@teamcoltra So in other words it's a skill issue on the part of law enforcement, and they just have to get good XD
The role of a defence lawyer is not necessarily to prove someone's innocence, but to force the prosecution to do its job correctly
Devin is so good at explaining the law in a way that's easy to understand
Hes also great at letting his bias show and tries to just brush it off
What bias do you mean?
@@stephenwalk2186 I prefered when people are open about their points of view than whatever it is the hellscape that is current US politics.
He's also a law professor so it's not surprising
@@stephenwalk2186didn’t ask
"Someone accused of petty burglary shouldn't face the death penalty" You've obviously never been on Reddit.
As someone who has a Perjury conviction under their belt, I can say it is absolutely enforced. I was charged with felony perjury, got it reduced to a misdemeanor and I can say it has and still does cause many many problems in my young life lmao.
I never needed a lawyer until my mother passed away unexpectedly two months ago and I needed help settling her estate. Having a probate attorney has made my life so much easier 😅
RIP your inheritance. i hope your lawyers boat is really cool
I'm sorry you lost your mother :(
@@jgp6574 Thanks for the trolling 😀 But the lawyer fees weren’t even that much ✌🏻
@@Katt_Dubbsmaybe you even had insurance that covered some of the lawyer fees
My condolences for your mother.
May she rest in peace.😢
Where he mentioned the fact that no lawyer knows EVERY LAW and must do research is a major point to discuss. Its why corporations and the uber rich have law FIRMS on retainer and not individual practicing lawyers(They'll have a representative they speak with but the entire firm works for them). The ability to have essentially an ARMY of researchers to find ways to get you out of legal trouble is VERY powerful protection to have. Our own government prosecutors are outnumbered by these guys, and they in turn have an advantage over public defenders who have to do hundreds of cases a week. Its literally a pay2win system. Something that hopefully as A.I. improves, will get marginally better for the little guy.
The top reference tools used by major law firms cost a fair bit of money. I have to wonder, why you would think the top AI based software will reduce overall legal cost for the little guy?
@@jarrodbright5231basically it could help cut down on human research time digging for cases related to yours, allowing more time for lawyers to focus on other aspects of the case and make a more sokid defense.
Its like how goodle search made research in general insanely simole compared to the old days of physical sources in limited locations. Wasting hours shifting through all sources in a library vs a 15 minute google or Wikipedia sesrch.
What really gets my goat is that ordinary citizens are expected by the system somehow to know and understand every law (minus, perhaps, some industry-specific stuff that they're not personally involved in). How are we supposed to follow the law when there are thousands applicable to us at any moment, some with conflicts, ambiguities, and precedent that may or may not be overturned if it goes to trial? Oh, just have a law firm on retainer, right? More pandering to the wealthy. What about the rest of us?
Lol as if those firms won't just buy up whatever A.I. resources they need, exponentially faster than the little guy can keep up with
@turoskensei13 didn't help disney, big law firms ride on their name, and so they didn't know local law, and so they lost, legal mindset covers it.
I love how he'd get really enthusiastic and start talking with his hands and the scales on the statue of Justicia would start shaking.
couldn't help but smile when the issue came up because it is known some lawyers say things that they know will be objected to just to get it in a jury's head.
10:50 My dad was a lawyer and would always say that you don't learn how to practice law in law school you learn how to research and understand case law.
True for almost all fields
Also: Many frivolous cases are actually not that frivolous once you really look into their technicalities -- they just seem that way because media articles really love to highlight odd aspects of the case.
I love the question about objections because it gives credence to something I've always assumed about courtroom strategy. A lawyer could do or say something that they already know is going to be objected, but at that point they have already planted the idea in to the jury's mind regardless.
Yeah, nothing gets more attention to : "do not pay attention to this"
"what constitues a chicken"
honestly i would have thought that is obvious but now that i think about it...
Holy crap! Movin' on up, Devin! Congrats on being featured on law support! 🎉
ONE word when you get arrested by Cops: "LAWYER."
NEVER volunteer information to a cop. They are trained to get you to self incriminate before you have your lawyer present, and that testimony IS admissable.
DO NOT SELF SNITCH.
You have to phrase it directly as "I will not speak further to you without legal representation present." Just the word "Lawyer" or the phrase "I want a lawyer" will not trigger your legal protections. Once invoked, SHUT THE F UP AND DO NOT SPEAK AGAIN until your lawyer is present and they tell you to speak. Cops are legally allowed to lie to you, fyi.
@@witchdoctor1394Better Call Saul has taught me well
Easier solution: don't commit a crime.
@@SeraphsWitness Saddly, we live in a world where that is simply not enough. Never was, may never be.
@@SeraphsWitness Not everyone who is arrested has committed a crime, which is why criminal courts exist in the first place
One of the reasons to defend a guilty client is to make sure a shoplifter doesn't get the death penalty.
Because of my diagnosed severe social anxiety disorder, I would literally not be able to testify. I would not be able to get any words out of my mouth, I'd probably just hyperventilate (wouldn't matter if I knew I was innocent). So yeah, there's reasons to do everything you can not to end up on the stand.
I thought of going into law while I was in school and took a couple law classes. I had a professor who was a former defense lawyer. He defended robbers, thieves even one murderer. He was asked how he defended some people where evidence was overwhelming that his client was guilty. He simply said he always saw it as defending the persons rights. No matter how overwhelming the evidence, the accused still have rights until a conviction is determined. He ended by saying if people have a problem with that they could take it up with our forefathers and the constitution.
They have rights after being found guilty as well, most importantly to a sentence that is appropriate to their circumstances and the nature of their crime.
That's funny considering how little America gives a toss about human rights when it comes to the prison system, the justice system, law enforcement etc.
@@edithputhy4948well that's out of the lawyers hands.
Thank you for pointing out that just because you lost a case doesn’t mean you’re guilty or lied! So many innocent people are locked up and guilty are free b/c people think that way.
Yes! So many people use the argument of "well the case outcome was [x]" when often times, that doesn't mean anything other then there either wasn't enough evidence or somebody got convicted wrongfully which isn't anything new.
@RebekahJae should add just because you are a lawyer or a judge doesn't mean you know anything at all, which applies to the hack in the video.
And poor people can't afford certain fees that force them to plead guilty
@@churblefurblesThe highly trained, experienced, practicing attorney in the video?
@@churblefurblesin what way is he a hack, you uneducated absolute nobody?
I am so happy Devon got on WIRED Support. I really want to see him in action one day. Is there a way we can see this Legal Eagle having his own reality show or making content where we can see him in the court room?
I remember when I sat on a jury for a personal injury case, the judge told us that if we thought a witness was being untruthful we could disregard their entire testimony. Which is exactly what I and at least a few other jurors did. I don't think perjury would even apply in that instance? Especially since we're talking about the line between "gross exaggeration" and "outright lies"
The threatening the judge question sounds like something a sovereign citizen would do lol
And somehow expect it to benefit them, apparently
9:00 I once read a sentence by a Spanish Court on a serial killer in which they complimented the defense lawyer for his profesionality, as he had given the best defense he could despite having overwhelming evidence against his client.
Rest in Peace to the victims💔🙏 prayers and best wishes to them, all their family friends and loved ones❤
@LegalEagle you're doing such a huge service to the public and helping with access to justice. Bravo.
He is. I just wish he wasn't as biased on some of the topics he covers.
@@warlocc-paul What bias?
I have wondered about several of these questions. Thanks for giving them a shot!
The innocent 5th amendment answer leaves out some potential bias issues too. You could have an accent, or speech impediment that even though you are innocent and say that you are, the jury could look down on you through no fault of your own.
8:12 "...you forget a comma?"
Let's eat grandma
Let's eat, grandma
I want a round 2 of this! This was so good!
An example as to why statue of limitations things exist: If you're going to be accused of fraud, you might have documents proving your innocence. It would be an undue burden to force everyone to preserve every document they ever receive, so the statute of limitations allows you to throw away sufficiently old stuff.
Next up: saul goodman
Wired had better call him (applaud the joke peasants)
I don't remember where I saw it, but I remember once seeing a Lawyer answer that question - the one about "how do you go about defending someone you know is guilty/liable?" And they said something to the effect of, "You make yourself be ok with it by presenting their case as best you can, and knowing that no matter the outcome, whether a guilty/liable verdict is passed or not, the trial happened fairly, and there will be no case for a mistrial."
I have a Mat at my front door that says : "Come back with a Warrent!"
"What constitues a chiken?" it's a great opening line for a legal argument and/or a stand up routine.
"Petit" is also french for "Small" and "Grand" is french for "Large". It could explain why a petit jury and grand jury is used.
So I'm not alone then...thank god!
Love to see Devin finally featured on WIRED!!
I actually love these!! I learn so much! Any time they bring a professional of any kind ( mortician, layer etc) i always go away more enlighten
8:08 oh my god,,, my aunt is a lawyer and she has a fantastic story about this that her law professor related as it had happened to him a few years before she had him. They were covering some sort of civil case (I think) in which the key question was “what is chicken” or something along those lines. On the day when they were discussing this in class, one student stands up and says “this case is ridiculous. I know what a chicken is! *This* is a chicken!” and pulls a live chicken out of his bag that he purchased at a market that morning. He released the chicken and the classroom descended into chaos
Unbeknownst to that student, that was the day the professor was being reviewed by the university for continuing tenure 😬
Luckily they did in fact get it and the student was super apologetic when he realized what he’d done. Alls well that ends well!
11:10 like I often say -- an expert is not someone who knows every answer, an expert is someone who's been taught how to find the right questions.
Exactly this.
Also, you can look something up, but if you don't understand what is being said, you're at a disadvantage.
@@IngeniousGhosts Yup, that's what I meant by being taught "how" :)
1 week after my 18th birthday, I got called for grand jury. I had to go to court for 2 days each week for 4 months. As much as I loved being a part of the legal process, I pretty much ruined my summer before college. On the plus side, I couldn't be called for any other type of jury for a long time after that.
I really hope I'm not called for that any time soon lol
That’s what the form they send you in the mail is for. I always put I don’t understand English (English major tho lol) 😂
Wow this was super enlightening. Do it again please!
thank you so much Wired for choosing those questions, they are very good and interesting ones
Keeping up-to-date with rulings can be key too. I saw a case the other day where a man got out of a citation for leaving his car running on his own property while he was cleaning ice off it (in violation of a city ordinance) but his attorney had found an appellate court case decided only a few months before his court appearance, where the appellate court had ruled that that ordinance violated the state constitution on some issue regarding private property versus public spaces. Either way, his lawyer convinced the judge the cases were similar enough that stare decisis should apply and the defendant was acquitted.
Was this a life or death matter? No. It was a $500 fine or something like that, but the point is that by keeping current with the state's appellate and supreme court decisions, the attorney was able to save his client an undue fine.
Well done. Good answers. Pleading the 5th could also be done, I imagine, bc you don’t want to reveal something which isn’t illegal but embarrassing, say, or perhaps disadvantageous to your career/business.
I'm absolutely loving this series
Great to see Legal Eagle on Tech Support 👍 Huge fan of both!
Our boy has hit the bigtime! Ive been waiting for legal support forever!
I like that they called it law support and not legal support, since this is not, in fact, legal advice.
Oh my goodness, I am so glad to see you here, Devon! ❤ it!
Man he is really good at explaining all this
No way!! I never thought I'd see this collaboration! Hype
Best argument for why you should always plead the 5th.
"He said 'I shot the clerk' and when prompted further he again stated 'I shot the clerk!"
I've never seen any of Devin's videos, but GAHT DAYUM! I love hearing him talk!
6:33 Those billboards are all over the place in Houston. Radio stations and commercial breaks, too.
Everything about this man is so Lawyer-y
2:10 The first jury summons I ever received was for a grand jury. I did not know much about our legal system before then. Sitting on grand jury for two weeks was one of the most informative experiences for me in my life. Also depressing. 50/50.
So well balanced experience? :)
He has such an 80s movie lawyer name, I love it.
The best way I ever had someone describe the guilty question to me is by saying "I'm not just defending the rights of the guilty but also of the innocent that have been accused of something they haven't committed. I defend the guilty person's rights in order to defend the yours". Really put it in perspective
When you are mirandized, you are told "anything you say can be used against you." No where does it say you can say something that could exonerate you. Do not speak without a lawyer ever.
Being held against you included being held positively against you.
@@MrBrock314yes I'm sure that's foremost in every detective's mind
@@MrBrock314 You're not being brought in a police car and into an interrogation room for tea and cookies, dude.
@MrBrock314 No. Against is against, in opposition, as in "for and against". It is to warn you of your legal right, because what you say can be used AGAINST you. It is legal terminology, there is not a positive "against".
@@UltimaKeyMaster that does sound nice though
Awesome!! I've been subscribed to this guy for quite a while now. I love the clear and relatively concise breakdowns he does! Good booking, Wired!
Thanx, Devin and WIRED. Please do this again. Cheers.
If I ever have to go to court, I want this guy!