LegalEagle Objection: You described the state of the law of assault in New York as "Causing someone harm with intent to do so. It doesn't matter how severe the injury is, so long as you have caused pain, you have made physical contact with another person without consent". This description of consent in the context of assault cases is not accurate. Consent is not recognized as an affirmative defense for assault outside of the context of professional sporting events like boxing, football, and mixed martial arts. There are still cases (such as consensual kink and BDSM) for which consent is not recognized as a defense. The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is working to fix this issue, as this interpretation of when consent can and can't be used as a defense has caused serious legal problems for kinky folks living in jurisdictions with particularly sexually conservative prosecutors.
OBJECTION: It's not a-salt if there is no salt involved! Santa is made with candy canes and magic, therefore, he cannot be accused of a-salt! 4 candy canes!
Objection! The court can weigh in on the whether or not Santa Claus is real because technically, Saint Nicholas was never officially canonized by the Catholic or Orthodox church. Therefore not an official religious figure.
I don't care how legally inaccurate it is, "The State of New York concedes the existence of Santa Claus" remains one of the funniest lines ever recorded on film.
Well, for some of us, a funnier line came when the judge was with his "campaign manager." The manager said that if the judge ruled against Santa, he would only get two votes: his & the DA's. The judge held up one finger and said, "The DA is a Republican!"
@@GilmerJohn The DA looks a lot like Thomas Dewey, the Republican governor of New York at the time the film was made (and former DA in NY county). Dewey was also the GOP candidate for President in 1944 and 1948.
As a practicing attorney for over 42+ years (now retired), I've always maintained that the REAL MIRACLE had not been that Santa Claus came to New York and worked at Macy's, but rather that his attorney, Mr. Dayley, walked into the Judge's office less than a week before Christmas, requested a formal competency hearing for his client, and promptly received a setting on that competency hearing to commence the following Monday, December 23, and conclude late the next afternoon, Christmas Eve.
So this also makes me wonder how law was practiced back then. Aside from movie magic reality whatever stuff, do we know how the law was actually practiced back then? That would be really cool and interesting to find out too! 😊
Spongebob Squarepants episode "Krabs vs. Plankton" when Plankton plans and succeeds to fake an injury inside the Krusty Krab then sues Mr. Krabs. And/or Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy episode "Keeper of the Reaper" when Billy and Mandy go to court for custody of Grim.
Funny story, this video would have come out on the day after Thanksgiving, but a certain movie studio made a copyright claim on it and blocked it. Merry friggin Xmas! But thankfully they released their claim pretty quick. A holiday miracle!
Objection- hearsay lets see some evidence! No, but seriously lots of people get bullied and intimidated into not fighting for their fair use. I was threatened for posting a video that comments on a public town meeting of a police chief fighting corruption- recorded by a municipally owned television station created in the purposes of sharing government news. I, of course, fought it- I almost wish they tried to force me to take it down again, but not everyone understands their rights.
Well that sucks. But it does bring forth a suggestion, would you be interested in collaborating with YT's favourite copyright attorney, Leonard French, on a fictional or non-fictional US intellectual Property court case? I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is a fan of both channels :D
Objection: In the 1940s, mental illness was much less understood, sufferers were much more maligned, and eccentricities were much less tolerated than present day. As a result, jurors of the day may have believed the burden of proof to be satisfied just by getting a person on the stand to declare himself Santa Claus under oath. Under that context, the defense’s actions seem more intelligent. They know they have to convince the jury that it isn’t crazy to believe in Santa Claus. The history of mental illness in law is a very sad affair. I know you said you aren’t familiar with mental illness law, but look up the history of it sometime if you have a chance, it is really bad. Allen Turing off the top of my head (though he was under UK law.) As always, love your show. Thank you for producing it. Also, going to keep recommending Bridge of Spies
Alan Turing was convicted of having an affair with a man so he was order to either have jail time or to be chemically castrated. He chose the latter. He got worse than being ordered to have mental treatment. They made it physically impossible for him to continue having sexual relations.
The US mental health hospitalization system didn't really change until the 80s. I've heard stories from family friends about Foxborough State Hospital (yes, THAT Foxborough that the New England Patriots play in), which to an extent was administered somewhat like a prison complete with anonymous burial markers. I've been told that there are the remains of someone who died of typhus buried somewhere on the premises, although I do not know if they were ever exhumed, and the location has since been redeveloped to apartments or condos with a shopping center. Bet the folks who go over to Waxy O'Connor's Irish Pub after the game don't know what the area used to be. (Fun fact: Foxborough State Hospital was one of several mental hospitals in Massachusetts. One of its sister institutions, Danvers State Hospital, went on to inspire H.P. Lovecraft in his writing about Arkham Asylum, which in turn inspired the Batman universe Arkham Asylum.)
@@VampByDay Even still, I didn't think extramarital affairs were actually illegal (at least just for the laws of man), just seriously frowned upon. EDIT: Then again, this is the 1940s we're talking about, when getting a divorce was taboo.
I love this movie, because it has a special place in my heart... My dad and I actually were in a community theater production of this movie. Fittingly, he was Thomas Mara (the lawyer) and I was cast as the kiddo, Tommy. It was an experience I won't forget, it was memorable and fun.
Funniest legal line in this movie: Judge: Tommy, you do know the difference between the truth and a lie, do you? Tommy: Gosh, everyone knows you shouldn't tell a lie, especially in court!
It is a really nice piece of writing. It is the very first movie I ever saw where I really ever found myself thinking about the quality of the writing.
Objection. Has the Legal Eagle researched and given the penalties for the assault and other charges in 1947? Mr. Kringle cannot be sentenced under laws that weren't on the books during the events of Miracle on Thirty- Fourth Street.
@@okjoe5561 all attorneys do that $hit. Use laws that don't apply when ones that do are already on the books & can win their client's case in one shot,not multiple expensive court appearances. Like the unrepealed original 13th article(amendment) of the Bill of Rights. I could link you to my current findings on that topic if you want?
LegalEagle, Could you do the court case in the movie: "Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer"? ^^^As silly as the movie itself is, nearly the entire final 3rd act of the movie is a court-case involving the potentiality to convict Santa of kidnapping and attempted-murder! I'd be curious your thoughts on those proceedings...
Question: have you EVER worked in retail during the holidays? I'd say every department store should have a therapist on their payroll, especially during that time of the year.
100% people treating the shop like it's s only for them. The shop shuts for one day. I will always advise always buy your stuff For Christmas 2 weeks before. Everyone thinks I'll go on Christmas eve.
He really does not spend much time in court during the show, the Punisher Trial might be the best case, however. Although I would love to see LegalEagle count off all the laws Matt breaks to gather information.
The best moment in this movie that every lawyer or budding lawyer should pay attention to is when Charlie Halloran (played by William Frawley), sitting in the court uses facial expressions to subtly chide Judge Henry X. Harper ([played by Gene Lockhart) when he veers in the prosecution's direction, and then later gives the Judge a knowing wink and a nod when he rules more favorably for defendant Kris Kringle (played by Edmund Gwenn). In other words, business and politics are directing the legal decisions being made in this case, rather than the merits of the evidence, just like too often happens in real life. This is a lesson that all attorneys and budding attorneys can appreciate.
Did you need a license in 1947? And how do we know he didn't have a license tp practice? Also, I think it's only therapists who need licenses...not sure that someone who administers and analyzes standardized tests needs one.
From one real lawyer to another - this is the cutest thing I’ve ever seen. Sharing this legal take on our family’s favourite Christmas classic with my daughter who is as tickled as I am. What a gift. Thank you! 🎁
Also: haha, what about the binding legal nature of The Santa Clause? The question of what it means to BE someone is approached from a very different angle ;)
I've got a new channel to obsess over. Not in law school and my experiences with lawyers haven't been good ones, but I like you & this channel a lot. Great job!
"get out of the well man, the bailiff will tackle you" HA! I watched this for the first time the other day, and I remembered you'd done a video on it, when I saw this bit I thought the same thing and wanted to watch this video to see if I was right. Nailed it.
I know I'm a bit late, but you mention the Supremacy Clause and the post office. It turns out, some of my relatives did work in the Post Office and USPS, so I got to learn quite a bit about it: Up until 1970, the Post Office Department carried a very different legal weight than today's USPS. The postmaster who would have had to authorize such mail movement was a presidential appointee and confirmed by the Senate, giving them much of the legal authority of the executive branch, just as if today the US Attorney General's office stated that a man was Santa Clause.
To be fair, the other famous myth about Saint Nick is that he slapped a guy upside the head with his dead arm at the Council of Nicea, so it's not like this is without precedence.
@@MuttFitness Kris Kringle is Saint Nick, he has a lot of nicknames. Also in many traditions Santa (which is English screwing up Saint in another language) does inflict corporal punishment, through figures like Black Tom (a dark elf or dwarf who rode along with him, gave out coal and occasionally beat children or tied them up in his sack) or the Krampus.
Objection. Your Honor... Assumes facts not in evidence. While 2nd Degree Assault might have been committed, New York State considers justification in such cases. One is permitted to defend one's self or others. The case can be made that the defendant was doing both, as a person, impersonating a licenced medical professional was forcing a person (who may possibly be demonstrated to have a disability) to participate in sham Psychiatic analysis under duress (the fear of loss of employment). That same fear may be shown to be a fight or flight response in what may be reasonably described as elder abuse or at least descrimination, with comparable fear of loss of employment and/or freedom. This fear is justified by the actual termination of employment and arrest for Psychological Evaluation and subsequent hearing to determine sanity, while at risk for indefinite institutionalisation. Not withstanding that, the alleged assault was unwitnessed and there was no demonstrated injury and no attempt to seek medical care for such alleged injury. As it was unwitnessed, it is a case of "he said, she said". If greater benefit of the doubt should be assigned, it should go to the benevolent elderly gentleman and not the demonstrated abuser of the disavantaged. In order to bring the assault charge, a warrant would have to have been sworn out and this was not done, further demonstrating the lack of a prosecutable offence. The most that could be made of it is a charge of harassment, which could be shown as justifiable on the same grounds or as a response to comparable as like "mutual combat". As there is no foundation I would like to renew my motion to dismiss, with prejudice.
William Degnan agreed. The fact is that the gentleman is a conman who has committed a series of crimes. He got assaulted becuase he got called out on being a criminal and the elderly man clearly was caring for the well being of everyone else being impacted by this criminal.
@monokhen Unless you count the film crew -- unwitnessed. We witness the sharp rebuke because we watch the movie. But other characters only witness the staged aftermath. Admitted or not, I stand by my argument. It's not prosecutable and if it is, it's justifiable. In fairness, Groucho Marx could have been called as a rebuttal witness. He said there's no such thing as a sanity clause.
I commented in full elsewhere, but it would be easy to prosecute Kringle for Assault in the Second Degree. All the prosecution would need to do was prove that Kringle wanted to hurt--that is: "cause substantial pain" to--the psychologist (not psychiatrist). This is due to the definitions of "dangerous instrument" and "physical injury" in NY Penal Law 10. The only way the defense would have a chance would be if they argued that the attack never took place at all. Assuming there were no witnesses (we don't see that angle during the assault), everything would hinge on whether or not there was any evidence of the attack, such as a bruise or swelling, and then only *if* the defense was able to keep Kringle from admitting to the crime. A psychologist is not a medical professional in most cases, and can act as a therapist without a medical license, so legally, the assault victim is not committing any kind of illegal or fraudulent act in giving unofficial diagnoses to his clients. Kringle could argue that basing his employment status on such unofficial diagnoses is unfair, but that would be a complaint against the store management, and it would not justify assault with a deadly weapon on the professional performing his (completely legal) job.
This is just an outstanding channel. Everyone needs to be more literate about the law; the College Board (which designs the SAT and A.P. curricula) has just announced a revamped emphasis on constitutional literacy as a primary goal of its programming. This is great! As a non-lawyer, I LOVE getting the opinion of someone without skin in the game on the quality of the questioning during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, or representations of the deposition process in films like The Social Network, or the economics of independent law practices in A Time to Kill. This is such a great public service-and you’re a great communicator!! kudos, kudos, kudos. Channels like this will inspire young people to be lawyers for the BEST reasons-because of the fascination built in to any exploration of the intersection of the truth and the law. Get young people watching this!!!
Objection! You say that you love this movie _despite_ being a cynical person, but I love it _because_ it is such a cynical movie! From the judge and the DA, to Mr. Macy and Mr. Gimbel, everyone besides the main characters is motivated by selfish calculation (and so are Doris and Fred at first). My favourite scenes are the ones where the characters discuss their motivations, and you can see how they're all being secretly manipulated by Kris to do what he wants, while they all think that they're just doing what they want. And amazingly for a movie about Santa Claus, it is firmly agnostic about him! No kids get any presents that their parents didn't buy; there are no sightings of flying reindeer or elves; and even the court's decision means nothing, because we have seen why everybody (from the postal administrators to the judge) did what they did, and it was all motivated by self interest, not truth. The movie makes you _want_ to believe, and Kris's ability to control the people around him while appearing perfectly innocent is nothing short of miraculous, but there is no hard evidence anywhere. It is the perfect Christmas movie for a cynic like me!
I'd like to thank you for your comment. You've helped me understand why I can't stand this movie. Particularly: "It was all motivated by self-interest, not truth." I don't think of myself as either cynical or idealistic. But when I watch a Christmas movie, I want it to be heartwarming. A court deciding that Santa is Santa, not because anyone was shown any persuasive evidence in the form of flying reindeer, a visit to the North Pole, or a gift that only magic could fulfill, but because of the irrelevant ulterior motives of self-interested people, is _not heartwarming._ Even _The Santa Clause,_ also a pretty cynical movie in some regards, eventually broke down and gave the skeptics a good reason to believe. _Miracle on 34th Street_ didn't even live up to its title. The titular "miracle" isn't one, because it's just an ordinary house that happens to be for sale. It's not like it materialized from the aether. At best, one could surmise that Kris _found_ the house - not a particularly miraculous feat.
@@NoriMori1992 I think the point of the movie (and the heartwarming part of it) isn't that magic somehow exists and that makes ppl act nicely, but rather that the "magic" of Christmas comes from everybody **wanting** to keep the wonder going and/or make their loved ones happy, and that's a sort of magic and wonder in itself. The DA concedes bc he wants his son to be happy and believe. The USPS sends the mail bc they think Kris' claims are fun and sweet (and quip about it being someone else's problem as a handy, practical excuse). In fact, most characters go along with things and make the impossible happen, a miraculous feat, bc they think Kris' claims are charming and harmless: Fred, the Home's doctor, hell even the main character ends up "believing" more in the **people** - Kris and Fred - more than the identity claim, and in the end that's the important thing anyway. Edit to sum up and conclude that, this movie basically is what Christmas actually is: everyone coming together to keep a fantastical story going as a way to celebrate a very real good in this world -- our care for each other. The world doesn't have to be magic to be wonderful. And that's far from a cynical takeaway.
Objection! It’s played for laughs on a Lawyer saving Santa, but didn’t great lawyers use loopholes and a good sense of humour to get the entity known as ‘Santa Claus’ a pilots license and the authority to enter US airspace?
How have we not yet seen a video about Philadelphia? Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington? Won TWO Oscars, a Golden Globe, and... an MTV Movie award... It made over 200 million dollars, and that was in the 90's. It is THE courtroom drama, do it!
I believe the judge asked the defense if they wanted to continue because he thought the prosecution had already won after Kringle admitted he was Santa Claus, which proved he was crazy.
He's not forgetting that. He's correctly stating (I believe) what the judge was implying at this part of the movie. A point which the video seems to miss.
@@TheKeck Maybe I misunderstood... my apologies if I did! ...and yes, but unless you want L. E. to do a two and a half hour video, he's going to skip over parts, but who hasn't seen this movie?!? LOL As a matter of fact, I watched this movie again after this video reminded me of it! Such a wonderful classic! I have to see if I have the other one in my collection... I'm forgetting stuff a lot easier lately... Alzheimer's sucks! :-)
I object sir, every time you say someone needs to get out of the well of the court, because the bailiff will tackle them they never do. I am very disappointed, I want to see the 10 top best bailiff tackles now.
“It was a positive ID.” This line, along with the situation and his facial expression, made me actually snort with laughter for the first time in my life 🤣🤣🤣
Can I recommend doing Married...With Children Season 3 Episode 8 "I'll See You In Court"? I think either you'll enjoy it or you'll facepalm yourself into a coma.
Your honor this “Santa clause” is a criminal he flies though restricted air space on his “sleigh” which flies faster than the speed of light. He needs to be brought to justice
"It's a holiday classic! Sue me." Objection! We can't sue you without legal ground, since that would take months of time, and there is no true grounds for a suit as you are merely expressing your opinion (exercising your first amendment rights) and not bapping us with umbrellas.
So, I've watched a couple videos of yours because they keep popping up in my recommend. A few laughs here and there, some definite knowledge gained. But my first real, hard laugh came from the 'Enjoys living on Hard Mode' caption came up. That was hilarious.
I have to say that William Frawley's practical political view on deciding against Kris Kringle and how it will make merchants, kids, and parents hate him at Christmas time is one of the finest moments of legal/political logic in any film. As is Gene Lockhart's sad little realization he can't depend on the D.A. supporting him - he's in the opposition party.
Wonderfully presented! And it's nice to know that, despite a few technical missteps (which simply built up the dramatic fun), it was fairly accurate. I like!
@@brandonlyon730 Ah, excellent choice! :D It actually has a rather important legal concept to explore too! Namely that the titular grandma was presumed dead and her belongings were set to be distributed to surviving family members. Which was a rather important matter in the film since some of them had very different ideas as to what the property should be used for. Which resulted in her grandchildren hunting down Santa to recover their grandma and prove she wasn't really dead. Obviously certain parts of the film are pure fantasy, but I imagine a similar scenario could happen without invoking magic.
"Objection !* (I'll try my best to write in english ^^) the "I think therefore I am" from René Descartes doesn't mean that ! The cartesian thinking of Descartes was how to logically proof you exist and that you are not in a kind of Matrix where an evil genie is tricking your senses. It's not the object of thinking that is important (to be or not to be santa claus) but the very fact of thinking (the fact that I think proves that I exist. I think, therefore I am). Best wishes from Switzerland :) [I'm a political sociology student, and I just discovered your channel. I really like it, it's really light-hearted and interesting, thank you for your work !]
new viewer here. love what you do. the one tiny miniscule issue I got about the video is the volume imbalancement. on part is louder than the other. its gets kind of annoying sometimes but I really do love what you're doing.
OBJECTION: Hearsay - You keep saying that the bailiff will tackle you if you enter the well. The question must be asked; have you ever seen this personally or are you repeating advice you've been given by others? (Also, check out the Australian show Rake if ever you feel like doing international shows. Lots of courtroom and it's also extremely funny.)
Related but admittedly spurious: My mother was a judge’s administrative assistant and a pushy lawyer after leaving the judge’s chambers returned about 15 minutes later, during which time the judge had started working on something else, and proceeded to step over the gate without being invited across by the judge or my mom because he “just wanted to tell the judge something really quickly.” My mom, as trained, hit the silent alarm under her desk and this lawyer was tackled moments later by sheriff’s deputies.
not necessarily. You can move to exclude a witness from the court room, but sometimes the witness will be permitted to stay in the courtroom. Like experts are allowed to sit in on others testimony, and used that as basis for their own testimony. I do not know New York's Evidence code, but what I have stated above is the same under the federal rules of evidence, and the california evidence code. I assume NY is very similar.
@@kylehofmeister2109 Hmmm.... Interesting. I think in this case, Tommy, despite being a child, is an expert witness testifying on the topic of Santa Claus.
Isn’t it still a big conflict of interest to involve any family member from either prosecution or defender. If he had to be their wouldn’t they need to change the prosecutor first before he could be a witness?
Good day Attorney. I'm from Philippines and I like your videos. It gives me more knowledge about the American Law. Please continue uploading videos and more powers to you.
actually your videos (which I've watched 4 so far, actually really good and thought provoking) is really showing me as a curious person that the world needs more lawyers. The a practicing attorney can make more of a difference than 100 beat cops. Which ironically I found out that there is no correlation of a increased police presence reducing crime. It actually doesn't reduce crime at all. Anyways you have just earned yourself another subscriber.
OBJECTION! Though taking on an affirmative burden of proof would be a foolish move by any defense attorney, in this particular case, I don’t think it was as devastating a move as you make it out to be. The prosecution has already made the mistake of framing the argument around whether or not the defendant is Santa Claus, as opposed to the simpler and more easily proven assertion that he is a danger to those around him. Prosecution should have said, “he assaulted a coworker who said he wasn’t magic,” and kicked back. However, that’s not what the state did. Once the prosecution chose to rest, the defense had the opportunity to keep the trial in the news and make sure it played out as an emotional question about belief and “Christmas spirit.” Besides, in that framing, there was little chance of being seen as a failure for a loss. He either proves in court that Santa Claus is real or he doesn’t. Either way, he’s the guy who defended Santa. The whole thing was just about getting press. So opting to not mount a defense may have been a better legal move, but not a better political/career move.
Objection defense was clearly using the prosecutors own son to attempt to have them drop the case instead of going for a directed verdict therefore if Santa were to be found guilty he'd have been able to appeal on the grounds that his lawyer didn't provide the best possible defense.
Over-ruled: LegalEagle is the defacto-Judge of this channel, and thus has the power to overrule or sustain posts. Me on the other hand, not even a lawyer so of course I can't :-p
These shows remind me of the bar exam essay portion from more than 30 years ago. We called it toe tagging where you try to identify all the possible crimes or torts and then all the procedures we would have to deal with while working the case.
My wife is unhappy you don't have any Perry Mason. She thinks you are intimidated. (But mostly she just wants to see what you have to say about her favorite show)
"Cigar in court, those were the 'bad old days. " Objection; smokers are people too. And, at the time, smoking, and cigars in particular, was more socially accepted.
Tyler Ash SECOND! I second that motion! (...Yes, your honor. I am aware that is more civic / board meeting than legal- courtroom phraseology. I got a little over-excited.) I was in fact just about to make the same proposal; only, as yet, I am ignorant of the formal procedure to submit such a request. (...Please?)
I'd love to see it too. The whole series finale of Seinfeld has the group put on trial for not calling for help during a mugging. The prosecution puts on a parade witnesses who've been wronged by the group in some way.
@@redwaytoo now that I think of it, I'd like to see @legaleagle's reactions to the rest of the Jackie Chiles episodes. not necessarily courtroom but legal arguments being presented nonetheless.
The Alleged Battery by Kris Kringle in Miracle on 34th Street Issue: Whether the alleged act by Kris Kringle (a light tap on the head with a cane) constitutes battery under the legal standards of the 1940s, and whether applying modern battery laws retroactively would misrepresent the legal framework of that era. Facts: Kris Kringle, portrayed as the real Santa Claus, is accused of committing battery against Granville Sawyer, a store psychiatrist, in the 1947 film Miracle on 34th Street. The alleged act involved Kringle tapping Sawyer on the head with his cane in a moment of frustration, with no evidence of injury or significant harm. Legal Standards in the 1940s: In the 1940s, battery was defined as intentional, harmful, or offensive physical contact without consent. The law distinguished between: 1. Misdemeanor Battery: Minor physical contact causing little to no harm. Penalties included small fines (under $100) or brief incarceration (up to six months). Many cases were dismissed as trivial. 2. Felony Battery: Physical contact resulting in significant injury or involving aggravating factors (e.g., use of a weapon). Penalties ranged from 1 to 10 years in prison and higher fines. Battery cases required intent to cause harm or offensive contact, and the focus was on tangible physical injury. Psychological or emotional harm was not commonly considered. Modern Battery Laws: Today, battery laws are more detailed and stratified: 1. Simple Battery: Minor harm or offensive contact, often resulting in misdemeanor charges. 2. Aggravated Battery: Severe injury or the use of a weapon, typically charged as a felony. 3. Psychological Harm: Modern interpretations allow claims of emotional distress as part of civil battery or enhanced criminal charges. Penalties are far more nuanced, reflecting degrees of harm, intent, and aggravating factors. Protected classes (e.g., children, elderly) and the presence of weapons also elevate charges. Argument: The allegation that Kris Kringle committed battery should be evaluated under 1940s legal standards, not modern interpretations. Applying today’s nuanced framework retroactively misrepresents the legal context of the time: 1. Lack of Injury or Harm: The alleged act involved minimal contact with no evidence of injury or harm. Under 1940s law, this would likely be classified as a trivial misdemeanor, if actionable at all. The principle of de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles) would apply, and the case could be dismissed. 2. Intent: Kringle’s action lacked intent to cause harm. The tap was a moment of frustration, not malice, further diminishing its severity under 1940s standards. 3. Penalties: If charged, Kringle would face, at most, a small fine or a formal reprimand. Claims of psychological harm, which might elevate the case today, were not recognized in 1940s battery law. 4. Modern Misinterpretation: A lawyer applying today’s battery laws might argue for claims of emotional harm or attempt to classify the act as “simple battery.” However, these interpretations rely on legal developments that did not exist in the 1940s, including greater emphasis on emotional and psychological impacts. Such an argument ignores the simpler framework of the era, where physical harm was the primary consideration. Conclusion: Under the legal standards of the 1940s, Kris Kringle’s actions would not rise to the level of significant battery. The case, if pursued, would likely have been dismissed or result in only minor penalties. Any attempt to apply modern battery laws retroactively misrepresents the historical legal context and exaggerates the severity of the incident. A proper analysis must rely on the simpler definitions and penalties of the time, not today’s more nuanced and expansive legal framework. This brief highlights how a modern interpretation would lead to an inaccurate conclusion, emphasizing the importance of analyzing the case through the lens of 1940s law.
He has a firm sense of justice, he wants to make the kids feel happy, he's non-biased on where the adults shop to get presents for the kids as long as the kids are happy. He's kind, he only raises his cane or umbrella when he senses a threat to the kids' sense of belief of him as well as the potential end of their childhoods.
I love the lengthy hesitation when you said "who's going to save santa.........if not for the lawyers" Your Honour! The witness doesn't believe his own testimony!
As always, the comment that best "thinks like a lawyer" in the first week will get pinned! Check out my other reactions here: goo.gl/mmzShz
LegalEagle objection: stop ruining my childhood. FACT: SANTA IS REAL (he’s probably dead by now but that’s a side note) 😋
@@Roanoak If is dead then WAS REAL
LegalEagle Objection: You described the state of the law of assault in New York as "Causing someone harm with intent to do so. It doesn't matter how severe the injury is, so long as you have caused pain, you have made physical contact with another person without consent".
This description of consent in the context of assault cases is not accurate. Consent is not recognized as an affirmative defense for assault outside of the context of professional sporting events like boxing, football, and mixed martial arts. There are still cases (such as consensual kink and BDSM) for which consent is not recognized as a defense.
The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is working to fix this issue, as this interpretation of when consent can and can't be used as a defense has caused serious legal problems for kinky folks living in jurisdictions with particularly sexually conservative prosecutors.
OBJECTION: It's not a-salt if there is no salt involved! Santa is made with candy canes and magic, therefore, he cannot be accused of a-salt! 4 candy canes!
Objection! The court can weigh in on the whether or not Santa Claus is real because technically, Saint Nicholas was never officially canonized by the Catholic or Orthodox church. Therefore not an official religious figure.
Cracking up literately seconds into the video with the cold delivery of "Hearsay" LMFAOOOO
Me too!
Basement Warrior that was hilarious
YES
"Child, you are dismissed"
Yes!!!
I don't care how legally inaccurate it is, "The State of New York concedes the existence of Santa Claus" remains one of the funniest lines ever recorded on film.
Well, for some of us, a funnier line came when the judge was with his "campaign manager." The manager said that if the judge ruled against Santa, he would only get two votes: his & the DA's. The judge held up one finger and said, "The DA is a Republican!"
@@GilmerJohn The DA looks a lot like Thomas Dewey, the Republican governor of New York at the time the film was made (and former DA in NY county). Dewey was also the GOP candidate for President in 1944 and 1948.
@@eugenedillenburg3329 That was intentional. See the IMDB
@@eugenedillenburg3329also the DA’s last name is Mara, the Mara family owned (and still owns) the NY Giants football team. Coincidence?
"My Daddy said he's real"
"Hearsay"
OBJECTION! TOO SAVAGE!
“Your honor, I’ll rephrase the question”. “Has your father ever told you Santa exists?” 😉🤣
Overruled. The answer relates to the witness's state of mind, not being used to assert the truth or veracity in the matter.
As a practicing attorney for over 42+ years (now retired), I've always maintained that the REAL MIRACLE had not been that Santa Claus came to New York and worked at Macy's, but rather that his attorney, Mr. Dayley, walked into the Judge's office less than a week before Christmas, requested a formal competency hearing for his client, and promptly received a setting on that competency hearing to commence the following Monday, December 23, and conclude late the next afternoon, Christmas Eve.
hahahahahaha. Well, it was 1946.
@@danielgregg2530 in the 90's version, it was a similar timeline 😅
So this also makes me wonder how law was practiced back then. Aside from movie magic reality whatever stuff, do we know how the law was actually practiced back then? That would be really cool and interesting to find out too! 😊
@@MissingRaptorI thought it was cool how they made that one kind of timeless and gave it a very 50s kind of look in a lot of different ways!
@@MissingRaptor I boycott that one on the principle that this one is too good to trifle with with a remake.
Spongebob Squarepants episode "Krabs vs. Plankton" when Plankton plans and succeeds to fake an injury inside the Krusty Krab then sues Mr. Krabs.
And/or
Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy episode "Keeper of the Reaper" when Billy and Mandy go to court for custody of Grim.
I was thinking about this one.
1000% yes to both of these
If I could “love” this comment, I would ^o^ yes please to both!!!
Workers compensation claim, not a lawsuit.
Lylnne Nolte plankton doesn’t work for Krabs
Funny story, this video would have come out on the day after Thanksgiving, but a certain movie studio made a copyright claim on it and blocked it. Merry friggin Xmas! But thankfully they released their claim pretty quick. A holiday miracle!
Objection- hearsay lets see some evidence! No, but seriously lots of people get bullied and intimidated into not fighting for their fair use. I was threatened for posting a video that comments on a public town meeting of a police chief fighting corruption- recorded by a municipally owned television station created in the purposes of sharing government news.
I, of course, fought it- I almost wish they tried to force me to take it down again, but not everyone understands their rights.
Every time a copyright hold is released, an angel gets their wings.
I cannot imagine what they were thinking. Sending out a copyright on a literal lawyer/TH-camr, and expecting it to go well? Yikes..
Well that sucks. But it does bring forth a suggestion, would you be interested in collaborating with YT's favourite copyright attorney, Leonard French, on a fictional or non-fictional US intellectual Property court case?
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is a fan of both channels :D
I thought the 1947 version of "Miracle on 34th St" would be public domain by now. It was released 71 years ago...
I've genuinely never laughed so hard at a video's cold open in my entire life.
Objection: In the 1940s, mental illness was much less understood, sufferers were much more maligned, and eccentricities were much less tolerated than present day. As a result, jurors of the day may have believed the burden of proof to be satisfied just by getting a person on the stand to declare himself Santa Claus under oath. Under that context, the defense’s actions seem more intelligent. They know they have to convince the jury that it isn’t crazy to believe in Santa Claus.
The history of mental illness in law is a very sad affair. I know you said you aren’t familiar with mental illness law, but look up the history of it sometime if you have a chance, it is really bad. Allen Turing off the top of my head (though he was under UK law.)
As always, love your show. Thank you for producing it. Also, going to keep recommending Bridge of Spies
Alan Turing was convicted of having an affair with a man so he was order to either have jail time or to be chemically castrated. He chose the latter. He got worse than being ordered to have mental treatment. They made it physically impossible for him to continue having sexual relations.
The US mental health hospitalization system didn't really change until the 80s. I've heard stories from family friends about Foxborough State Hospital (yes, THAT Foxborough that the New England Patriots play in), which to an extent was administered somewhat like a prison complete with anonymous burial markers. I've been told that there are the remains of someone who died of typhus buried somewhere on the premises, although I do not know if they were ever exhumed, and the location has since been redeveloped to apartments or condos with a shopping center. Bet the folks who go over to Waxy O'Connor's Irish Pub after the game don't know what the area used to be.
(Fun fact: Foxborough State Hospital was one of several mental hospitals in Massachusetts. One of its sister institutions, Danvers State Hospital, went on to inspire H.P. Lovecraft in his writing about Arkham Asylum, which in turn inspired the Batman universe Arkham Asylum.)
@@VampByDay Even still, I didn't think extramarital affairs were actually illegal (at least just for the laws of man), just seriously frowned upon.
EDIT: Then again, this is the 1940s we're talking about, when getting a divorce was taboo.
@@JaelinBezel IIRC in many US states its still illegal but its considered a blue law now
I live in Missouri @@SonicsniperV7
I love this movie, because it has a special place in my heart... My dad and I actually were in a community theater production of this movie. Fittingly, he was Thomas Mara (the lawyer) and I was cast as the kiddo, Tommy. It was an experience I won't forget, it was memorable and fun.
"That's a positive ID."
Dang man, I laughed so hard at that one.
I love it when people crush the joy of Christmas with cold hard facts, really warms the cockles of my heart.
Conor Murphy this comment made me choke in my coffee lol
All the way down to the sub cockle region... Some say... Even in the colon.
QuiznosBear Nice catch
Children should learn the world is harsh young so they arent brats
@@kaiseremotion854 How does the conclusion follow from the premise?
Objection:
At 22:52 you’ve used a pencil to make red pen marks on the exam sheet. Your honor I move to reopen the Salem witch trials.
Maybe we should! :)
I 2nd that motion
@@Dombomb104 I concur!
Motion denied. Wicca is a recognized religion. The court may not interfere with religious practices.
@@professorroundbottom438 Only applicable if the defendants actually profess to follow that religion.
"Because my daddy told me so, didn't you daddy?"
"Hearsay"
Okay, I laughed at that way harder than I should have, lol.
Funniest legal line in this movie:
Judge: Tommy, you do know the difference between the truth and a lie, do you?
Tommy: Gosh, everyone knows you shouldn't tell a lie, especially in court!
Everyone but Santa: *sweating nervously*
Guess one of his playmates wasn't named donny trump . . .
@@danielgregg2530or those accusing him😐🫵
Santa: "Now wait just a minute!"
Lawyer: "Trespassing."
Hahahaha!!! I cracked up so hard at "Enjoys living life on Hard Mode"
Bravo sir
My great-grandfather won an Oscar for writing this story and I'm so excited to see a video on it!
It is a really nice piece of writing. It is the very first movie I ever saw where I really ever found myself thinking about the quality of the writing.
Best lawyer movie ever made
Objection. Has the Legal Eagle researched and given the penalties for the assault and other charges in 1947? Mr. Kringle cannot be sentenced under laws that weren't on the books during the events of Miracle on Thirty- Fourth Street.
Good point. I was thinking that myself.
Unless they retroactively make up laws to suit agendas. Seems to happen in New York, with complicit endorsement of it's whole establishment.
That is a common mistake with this lawyer. He uses laws and precedent that haven't happened yet.
@@okjoe5561 all attorneys do that $hit. Use laws that don't apply when ones that do are already on the books & can win their client's case in one shot,not multiple expensive court appearances. Like the unrepealed original 13th article(amendment) of the Bill of Rights. I could link you to my current findings on that topic if you want?
@@okjoe5561 To be honest, I think it's less a mistake, and more so just going by ease of current legal status.
LegalEagle, Could you do the court case in the movie: "Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer"?
^^^As silly as the movie itself is, nearly the entire final 3rd act of the movie is a court-case involving the potentiality to convict Santa of kidnapping and attempted-murder! I'd be curious your thoughts on those proceedings...
I second the motion
I third this notion. Please and thank you, LegalEagle.
I fourth on this
A 5th of the motion. #Iheardiscomusic 😅
I sixth in this notion.
Question: have you EVER worked in retail during the holidays? I'd say every department store should have a therapist on their payroll, especially during that time of the year.
100% people treating the shop like it's s only for them. The shop shuts for one day. I will always advise always buy your stuff For Christmas 2 weeks before. Everyone thinks I'll go on Christmas eve.
its a such a terrible time of year
As a person who works in retail,l can say you are quite right.
I'd like to see Daredevil get critiqued! (the Netflix series, not the movie)
izuna77 YES
Ohhh! Yeah!!
Objection the movie
He really does not spend much time in court during the show, the Punisher Trial might be the best case, however. Although I would love to see LegalEagle count off all the laws Matt breaks to gather information.
Yes, that would be interesting!!
The best moment in this movie that every lawyer or budding lawyer should pay attention to is when Charlie Halloran (played by William Frawley), sitting in the court uses facial expressions to subtly chide Judge Henry X. Harper ([played by Gene Lockhart) when he veers in the prosecution's direction, and then later gives the Judge a knowing wink and a nod when he rules more favorably for defendant Kris Kringle (played by Edmund Gwenn). In other words, business and politics are directing the legal decisions being made in this case, rather than the merits of the evidence, just like too often happens in real life. This is a lesson that all attorneys and budding attorneys can appreciate.
Well, sometimes.
If there is one thing Ive taken away from this, it's "The bailiff will tackle you"
I wonder how people has he seen being tackled by bailiffs.
@@seneca983 Being a bailiff is probably very boring, I bet they are all just itching for an opportunity to tackle someone.
@@MaurogDark
I don't know if itching is the word I'd use
Bailiffs! Defenders of JUSTICE, ever vigilant and weighing metric tons!
Objection you didn’t bring up the fact that this guy was pretending to be a psychologist without a license isn’t that illegal.
And the fact that probably anyone would have wanted to hit him after what he said
Did you need a license in 1947? And how do we know he didn't have a license tp practice?
Also, I think it's only therapists who need licenses...not sure that someone who administers and analyzes standardized tests needs one.
You know, if you are looking at classic movies, how about you evaluate "To Kill a Mockingbird." Is Atticus Finch really the paragon of lawyers?
And Witness for the Prosecution.
Summer O'Neal I know a reviewer ( Mick LaSalle) who dislikes the movie based on Atticus' very poor defense strategy. So I second the motion.
Is Henry Drummond?
Real Lawyer destroys christmas. :D
Only small parts of Christmas.
:( Probably true
Objection! He saved christmas.
with FACTS and LOGIC
I think he demonstrated that he would have had the case dismissed way earlier
"I thought if you were naughty you got a lump of coal." Well, he got a lump part at least. :p
This was my exact thought when he said that
Coal was the name of the umbrella...
I know I'm SUPER late, but I just want to say I've been binge watching this channel, and I love the "LE" for legaleagle on the stockings😂
From one real lawyer to another - this is the cutest thing I’ve ever seen. Sharing this legal take on our family’s favourite Christmas classic with my daughter who is as tickled as I am. What a gift. Thank you! 🎁
Objection, you seem to use the terms Psychologist and Psychiatrist interchangeably. They are very different disciplines with different goals.
Thanks
And AFAIK very different legal rights and obligations.
Objection: The "hard end of an umbrella" is called the "ferrule."
You know, I never thought I'd be seeing a lawyer explaining why Santa Claus committed assault.
I love this channel.
I recommend something to react to. The bee movie court Scene. Let the sea of memes flow
It's on the list.
@@LegalEagle How about Harvey Birdman: Attorney At Law?
Actually yes, Harvey Birdman would be an excellent series to cover, also hell yes the Bee Movie scene!
So you like jazz ...
The Bee movie reminds me... The finale finale of Seinfeld would be great too
Also: haha, what about the binding legal nature of The Santa Clause? The question of what it means to BE someone is approached from a very different angle ;)
I stopped at 0:11 to LOL "How are you so sure there is a Santa Clause?" "Because my daddy told me so...didn't you daddy?" "HERESAY!" LOL
Lawyers kill Christmas cheer, don’t they ;)
I object to the comment "terrible Santa Claus"; you haven't established any foundation for what makes a good Santa
@monokhem Rosy cheeks, twinkle in his eye, large midsection indicative of overindulgence. I don't drunken appearance and Santa are mutually exclusive.
I've got a new channel to obsess over. Not in law school and my experiences with lawyers haven't been good ones, but I like you & this channel a lot. Great job!
Thank God Santa has Diplomatic immunity as the ambassador from the North Pole,The nation of Elves.
"get out of the well man, the bailiff will tackle you" HA! I watched this for the first time the other day, and I remembered you'd done a video on it, when I saw this bit I thought the same thing and wanted to watch this video to see if I was right.
Nailed it.
0:44 "I will pin the comment that best thinks like a lawyer" **pins his own comment** you've got a bit of an ego there mister lawyer.
I saw that too. Seems the carrot for the viewers is unreachable.
Or the trier of fact is partial?
GO USPS SAVE OUR POSTAL SERVICE
I nominate my comment... this isn't helping is it?
I know I'm a bit late, but you mention the Supremacy Clause and the post office. It turns out, some of my relatives did work in the Post Office and USPS, so I got to learn quite a bit about it: Up until 1970, the Post Office Department carried a very different legal weight than today's USPS. The postmaster who would have had to authorize such mail movement was a presidential appointee and confirmed by the Senate, giving them much of the legal authority of the executive branch, just as if today the US Attorney General's office stated that a man was Santa Clause.
"Fred Gailey: Enjoys living life on *Hard Mode* "
I love it. XD
Objection! The previous thumbnail for this video was more aesthetically appealing! Love what you do, keep up the good work!
This is a great way to explain, complex legal issues, in a entertaining way
Can't wait,to see the next one
4:07 Children get a lump of coal, adults get a lump of pain!
These dark and gritty reboots are getting out of hand!
To be fair, the other famous myth about Saint Nick is that he slapped a guy upside the head with his dead arm at the Council of Nicea, so it's not like this is without precedence.
@@nomisunrider6472 objection! This is Kris Kringle, not Saint Nick.
@@MuttFitness Kris Kringle is Saint Nick, he has a lot of nicknames. Also in many traditions Santa (which is English screwing up Saint in another language) does inflict corporal punishment, through figures like Black Tom (a dark elf or dwarf who rode along with him, gave out coal and occasionally beat children or tied them up in his sack) or the Krampus.
Well _that's_ an everyday thing for adults! 😉
Giving the thumbs up just because you said you would represent Santa pro bono.
Objection. Your Honor... Assumes facts not in evidence. While 2nd Degree Assault might have been committed, New York State considers justification in such cases. One is permitted to defend one's self or others. The case can be made that the defendant was doing both, as a person, impersonating a licenced medical professional was forcing a person (who may possibly be demonstrated to have a disability) to participate in sham Psychiatic analysis under duress (the fear of loss of employment).
That same fear may be shown to be a fight or flight response in what may be reasonably described as elder abuse or at least descrimination, with comparable fear of loss of employment and/or freedom. This fear is justified by the actual termination of employment and arrest for Psychological Evaluation and subsequent hearing to determine sanity, while at risk for indefinite institutionalisation.
Not withstanding that, the alleged assault was unwitnessed and there was no demonstrated injury and no attempt to seek medical care for such alleged injury.
As it was unwitnessed, it is a case of "he said, she said". If greater benefit of the doubt should be assigned, it should go to the benevolent elderly gentleman and not the demonstrated abuser of the disavantaged.
In order to bring the assault charge, a warrant would have to have been sworn out and this was not done, further demonstrating the lack of a prosecutable offence.
The most that could be made of it is a charge of harassment, which could be shown as justifiable on the same grounds or as a response to comparable as like "mutual combat".
As there is no foundation I would like to renew my motion to dismiss, with prejudice.
William Degnan agreed. The fact is that the gentleman is a conman who has committed a series of crimes. He got assaulted becuase he got called out on being a criminal and the elderly man clearly was caring for the well being of everyone else being impacted by this criminal.
Which one of them is the "she"?
@@BaalsMistress you're not allowed to ask that question... kindly remember this is current year!
@monokhen Unless you count the film crew -- unwitnessed. We witness the sharp rebuke because we watch the movie. But other characters only witness the staged aftermath.
Admitted or not, I stand by my argument. It's not prosecutable and if it is, it's justifiable.
In fairness, Groucho Marx could have been called as a rebuttal witness. He said there's no such thing as a sanity clause.
I commented in full elsewhere, but it would be easy to prosecute Kringle for Assault in the Second Degree. All the prosecution would need to do was prove that Kringle wanted to hurt--that is: "cause substantial pain" to--the psychologist (not psychiatrist). This is due to the definitions of "dangerous instrument" and "physical injury" in NY Penal Law 10. The only way the defense would have a chance would be if they argued that the attack never took place at all. Assuming there were no witnesses (we don't see that angle during the assault), everything would hinge on whether or not there was any evidence of the attack, such as a bruise or swelling, and then only *if* the defense was able to keep Kringle from admitting to the crime.
A psychologist is not a medical professional in most cases, and can act as a therapist without a medical license, so legally, the assault victim is not committing any kind of illegal or fraudulent act in giving unofficial diagnoses to his clients. Kringle could argue that basing his employment status on such unofficial diagnoses is unfair, but that would be a complaint against the store management, and it would not justify assault with a deadly weapon on the professional performing his (completely legal) job.
"It's a holiday classic. Sue me."
Amazing xD
Objection. Lawsuits cannot be filed over a difference in subjective opinions.
This is just an outstanding channel. Everyone needs to be more literate about the law; the College Board (which designs the SAT and A.P. curricula) has just announced a revamped emphasis on constitutional literacy as a primary goal of its programming. This is great! As a non-lawyer, I LOVE getting the opinion of someone without skin in the game on the quality of the questioning during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, or representations of the deposition process in films like The Social Network, or the economics of independent law practices in A Time to Kill. This is such a great public service-and you’re a great communicator!! kudos, kudos, kudos. Channels like this will inspire young people to be lawyers for the BEST reasons-because of the fascination built in to any exploration of the intersection of the truth and the law. Get young people watching this!!!
Objection! You say that you love this movie _despite_ being a cynical person, but I love it _because_ it is such a cynical movie! From the judge and the DA, to Mr. Macy and Mr. Gimbel, everyone besides the main characters is motivated by selfish calculation (and so are Doris and Fred at first). My favourite scenes are the ones where the characters discuss their motivations, and you can see how they're all being secretly manipulated by Kris to do what he wants, while they all think that they're just doing what they want.
And amazingly for a movie about Santa Claus, it is firmly agnostic about him! No kids get any presents that their parents didn't buy; there are no sightings of flying reindeer or elves; and even the court's decision means nothing, because we have seen why everybody (from the postal administrators to the judge) did what they did, and it was all motivated by self interest, not truth. The movie makes you _want_ to believe, and Kris's ability to control the people around him while appearing perfectly innocent is nothing short of miraculous, but there is no hard evidence anywhere.
It is the perfect Christmas movie for a cynic like me!
I'd like to thank you for your comment. You've helped me understand why I can't stand this movie. Particularly: "It was all motivated by self-interest, not truth."
I don't think of myself as either cynical or idealistic. But when I watch a Christmas movie, I want it to be heartwarming. A court deciding that Santa is Santa, not because anyone was shown any persuasive evidence in the form of flying reindeer, a visit to the North Pole, or a gift that only magic could fulfill, but because of the irrelevant ulterior motives of self-interested people, is _not heartwarming._
Even _The Santa Clause,_ also a pretty cynical movie in some regards, eventually broke down and gave the skeptics a good reason to believe. _Miracle on 34th Street_ didn't even live up to its title. The titular "miracle" isn't one, because it's just an ordinary house that happens to be for sale. It's not like it materialized from the aether. At best, one could surmise that Kris _found_ the house - not a particularly miraculous feat.
@@NoriMori1992 I think the point of the movie (and the heartwarming part of it) isn't that magic somehow exists and that makes ppl act nicely, but rather that the "magic" of Christmas comes from everybody **wanting** to keep the wonder going and/or make their loved ones happy, and that's a sort of magic and wonder in itself. The DA concedes bc he wants his son to be happy and believe. The USPS sends the mail bc they think Kris' claims are fun and sweet (and quip about it being someone else's problem as a handy, practical excuse). In fact, most characters go along with things and make the impossible happen, a miraculous feat, bc they think Kris' claims are charming and harmless: Fred, the Home's doctor, hell even the main character ends up "believing" more in the **people** - Kris and Fred - more than the identity claim, and in the end that's the important thing anyway. Edit to sum up and conclude that, this movie basically is what Christmas actually is: everyone coming together to keep a fantastical story going as a way to celebrate a very real good in this world -- our care for each other. The world doesn't have to be magic to be wonderful. And that's far from a cynical takeaway.
You can't accuse a sweetheart of a guy like Fred of selfish calculation just because he wants to go out with Maureen O'Hara . . .
Objection!
It’s played for laughs on a Lawyer saving Santa, but didn’t great lawyers use loopholes and a good sense of humour to get the entity known as ‘Santa Claus’ a pilots license and the authority to enter US airspace?
How have we not yet seen a video about Philadelphia? Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington? Won TWO Oscars, a Golden Globe, and... an MTV Movie award... It made over 200 million dollars, and that was in the 90's. It is THE courtroom drama, do it!
been done on Matt Baum's culture cruise.
I believe the judge asked the defense if they wanted to continue because he thought the prosecution had already won after Kringle admitted he was Santa Claus, which proved he was crazy.
I think you're forgetting that THAT WAS actually Santa Claus, in which case, he's not crazy! LOL :-)
(I know... I'm picking nits again!)
He's not forgetting that. He's correctly stating (I believe) what the judge was implying at this part of the movie. A point which the video seems to miss.
@@TheKeck Maybe I misunderstood... my apologies if I did! ...and yes, but unless you want L. E. to do a two and a half hour video, he's going to skip over parts, but who hasn't seen this movie?!? LOL As a matter of fact, I watched this movie again after this video reminded me of it! Such a wonderful classic! I have to see if I have the other one in my collection... I'm forgetting stuff a lot easier lately... Alzheimer's sucks! :-)
I object sir, every time you say someone needs to get out of the well of the court, because the bailiff will tackle them they never do. I am very disappointed, I want to see the 10 top best bailiff tackles now.
“It was a positive ID.” This line, along with the situation and his facial expression, made me actually snort with laughter for the first time in my life 🤣🤣🤣
Can I recommend doing Married...With Children Season 3 Episode 8 "I'll See You In Court"? I think either you'll enjoy it or you'll facepalm yourself into a coma.
@Looking For Bigfoot Yes. And they play the tapes in court to the jury.
@Looking For Bigfoot I loved part where the jury applauds the Rhoades tape
Amazing idea, Leagle Eagle please make it happen!
Your honor this “Santa clause” is a criminal he flies though restricted air space on his “sleigh” which flies faster than the speed of light. He needs to be brought to justice
he also illegally trespasses into peoples homes
"It's a holiday classic! Sue me."
Objection!
We can't sue you without legal ground, since that would take months of time, and there is no true grounds for a suit as you are merely expressing your opinion (exercising your first amendment rights) and not bapping us with umbrellas.
You can't sue him with legal grounds, but you could still sue him.
So, I've watched a couple videos of yours because they keep popping up in my recommend. A few laughs here and there, some definite knowledge gained. But my first real, hard laugh came from the 'Enjoys living on Hard Mode' caption came up. That was hilarious.
I would love for you to do the 94 remake version!!! Be a great Christmas gift for all of us!
I have to say that William Frawley's practical political view on deciding against Kris Kringle and how it will make merchants, kids, and parents hate him at Christmas time is one of the finest moments of legal/political logic in any film. As is Gene Lockhart's sad little realization he can't depend on the D.A. supporting him - he's in the opposition party.
Bravo!
Yeah, Santa's definitely going to need a lawyer when he's caught during one of his break-ins.
I love watching your videos, I hopefully want to become a lawyer some day, and your videos are extremely helpful!
Cool!
Altho' you might want to skip the 'Is Law School for You?' video. :/
I enjoy your videos from the first few I've seen. Not just the legal purview, but the amusing side comments on the action.
Wonderfully presented! And it's nice to know that, despite a few technical missteps (which simply built up the dramatic fun), it was fairly accurate. I like!
_"It's a holiday classic! Sue me."_ ...Coming from a _lawyer..._
...I see what you did there.
Could you do Legally Blonde? Please? ^_^
I don't know why that hasn't happened yet
While we’re on the Christmas season, why not Grandma got ran over by a reindeer, that movie had a court case.
Yes. And the kangaroo kourt in Animal House. "Pre-Med, Pre-Law. What's the difference?"
I'm pretty sure he already did.
@@brandonlyon730 Ah, excellent choice! :D It actually has a rather important legal concept to explore too! Namely that the titular grandma was presumed dead and her belongings were set to be distributed to surviving family members. Which was a rather important matter in the film since some of them had very different ideas as to what the property should be used for. Which resulted in her grandchildren hunting down Santa to recover their grandma and prove she wasn't really dead. Obviously certain parts of the film are pure fantasy, but I imagine a similar scenario could happen without invoking magic.
"Objection !* (I'll try my best to write in english ^^) the "I think therefore I am" from René Descartes doesn't mean that ! The cartesian thinking of Descartes was how to logically proof you exist and that you are not in a kind of Matrix where an evil genie is tricking your senses. It's not the object of thinking that is important (to be or not to be santa claus) but the very fact of thinking (the fact that I think proves that I exist. I think, therefore I am).
Best wishes from Switzerland :) [I'm a political sociology student, and I just discovered your channel. I really like it, it's really light-hearted and interesting, thank you for your work !]
You are correct here
new viewer here. love what you do. the one tiny miniscule issue I got about the video is the volume imbalancement. on part is louder than the other. its gets kind of annoying sometimes but I really do love what you're doing.
I have no idea why you don't have more view on these videos. You're entertaining as heck.
OBJECTION: Hearsay - You keep saying that the bailiff will tackle you if you enter the well. The question must be asked; have you ever seen this personally or are you repeating advice you've been given by others? (Also, check out the Australian show Rake if ever you feel like doing international shows. Lots of courtroom and it's also extremely funny.)
@monokhem Damn, hadn't thought of that. Excellent point. But really, I just want to hear the cool story of a lawyer being clotheslined! :-)
@@jimbass1664, be the change you want to see in the world!
@@h3lblad3 Always try to. :-)
Related but admittedly spurious: My mother was a judge’s administrative assistant and a pushy lawyer after leaving the judge’s chambers returned about 15 minutes later, during which time the judge had started working on something else, and proceeded to step over the gate without being invited across by the judge or my mom because he “just wanted to tell the judge something really quickly.” My mom, as trained, hit the silent alarm under her desk and this lawyer was tackled moments later by sheriff’s deputies.
@@jsly621 Nice! Needs more clothesline! :-)
Well damn that kid scene was hilarious. Talks to his dad like the role got reversed.
Objection! Tommy should not have been on the stand in the first place. You can't have witnesses sitting in on the trial before they take the stand!
They also shouldn’t be in any way be related or directly known by the prosecution as this could lead to conflicts of interest.
@@brandonlyon730 Wouldn't Tommy being a minor child also be an issue? Can a parent intervene in a dependent child's subpeona?
not necessarily. You can move to exclude a witness from the court room, but sometimes the witness will be permitted to stay in the courtroom. Like experts are allowed to sit in on others testimony, and used that as basis for their own testimony. I do not know New York's Evidence code, but what I have stated above is the same under the federal rules of evidence, and the california evidence code. I assume NY is very similar.
@@kylehofmeister2109 Hmmm.... Interesting. I think in this case, Tommy, despite being a child, is an expert witness testifying on the topic of Santa Claus.
Isn’t it still a big conflict of interest to involve any family member from either prosecution or defender. If he had to be their wouldn’t they need to change the prosecutor first before he could be a witness?
Good day Attorney. I'm from Philippines and I like your videos. It gives me more knowledge about the American Law. Please continue uploading videos and more powers to you.
actually your videos (which I've watched 4 so far, actually really good and thought provoking) is really showing me as a curious person that the world needs more lawyers. The a practicing attorney can make more of a difference than 100 beat cops. Which ironically I found out that there is no correlation of a increased police presence reducing crime. It actually doesn't reduce crime at all. Anyways you have just earned yourself another subscriber.
Objection: Chris Cringle is a citizen of the North Pole. Not the US.
He has his own Postal Code H0H 0H0.
As far as I know the Prime Minister is the only other person with his own Postal Code.
He has dual citizenship.
Overruled: Saint Nicholas was a citizen of Turkey. Likewise, Santa Claus would be as well, despite living overseas.
And it's Kris Kringle.
Overruled! North Pole is a town in Alaska, and Alaska is in fact part of the United States
OBJECTION!
Though taking on an affirmative burden of proof would be a foolish move by any defense attorney, in this particular case, I don’t think it was as devastating a move as you make it out to be.
The prosecution has already made the mistake of framing the argument around whether or not the defendant is Santa Claus, as opposed to the simpler and more easily proven assertion that he is a danger to those around him. Prosecution should have said, “he assaulted a coworker who said he wasn’t magic,” and kicked back.
However, that’s not what the state did. Once the prosecution chose to rest, the defense had the opportunity to keep the trial in the news and make sure it played out as an emotional question about belief and “Christmas spirit.”
Besides, in that framing, there was little chance of being seen as a failure for a loss. He either proves in court that Santa Claus is real or he doesn’t. Either way, he’s the guy who defended Santa. The whole thing was just about getting press. So opting to not mount a defense may have been a better legal move, but not a better political/career move.
Wouldn't the prosecution have to also prove that the assault was the result of mental illness?
18:40 Objection: Can a subpoenaed witness sit in the courtroom watching the proceedings before they testify?
Love your channel. Such a brilliant idea to answer these questions especially about a movie people have pondered for decades.
Beautiful episode
Objection defense was clearly using the prosecutors own son to attempt to have them drop the case instead of going for a directed verdict therefore if Santa were to be found guilty he'd have been able to appeal on the grounds that his lawyer didn't provide the best possible defense.
Objection: Lawyers can't overrule or sustain my post, only judges can.
Based on googling, most (but not all) judges in the US are lawyers.
But not all lawyers are judges :3
Over-ruled: LegalEagle is the defacto-Judge of this channel, and thus has the power to overrule or sustain posts.
Me on the other hand, not even a lawyer so of course I can't :-p
Sounds like someone wants to get tackled by the bailiff.
You should do a Bethesda episode, talking about all the issues with the false advertising and class action.
The look of pure, dare I say, almost childish delight in DJ's eyes as he says "You have to think like a lawyer". This is passion for one's profession!
These shows remind me of the bar exam essay portion from more than 30 years ago. We called it toe tagging where you try to identify all the possible crimes or torts and then all the procedures we would have to deal with while working the case.
How cute are those L and E stockings ?
Super cute.
My wife is unhappy you don't have any Perry Mason. She thinks you are intimidated. (But mostly she just wants to see what you have to say about her favorite show)
There'd probably be a lot of breaches of disclosure
Please do the trial in Bee Movie next
*THE CONTRACT IS SEALED*
"dont talk about the case in front of the kid"
*proceeds to talk about the case in front of the kid*
"Cigar in court, those were the 'bad old days. "
Objection; smokers are people too.
And, at the time, smoking, and cigars in particular, was more socially accepted.
i would love to see you react to the court proceedings in the movie to kill a mockingbird please
Tyler Ash
SECOND! I second that motion!
(...Yes, your honor. I am aware that is more civic / board meeting than legal- courtroom phraseology. I got a little over-excited.)
I was in fact just about to make the same proposal; only, as yet, I am ignorant of the formal procedure to submit such a request.
(...Please?)
23:39 *i object to your BAD ADVICE* ... never invite anyone to sue you!!
Please react to the Seinfeld finale.
Are there lawyers?
I'd love to see it too. The whole series finale of Seinfeld has the group put on trial for not calling for help during a mugging. The prosecution puts on a parade witnesses who've been wronged by the group in some way.
@@LegalEagle There's a parody of Johnnie Cochran
@@redwaytoo now that I think of it, I'd like to see @legaleagle's reactions to the rest of the Jackie Chiles episodes. not necessarily courtroom but legal arguments being presented nonetheless.
@@LegalEagle You should do every Jackie Chiles episode. He's the Johnnie Cochran parody character.
Great series! Super interesting! Not sure if anyone has suggested The Devil's Advocate maybe? I dunno... Thanks for great content!
The Alleged Battery by Kris Kringle in Miracle on 34th Street
Issue: Whether the alleged act by Kris Kringle (a light tap on the head with a cane) constitutes battery under the legal standards of the 1940s, and whether applying modern battery laws retroactively would misrepresent the legal framework of that era.
Facts:
Kris Kringle, portrayed as the real Santa Claus, is accused of committing battery against Granville Sawyer, a store psychiatrist, in the 1947 film Miracle on 34th Street. The alleged act involved Kringle tapping Sawyer on the head with his cane in a moment of frustration, with no evidence of injury or significant harm.
Legal Standards in the 1940s:
In the 1940s, battery was defined as intentional, harmful, or offensive physical contact without consent. The law distinguished between:
1. Misdemeanor Battery: Minor physical contact causing little to no harm. Penalties included small fines (under $100) or brief incarceration (up to six months). Many cases were dismissed as trivial.
2. Felony Battery: Physical contact resulting in significant injury or involving aggravating factors (e.g., use of a weapon). Penalties ranged from 1 to 10 years in prison and higher fines.
Battery cases required intent to cause harm or offensive contact, and the focus was on tangible physical injury. Psychological or emotional harm was not commonly considered.
Modern Battery Laws:
Today, battery laws are more detailed and stratified:
1. Simple Battery: Minor harm or offensive contact, often resulting in misdemeanor charges.
2. Aggravated Battery: Severe injury or the use of a weapon, typically charged as a felony.
3. Psychological Harm: Modern interpretations allow claims of emotional distress as part of civil battery or enhanced criminal charges.
Penalties are far more nuanced, reflecting degrees of harm, intent, and aggravating factors. Protected classes (e.g., children, elderly) and the presence of weapons also elevate charges.
Argument:
The allegation that Kris Kringle committed battery should be evaluated under 1940s legal standards, not modern interpretations. Applying today’s nuanced framework retroactively misrepresents the legal context of the time:
1. Lack of Injury or Harm:
The alleged act involved minimal contact with no evidence of injury or harm. Under 1940s law, this would likely be classified as a trivial misdemeanor, if actionable at all. The principle of de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles) would apply, and the case could be dismissed.
2. Intent:
Kringle’s action lacked intent to cause harm. The tap was a moment of frustration, not malice, further diminishing its severity under 1940s standards.
3. Penalties:
If charged, Kringle would face, at most, a small fine or a formal reprimand. Claims of psychological harm, which might elevate the case today, were not recognized in 1940s battery law.
4. Modern Misinterpretation:
A lawyer applying today’s battery laws might argue for claims of emotional harm or attempt to classify the act as “simple battery.” However, these interpretations rely on legal developments that did not exist in the 1940s, including greater emphasis on emotional and psychological impacts. Such an argument ignores the simpler framework of the era, where physical harm was the primary consideration.
Conclusion:
Under the legal standards of the 1940s, Kris Kringle’s actions would not rise to the level of significant battery. The case, if pursued, would likely have been dismissed or result in only minor penalties. Any attempt to apply modern battery laws retroactively misrepresents the historical legal context and exaggerates the severity of the incident. A proper analysis must rely on the simpler definitions and penalties of the time, not today’s more nuanced and expansive legal framework.
This brief highlights how a modern interpretation would lead to an inaccurate conclusion, emphasizing the importance of analyzing the case through the lens of 1940s law.
Speaking of mythological characters in court cases, you should review "Suing the Devil". It's a great movie with some great actors.
Daniel Webster?
He has a firm sense of justice, he wants to make the kids feel happy, he's non-biased on where the adults shop to get presents for the kids as long as the kids are happy. He's kind, he only raises his cane or umbrella when he senses a threat to the kids' sense of belief of him as well as the potential end of their childhoods.
19:39 The reason there was no cross-examination from Mara was because if you remember, Mara had already rested his case.
I love the lengthy hesitation when you said "who's going to save santa.........if not for the lawyers" Your Honour! The witness doesn't believe his own testimony!