I did not even know this show existed until six months ago. It was like finding a diamond buried in my couch, because all the seasons were already out.
They managed to understand the ‘cool’ not at the expense of any ‘group’ - they had the nerd, the man’s man, the strong woman, the down on their luck, the damsel, bad decisions, cheating, accountability, redemption - they got everything in this show - really well written
You could tell he was desperate, but like a boxer on the ropes, the only way out is to find an opening and press forward… Gabriel Mach played his poker face perfectly in this scene. The way he tells Mike to stop as Mike tries to calm him down, genius writing and brilliant acting to pull off a tough script. Forever one of my favorite scenes in Suits!
When Mike said “am gonna tell you a story of what that man did it for me…” we all got goosebumps and know how well this will end😍 a beautifully scripted series in the history of any law based webseries🎆🔥
it wasnt allowed to become a defense exhibit because of chain of custody. if it had already been entered nothing would've changed but while entering it it was objected to so its still allowed
@mcdoublelicspikity319 Chain of Custody is something that the state must maintain for its integrity to the defense, not vice-versa. I summon @AttorneyTom
it seems so unlikely to me that state law would allow the prosecutors to seek the maximum penalty for opening a case that could prove your innocence. that seems so far fetched does anyone know if that’s ever legal?
If you go through a trial again or open a plea before the judge where you plead guilty and the judge assesses the sentence, then the judge cannot impose a harsher sentence than you received before.
IANAL but since the camisole and the DNA is inadmissible because it was contaminated, doesn't that mean the original trial is (don't know the correct term) invalid?
It’s two separate issues. The camasol (hopefully I spelt it correctly) was buried initially that’s what got Harvey to re-open the case. The other issue that the prosecutor argued was that the camasol was either tampered with or handled incorrectly that’s what they mean when it broke the chain of custody therefore when any evidence has a broken chain of custody it is rendered inadmissible in court meaning it cannot be used because it’s basically been tainted. Hope that helps
@@pravleenminhas3594 Is this doctrine actually available to the State too?? Because if yes, then the State can effectively bury all probable evidence just by tainting everything after the initial trial, which means appeals will de facto seize to exist. This violates natural justice and due process too if I am not wrong.
@@srghhh5589 I’m from Canada so law is different but the evidence wasn’t buried because it was tainted. It was buried because it provided some reasonable doubt that he didn’t commit the crime. The evidence being tainted was found out later as the prosecutor said. Harvey was the initial prosecutor 12 years prior so he didn’t have the evidence so he truly believed he murdered that woman until Harvey found out that evidence was buried and then he believed the defendant is innocent which allowed them to re open the case but it can’t be used in trial because it broke chain of custody. Evidence is treated like it’s sacred so if someone were to purposely break the chain of custody that is a huge miscarriage of Justice the defendant can be set free without prejudice
Even though Harvey says he does everything for himself and for himself only, he operates with 100% integrity. And if he says he's got your back, then he really has.
I feel really sorry for Cliff. Bro had already served 12 years in prison and was ready to complete his 16 years imprisonment. Harvey did got him out, but if they failed, he would've gotten life imprisonment for a crime he never committed.
@@karabinjr when he got out he couldnt get a job, luckily he got one at some diner at some pretty rough neighbourhood but sadly got shot dead one night in an alley close to the diner - his mother was present as a witness in Mikes Fraud trial vs Anita Gibbs you can find a clip on yt
Suits was a much more serious show in its first two seasons (especially the first). It had a real edge to it. Sadly they are far superior to what the show eventually became.
It's Season 1, Episode 13, "Dog Fight", you mentioned in wrong in description as EP12!😂😂😂😂😂😂 At least correct your details if you're running a lawyer's show...
Each season, each episode, and each scene of Suits is evergreen. No matter how many times I watch it again, I never get sick of it.
This is the fakest legal show in existence. Every single person would have been disbarred 100 times
@@calebtheholyman545 doesn’t make the show any less entertaining.
@@calebtheholyman545it is not fake if you don't have that kind of knowledge in the law process 😂 it is not a shoe strictly made for lawyers
I did not even know this show existed until six months ago. It was like finding a diamond buried in my couch, because all the seasons were already out.
They managed to understand the ‘cool’ not at the expense of any ‘group’ - they had the nerd, the man’s man, the strong woman, the down on their luck, the damsel, bad decisions, cheating, accountability, redemption - they got everything in this show - really well written
That last scene was badass. I remember not having a clue what he was up to when I first saw this episode, until the last line of the scene.
You could tell he was desperate, but like a boxer on the ropes, the only way out is to find an opening and press forward… Gabriel Mach played his poker face perfectly in this scene. The way he tells Mike to stop as Mike tries to calm him down, genius writing and brilliant acting to pull off a tough script. Forever one of my favorite scenes in Suits!
When Mike said “am gonna tell you a story of what that man did it for me…” we all got goosebumps and know how well this will end😍 a beautifully scripted series in the history of any law based webseries🎆🔥
This still bugs me because its not how the law works. The chain of custody being broken on defense exhibits don't get removed.
it wasnt allowed to become a defense exhibit because of chain of custody. if it had already been entered nothing would've changed but while entering it it was objected to so its still allowed
@mcdoublelicspikity319
Chain of Custody is something that the state must maintain for its integrity to the defense, not vice-versa.
I summon @AttorneyTom
@mcdoublelicspikity319 it was the defense, not the state. COC isn't an issue for the defense! It's how our law works.
Why do these court rooms never have any lights on
Cuz lights can cloud your judgement
theres sunlight
The use optic fibres from the roof to illuminate the room, it's a Japanese initiative
He and the death row innocence project guy both ask the assistant for their advice. Interesting thing to have repeated
Chain of custody goes to weight of the evidence not admissibility in New York. The DNA would have been admissible.
This duo always reminds me of my wonderful Bro and I. I always trust he can find a solution 💯💯💯
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hey, lil bro! I always find a solutiom
Last scene badass
it seems so unlikely to me that state law would allow the prosecutors to seek the maximum penalty for opening a case that could prove your innocence. that seems so far fetched does anyone know if that’s ever legal?
It is, unfortunately
If you go through a trial again or open a plea before the judge where you plead guilty and the judge assesses the sentence, then the judge cannot impose a harsher sentence than you received before.
It's the Undercover Brother boss! lol
IANAL but since the camisole and the DNA is inadmissible because it was contaminated, doesn't that mean the original trial is (don't know the correct term) invalid?
Makes the legal system look Crooked
Warrant Officer Raymond Perry really turned his life around
Yes he did, lol he also bulk himself!!
That judge sounds just like Berney Sanders
What do they mean that buried evidence can’t be used in a trial
the DA proved there was an inconsistency within the handling of the dna test, therefore it is inadmissible
It’s two separate issues. The camasol (hopefully I spelt it correctly) was buried initially that’s what got Harvey to re-open the case.
The other issue that the prosecutor argued was that the camasol was either tampered with or handled incorrectly that’s what they mean when it broke the chain of custody therefore when any evidence has a broken chain of custody it is rendered inadmissible in court meaning it cannot be used because it’s basically been tainted. Hope that helps
@@pravleenminhas3594 Is this doctrine actually available to the State too?? Because if yes, then the State can effectively bury all probable evidence just by tainting everything after the initial trial, which means appeals will de facto seize to exist. This violates natural justice and due process too if I am not wrong.
@@srghhh5589 I’m from Canada so law is different but the evidence wasn’t buried because it was tainted. It was buried because it provided some reasonable doubt that he didn’t commit the crime. The evidence being tainted was found out later as the prosecutor said. Harvey was the initial prosecutor 12 years prior so he didn’t have the evidence so he truly believed he murdered that woman until Harvey found out that evidence was buried and then he believed the defendant is innocent which allowed them to re open the case but it can’t be used in trial because it broke chain of custody. Evidence is treated like it’s sacred so if someone were to purposely break the chain of custody that is a huge miscarriage of Justice the defendant can be set free without prejudice
@@srghhh5589 I believe the evidence was tainted to begin with in the intial trial I could be wrong
Harvey a gem
Even though Harvey says he does everything for himself and for himself only, he operates with 100% integrity. And if he says he's got your back, then he really has.
Which season and episode is this
1x12
Part 2?
for real. this is just as aggravating as a 5 part "short"
watched the episode. nothing worth watching. harvey gets the other guy that didn't testify to testify against the other guy.
I feel really sorry for Cliff. Bro had already served 12 years in prison and was ready to complete his 16 years imprisonment. Harvey did got him out, but if they failed, he would've gotten life imprisonment for a crime he never committed.
Did mike tells cliff his secret?
Yes
Vogler!!
😅 yeah, what a tyrrant.
The title was very misleading
Lol, it’s only misleading if u don’t know of the show lol. The show is about lawyers so it isn’t misleading if u know about the show lol
He got out and died anyway.
how did he die?
@@karabinjr when he got out he couldnt get a job, luckily he got one at some diner at some pretty rough neighbourhood but sadly got shot dead one night in an alley close to the diner - his mother was present as a witness in Mikes Fraud trial vs Anita Gibbs you can find a clip on yt
Yea, how did he die?
@@pantherpopel551 he got shotted trying to stop a robbery
@@sidmahasuverachai3722 Well, thats weird writing lol
That's the Los Vatos guy from TWD
Suits was a much more serious show in its first two seasons (especially the first). It had a real edge to it. Sadly they are far superior to what the show eventually became.
Dang....
What’s up with Harvey’s hair??
It's Season 1, Episode 13, "Dog Fight", you mentioned in wrong in description as EP12!😂😂😂😂😂😂 At least correct your details if you're running a lawyer's show...
They’re disregarding the pilot buddy
@@adrew1826 So unlike any other episode count?