Judge Scolds Defense Attorney Over Questioning of Shooting Victim
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- Without the presence of the jury, New Jersey Judge Stephen Taylor scolded defense attorney Edward Bilinkas over his questioning of shooting victim Lauren Kanarek.
Happening In Court:
Continued Cross Exam of Lauren Kanarek - Survived Shooting
A coach and former Olympic competitor in the equestrian sport of dressage is standing trial for shooting his student and firing at her fiancé on August 7, 2019. Michael Barisone, 57, has maintained self-defense.
Barisone faces two counts of attempted murder and two counts of second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose.
Authorities said he shot student-tenant Lauren Kanarek in the chest twice, and opened fire at her fiancé Rob Goodwin, but he missed. Barison had been trying to evict Kanarek from his farm in Long Valley, New Jersey, claiming that the couple threatened him. He even sued police, claiming they failed to investigate when he called 911 three times and that they lied in their reports.
To be sure, the dislike between him and his student was mutual. In fact, Kanarek voiced concerns for her safety.
“I’m being bullied by a 6’3” man,” she wrote on Facebook before the shooting in a now unavailable post, according to The New York Times. “Bullied to the point I’m afraid. It’s very complicated- I’m not sure of what I can say here- but it seems as if Safe Sport was created for exactly this reason.”
The SafeSport organization fields allegations of abuse in U.S. Olympic and Paralympic sports.
A judge dismissed Barisone’s lawsuit.
“Courts have held that a plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to have police investigate on their behalf, let alone do so to their satisfaction,” Superior Court Judge Louis Sceusi said, according to the Morris County outlet The Daily Record in November.
#MichaelBarisone #OlympicHorseTrainerShooting
Watch Law&Crime Network NOW on TH-camTV!
tv.youtube.com...
OTHER WAYS TO WATCH LAW&CRIME NETWORK IN YOUR AREA:
lawandcrime.co...
READ MORE GREAT ARTICLES FROM LAW&CRIME NETWORK HERE:
lawandcrime.com
SUBSCRIBE TO ALL OF Law&Crime Network TH-cam Channels:
Main Channel: / @lawandcrime
Channel B: / @lawandcrimeshorts
Channel C: / @lawandcrimetrials
Channel D / @lawandcrimebodycam
Who To Follow On Twitter:
@LawCrimeNetwork
@LawCrimeVerdict
@Cathy Russon
@AddiTCTrials
![[UNCUT] “บอสณวัฒน์” ลากไส้!! ใครหนุนหลัง "แม่ตั๊ก ป๋าเบียร์" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 30 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QlD7mU2KKRk/mqdefault.jpg)
This judge is a great judge. He knows exactly what the defense is trying to do..."suggest an alternate reality" to the jury with no evidence at all. Bravo.
Not his decision.
@@Nuttyirishman85 of course it is the judge’s decision whether or not to allow a question, as well as what evidence to allow. A judge has broad discretion to control the trial, and that includes counsel’s misbehavior, as for instance asking a question which introduces an excluded topic, attempting to introduce evidence or an inference for which there is no evidence. The judge was clear about that. If counsel continued to do so, the court could impose sanctions on counsel, or, if necessary, declare a mistrial.
@@longhwalee4760 I didn’t hear an objection for him to give his input. Just sit there and collect a check.
@@longhwalee4760 If the defence attorney was so bad then please tell me what the verdict was ? Sorry i did not hear you.
@@Bugsy0333 I never said the defense counsel was not competent, I said he was trying to put doubt before the jury by bringing in extraneous assertions unsupported by the evidence, according to the judge. The fact the defendant was acquitted could support the argument the defense poisoned the well with such extraneous issues. Trials are filled with such gamesmanship all the time.
Defense: “I object your honor”
Judge: “On what basis?
Defense: ”because it’s devastating to my case!”
Overuled!
Lol, reminds me of that one episode of "The Good Wife" Mrs Florrick was like "thank you very much, for that damaging testimony"
liar liar
@@davidrobb2772 Good call!
I've objected many times for that reason.
This is exactly why it’s so important to retain your right to remain silent and wait for lawyers to have the argument. A cop can easily ask a question like this, insinuating alternate theories and with no one to challenge it you can end up giving them grounds to cast doubt on your version of the story
Which is absolutely insidious mind you.
@@lucashall8761 oh absolutely
Absolutely
Cops always do that here in India. Even if they stop your car for a routine check, they'll ask horrible questions that you have no idea exist!
Very well put…so true….get things in perspective, not everything is against us, we just got take a good look.
I see his problem. He didn’t say “What if any” at the start of the question. That’s why it didn’t work!
"What if any" is not the cure-all.
-Judge A
This >
He‘s trying…
nope, his problem is he didn't pledge the $7M
@@danieln1161 😂😂😂😂
I like how the judge stops talking, waits until the lawyer starts to talk....then just talks right over him. He did that a few times. :)
I noticed that too. I wonder if that was intentional or reactive to what he thought/knew the lawyer was going to say. He was having none of it 😂
its a pretty cringe thing to do. Silencing opposition in any way, that is.
@@Kakerate2 he is NOT "silencing the opposition".
the DA is the opposition.
the Judge is "the Judge" . he holds no bias one way or the other. he is there to make sure both parties follow the spirit of the law and do NOT alter its meaning or interpretation or lead the jury down a garden path of misdirection and outright manufactured "truths" in the performance of their jobs.
"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." This guy was reaching to create alternative facts... which aren't facts. They are lies.
That didn't sit right with me, it's unnecessary humiliation in what's supposed to be a serious discussion. You either let the other person talk or you talk, you shouldn't be interrupting someone like that wether you agree or don't.
Shows some unprofessionalism and pettiness on the part pf the judge.
(not saying he is wrong in his points, just that that behavior specifically wasn't the best)
I love when judges get into it with attorneys
Me too 🍿
Always good to hear a sharp educated to his skill judge.. Schooling him factually with examples
My nose started bleeding while reading this. It's so barely strange and just a little wrong in the right places. But yeah, nice to have a good judge
Nice to see a well educated keep his cool suring the whole trial and come out with a not gulity plea due to reason of insanity.Mabye this Judge should go back to school and learn court room edictae.
@sean collins what is it
@sean collins like what does it show
They should all be top notch, but they aren’t. They’re mostly more biased than factual. Btw, this is only one portion of one trial in this judge’s career. While I’m pleased to see him act accordingly to his profession, I can’t say he’s a fair, or even good, judge. He may be, but this clip doesn’t give enough details to prove either way. His bias could have led him to use this argument, this time, but ignore it in another case. We don’t know.
I cannot believe he keeps challenging the judge... where does he think this is going to go?
Mistrial? Casting doubt upon the judge for appeal?
Two words: Billable hours.
I can't believe the judge allows him to keep challenging. He's coming close to contempt of court. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't happen in the UK.
@@MrPbhuh Defense attorney CANNOT create a mistrial for something he or his client does.
I'd go to the judicial Qualifications Commission. probably won't get a Valentine from the Judge but can put a God Boss Judge in deep do do!
No bias here. Simply procedure. You cannot ask a witness to speculate on facts not already in evidence.
I'm honestly surprised the judge even argued with him, and not simply overruled the objection and moved on.
@@raven75257
Yep, there was plenty of grounds to simply overrule and when the scumbag lawyer argues, sanction him.
Anyone who's ever seen a courtroom drama has heard the phrase 'assumes facts not in evidence'...it's always wild to see professional attorneys pretend they don't understand this.
This lawyer is almost suggesting the shooting wasn't as bad as she made it seem. Listen to the doctors testimony today momo
@Unbroken Not smoke... lol
How many hours do u work in a week?
@Unbroken Lawyers Lie for a living.
Well she lived so it wasn't that bad.
@@melissarundt5547 Oh good then you won’t mind getting shot as long as you live then, right? You’re not too smart are you?
This clip should be used by every law teacher in the world. This is what every judge in the world should be. This is justice.
Interrupting a lawyer every time they begin to speak and talk over them is how every judge should be?
@@anti-ethniccleansing465 I'm not sure what the context is, but isn't the judge establishing that you have to ask questions in a logical sequence?
@@anti-ethniccleansing465 I think Captain Obvious would be a better alias than that, cmon man who isn’t
@@NobleAbsinthe
If you don’t know what my comment means, and then you shouldn’t embarrass yourself by responding, as it only proves you don’t get it.
@@7XHARDER
Huh?? Btw, I see you’re new in these parts. Fancy that.
The judge is so calm yet thoughtful and respectful of the situation.
This lawyer has really been struggling with the law. He couldn't grasp hearsay and now he's having a hard time with foundation.
I’m not even a lawyer and while watching him, I scream out numerous objections for lack of foundation or here say.
@@chriscoop6852 when the prosecutor does it,. it's called impeaching the witness
@@ihatecrackhead yup
@@chriscoop6852 lawyers are allowed to forward alternate outcomes or alternate interpretations of facts. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt means I’m allowed to input doubt, one way of doing that is by way of imputing alternate outcomes
He wins🏆....
"Judge, I can ask-"
Judge: *No you can't. No you CAN'T.*
That is some sass I can appreciate.
"That's my ruling, end of it", never works around my house. Does make my wife chuckle though.
As well it SHOULD!😏
If your lawyer ever uses the line "Well, you know."
You need to find a new lawyer...
Impressive judge: smart and articulate!
Wrong. This judge is biased.
Great judge. 💪
@@iancumming2522 biased towards lawful courtroom etiquette. I sure hope any judge i have is biased towards not lying in court
@@iancumming2522 How?
This is what manipulative people do, no matter what he said, they refuse to back down and try to force a fake reality onto others.
Yep, a typical narc move, and oh, like this attorney, talking over other people
Also, unless this jackass was a public defender, seeing that there wasn’t much to be discussed, he could have also continued to nag and nag and nag, knowing he had no leg to stand on-in an attempt to rack up the billable hours.
The fact that I don't know who you are talking about....
The defense attorney is just trying to keep his client of jail. Would you like your attorney to just give up?
Would you like yours to be in contempt for trying to defend you illegally?@@christopherwharton6022
The judge is absolutely correct. The attorney is trying to give doubt to the events through inappropriate questioning. It reminds me of the South Park episode where Cartman is running for class president against Wendy & asks her questions like “Did you pay people to vote for you?” Under the guise of ‘I am just asking questions’.
Lmao great episode
@@susang1107 I agree. I thought it was a good analogy.
Technically Cartman wasn't running for office. He was just hosting the morning announcements and covering Wendy's term as class president. But yes point well taken. They were actually mocking Glenn Beck's show from Fox News at the time.
You determined the judge was correct based on south park
@@vincentc2466 Way to oversimplify and completely miss the point. Try actually reading what OP wrote next time.
The defense attorney is wrong here. You have to use the facts of the case . You ( and the prosecutor) cannot introduce hypotheticals except in extremely rare instances. You may introduce different interpretations of the facts, mitigations, or argue it doesn’t meat the criteria for the charge.
Not wrong but seems cases often lack tangible evidence and we’re left with only "he said/she said" testimony. Of course this opens the door for victim shaming/blaming but when client charged with attempted murder, can’t blame defense attorney for trying.
True, friend of justice
@@gr8dvdhere is the situation: he said - she said is a myth from a legal perspective. First hand testimony under oath is considered direct evidence. If a defendant doesn’t take the stand, while you may not be he’d against him it leaves a gap in proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pretty meaty if you ask me Greg
@@202Redwings Maybe, but me thinks Google spellcheck has trouble recognition vegan content 😀
This judge isn’t having it..
Why is he arguing with the judge? Accept the decision and move on.
Might be a Jersey thing. 😉
What a fantastic judge, he explains everything, like a first grade teacher!
Theres a word: Bullheaded. The attorney can't get it through the skull.
Im not even an armchair lawyer, and Im like "huh?". Somebody changing the story doesnt mean you can change the story, without something concrete to fall back on, to fit your narrative. You might as well say Puff the Magic Dragon was at the scene.
b - b - but puff the magic dragon WAS at the scene!
Surely you meant Piff the Magic Dragon
but a magic dragon would have reason to harm that man therefore i can ask questions about his involvement
@@MrBenibomb lol
Can confirm. That nice dragon was at my house chilling that day, telling me the facts and what was wrong with the how to train your dragon movies.
That defense attorney is towing really really close to the contempt of court line. Also, did the defense attorney really just insinuate that the plaintiff's witnesses are committed perjury just because they have financial motive to lie???
A financial benefit is one of the most common reasons that people lie.
Yes but no one objected ,I'm not a lawyer but I think some1 has to if it's not up to the judge
@@danielbyrne5402 you don't object when they're digging their own grave.
@@Novarcharesk which isn't proof of guilt. Or else cops would just arrest the homeless for serial killings, can't believe the homeless because poor means liar who'll say anything to avoid convictions.
But its a plausible situation that people have lied before to sue
Less than one minute in, and the fact that that attorney is actually trying to defend his bs is beyond angering.
I cannot stand liars.
This is a friendly reminder that attorneys are held to an even higher standard than people who take an oath at the stand. That means an attorney needs evidence for what they say.
I would hate for that lawyer to ever become a judge. And that's all I'm going to say!
I love the “That’s my ruling. End of it”, which is another way of saying ‘Enough of this nonsense’. I love seeing attorneys get taken down a peg or two.
He should have said it much earlier.
"That's my ruling. End of it." If only all augurents could be settled that easily.
It's scary how pushy and consistent these attorneys are at trying to lie and make an imaginary situation to suit their prerogative. There should be a fine or consequential discipline at even the attempt of it.
They’ll probably get reported to the BAR for disciplinary measures
No it shouldn’t. Attorneys are vital to a proper justice system. It is their task to control whether justice is served properly.
@@arjanpetersen So it should be okay to make imaginary situations and put words in peoples mouths? Is setting up lies a proper way of serving justice?
Yes, absolutely.
It’s about checks and balances. The adversarial system we have of making individuals (judges, jurors, lawyers, etc) compete to accomplish against each other to accomplish what they need to has led to the best legal systems of all recorded history. Just because you don’t understand something and it seems bad at a glance, don’t assume that it is; assume that you’re ignorant, which you are.
That defense attorney just doesn't know when to stop digging himself into a hole.
Thank you, judge! This gives me hope.
We have become a country of "let's wing it", "cut corners"
This judge could have just nodded and leave it to the jury but he is putting logic into something that probably may may not have happened.
Respect to the Judge.
Ahh, a youtube law grad.
@@jlma-xc9ol Not a single point in their comment suggests they were trying to appear educated in law. They may have used too many words for you, here, I can summarize:
"Our country likes to take the easy route.
This judge didn't take the bait.
Respect to the judge."
There you go, partner.
Reading simplified, 101.
@@daviclemons6910 I'm happy that roaring sun has you in his corner, davi. But I can summarize reality for you; Attorneys sometimes have crappy clients/cases, and, since they have an ethical duty to zealously represent their clients and have to be quick on their feet (such as here, when they're examining or cross-examining a hostile witness), part of the job is making arguments about the rules of evidence. Sometimes the judge doesn't agree. Sometimes the lawyers are wrong. Sometimes the judges are wrong, which is why it helps to lodge exceptions to evidentiary rulings on the record, so the issue can be preserved for an appeal. Not saying this attorney was correct that he should have been able to ask this question, but certainly the youtube peanut gallery of the righteously indignant like OP and yourself should save the pearl clutching for something that they're qualified to have an opinion about. Have a nice day, buddy
It's fun to watch someone who allegedly is smart dig themselves into a hole.
Finally a Judge that Slams the Defense against the Wall for introducing things out of an “Alternative Universe!”
Great job judge!! We need more judges like you.
I object!
On what grounds?
These facts are really hurting my case!
"That's my ruling. End of it" - gotta love it
This is what happens when your mama only has $1000 for an attorney.
This goes to show you how corrupted Lawyers can be and Judges can see through their BS.
After OJ simpson all judge aware of chewbaca defense tatic . So they well prepare for this. You can see amberd vs deep trial . Her lawyer try to used same trick but backfire multiple time
Judges are lawyers too. It takes one to know one?
I wish this judge was placed on Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard, no way he'd allow 30,000 objections to every question to occur
I was thinking the same thing.
This loser judge is making the objections himself! He's doing the prosecutor's job for him!
I think the atty in Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard trial got scolded when they approach the bench. I am wondering if civil and criminal trials would be different.
The desperate attorney is making a hail-mary attempt because his defense is losing, to go down a line of questioning that has no factual evidence. It was the defense team's job to get any evidence entered into the case PRIOR to trial that supported this line of questioning if he wanted to go this route. He missed his opportunity, and thank God for Judge Taylor's denial and upholding the victim's right to a fair trial.
I've never seen a judge allow an attorney to be so argumentative and persistent in the courtroom. Most judges would have told him to shut up and sit down without allowing all the back-and-forth.
Wow. Even the attorney in my mock trial at a week long summer camp knew when to quit and stop arguing with the mock judge and we only briefly went over the rules the day before in class for an hour! How did this man even manage to pass the bar?
From my experience, some of the older attorneys are often not that great, at least anymore. Sure, they have plenty of experience and "war stories" so to speak, but they are more often than not just riding it out on sheer hubris and egotism at this point in their careers.
Night school, baby.
a degree cannot give common sense
@@curiousoddity it’s also worth pointing out but in a lot of cases they actually don’t go to trial. Probably 97% are in fact usually settled out of court with dealmaking. Obviously defense attorneys job is to try to get their client the best deal they can. The truth is it doesn’t come to trial very often and to be honest some lawyers go a very long time between trials
@@matthewcaughey8898 This is very true. I worked with an attorney on a few files who was honestly brilliant - he had single-handedly prepared several major class action lawsuits in his career - and he would proudly tell me how he never personally went to court once.
I’d say the defense attorney was lucky the judge didn’t deem him in contempt of court when he kept arguing with the judge. I would have.
Being a bit pushy and/or dense doesn’t justify a contempt charge.
Judge is on point! Immaterial questions aren't allowed. His job is to defend his client based on the evidence the Prosecution admits into court. As a defense attorney, he doesn't need to PROVE anything.
Worse judge I've ever seen. The lady's rich father must have paid the judge millions. Judge needs to be disbarred immediately!
@@wyomingadventures - You lack common sense and knowledge of what is proper in court.
I've never seen an attorney being called out so much by the judge in court. This guy is definitely trolling and hope not to get caught. This parallel universe questioning definitely takes the cake with absurdity. The defendant claims loss of memory (the classic) and now he's stuck with nothing to back up. He's doomed with this defence.
I actually had the same thought as the defense lawyer as I was listening to her testimony. Here are two facts that we do know for certain - she wanted to destroy his life and she is a liar. What if they tackled him when he arrived because they saw he had a gun, she subsequently accidentally got shot and they saw this as their opportunity to get him. Her word is the only "evidence" of what happened that day and she is clearly a manipulative liar.
@@thenewvalI would think they could tell the difference between shots coming from normal height of the person vs someone on the ground. You can practically suggest anything (including alien intervention) as the defendant claims he has no memory so the only thing to go by is evidence. Your and this attorney's problem is that you have nothing to backup any of the above other than your disliking of the witness. And that's not how a trial works.
Really? Have you seen Rittenhouse trial or Edgcomb? This is nothing compared what judges did there :)
@@Puchacz81 Yes I saw the Rittenhouse trial in whole. The only difference is that that judge was corrupted and this one is calling out the bulls**t from the defence.
@@FrancescaLD How is he corrupted when he uphold constitution laws for a defendant? Jesus how indoctrinated are you? do you have any principles at all?
Also Rittenhouse should be found guilty right?
More judges should pay attention to how this judge is running his court.
Such a horror show for victims already traumatized then get attacked by lawyers too.
Bilinkins is off the rails. He has to be reprimanded constantly for over reaching.
The Judge is doing his job well.
"Well alright, then ask him that". Love it!
"That's my ruling. The end of it." My mom the first 18 years of life 🤣
This lawyer is a piece of work.
This defendant is completely sane, and was acting for the jury the entire time he was on trial. Watch him on this video, outside of the jury's view, and see what a shaky wreck he becomes when they are in court. He got away with attempted murder, and I'm sure will have a miraculous recovery immediately after the trial.
Bull 💩
@Boa-Noahagreed.
I bet all on this thread vote Democrat! It shows!
@Boa-Noah worse a lot of people don't know that state psych wards have a waaaaaay higher percentage of rapes happening than even a max or super max facility
@@peanut3741 How, saying that being in a psych ward could be a worse punishment? That just seems like their opinion. It's not really partisan.
Lawyer: "Understood Judge, but..."
Lol, clearly not.
I love how the first lawyer drops his objection then goes sips his water coy to watch the fallout 🤣🤣🤣
Assumes facts not in evidence
A dog bite, a fight and a shooting. The trifecta! Wish I knew more about this case.
@04:14 I love how he explains this and why his ruling is justify
Defense attorney needs to get his money back from the law school he attended..
This a good example of why you should have a lawyer present at all times when being questioned by law enforcement. If you tell them nothing they get nothing back
Most defendants talk to police because they think they can talk themselves out of it when in reality their just digging their own grave. Always ask for an attorney. Cop ask you a question l want a lawyer should be your only words spoken. Even if your innocent. Innocent people have been wrongfully convicted because cops think their guilty and twist the truth and coerce the weak for confessions.
@@douglasshortridge4343 exactly the right to remain silence goes a long way
Even if you know positively that you are in the right. KEEP YOUR TRAP CLOSED until you have your attorney at your side.
that's the defense ... that attorney would be in the room if he exercised right to counsel. I don't see your point
@@outspoken5808 Yes you missed the point.
Being a liar or having a contentious relationship, taunting, or surreptitious recordings do not justify premeditated attempted homicide with a firearm at close range.
The judge may be very “engaged”- but his rulings are appropriate and supported by law (procedural and substantive.)
The defense attorney has a weak defense theory: his client had “unraveled” or was suffering a mental defect at the time of offense.
The judge has to constantly intervene (as guardian of the trial record) admonishing defense counsel who continues to overstep/sidestep admissible boundaries, and seems cavalier as he engages in a line of questions that either lack foundation or test the bounds of relevance.
Meanwhile, counsel for the government is undoubtedly a knight in shining armor and is determined to follow the rules. In fact, counsel for the government is so unbelievably admirable that the judge has not had to admonish him a single time throughout the trial and has never had to overrule any of the objections. It does my heart good to know that the government has hired such an esteemed and Honorable attorney to represent it. They need to quadruple this guy's salary! Honestly, this government lawyer must be so good that I would venture to say that we need to just go ahead and outlaw criminal defense attorneys and let the judge and the government's lawyer handle the case!
Well the jury disagreed, not guilty
He served less than 2 years in a hospital after being found innocent because of insanity. I just cant even anymore
Only half way through watching this and know I love this judge.
"Understood judge...... but".
Should've stopped before the "but".
but..... her dog stepped on a bee.....
quit arguing defense attorney, the judge has spoken
Jury cannot heard the truth by the defense
How can the jury hear anything since the defendant conveniently "forgot" everything. It is all speculation.
She keeps changing her story?? Disqualify her as a witness!!
The firm restriction of “alternative facts.” Love it.
This is so frustrating. How that judge kept his cool
That is a real judge : protecting the jurors against speculations and "alternate" "reality".
awesome judge- totally on top of everything! WOW!
LOL... too bad that was a clear violation of the 6th amendment and reversible error
He was out of line. There weren’t any indicator that suggested that. Judge was right
I honestly have no idea what is going on, but that Judge, is awesome!!
For anyone complaining: You need to lay a factual foundation for every question you make during testimony. You can't just make stuff up. For example, you can't ask "So how long did you beat your wife?" before establishing that the person beat their wife.
Presentation of evidence isn't that time to make logical leaps. You leave argument for closing argument.
And lawyers wonder why people hate them
well... the lawyer was right
Urgh….good grief trying to listen to her try to string two sentences together, then listening to Mr Balinkis try and defend his client…no wonder Michael is sitting there shaking and crying!!
I also don’t understand how Dr Ruth Cox handed Michael her gun, then let’s him just walk away with it, and disappear out of her sight. She was such a good witness when she was on the stand, and very aware of gun safety etc.
This is a complete circus of a trial.
The lawyer must’ve missed that class
actually the lawyer is correct
The battle to see who can look over the top of their glasses the best is on!
Everyone knows the argument is better when you look over the glasses, completely negating the purpose of having them on your face. Lol
'Quit while you're behind' springs to mind...
Infuriating. No respect for the judge. The only issue I have the judge should not have gone into discussion with him. He was clear. End of it had to be sooner imho.
You are clearly clueless of how a Court is suppose to handle such.
this judge is sooo kind to the attorney and politely schools the attorney on law
First time watching this, I already know that this judge would be a success in all of his years of being on the bench. He doesn't take any baloney from anyone and tells facts with case in points to school the defense lawyer. This judge would be a great Supreme Court justice and anyone who has watched this can tell he excelled in law school and nothing will stop him from calling the shots in any criminal cases. We need judges with a very similar demeanor as Stephen Taylor in all 50 states. Sometimes, I just don't get defense lawyers especially the ones that have the defendant as the victimizer and the one playing the victim with lies, no remorse, pointing the finger of blame and deflection. AMEN to Judge Stephen Taylor!!!!!!!!!
Judges like this are needed more
Infuriating. I understand that there are many lawyers and judges who do not like each other on a personal level, but for an attorney to display such a lack of ANY professionalism or respect for the judge time after time is baffling. Seems like a clear cut case of misconduct for the defense attorney, I'm very surprised the judge had the patience to not hold him in contempt of court.
Oh, well, in that case I STRENUOUSLY object.
If she changes her story 10 times isn't she speculating to what she thinks she remembers? But the judge won't let the defense speculate haha
Bravo to this judge stopped these ambulance chasers to not get away with leading a witness into answering questions that have no factual bases!
“Beyond a responsible doubt”… and that’s what the Defense Attorney is trying to do. Make up some alternative story… so the jury has “doubt”
reasonable not responsible
That reminds me of that joke: "A lawyer id driving, when his car suddendy catch on fire. He could not get out on time and was was burned alive.". It cracks me up everytime! :D
Always good seeing a Judge who keeps the playing field even. 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
Interesting that he called him “judge” not “your honour”
There's no legal obligation to call a judge "Your honor" but just as a courtesy in the profession of law it is extremely disrespectful to not do so.
@@Cynsham It is not disrespectful to call a judge JUDGE.
That crabby judge seems very EASILY irritated. Reminds me of one of my OLD DOGS!
How is he being easily irritated?
He's just not falling for bs. Huge difference.
If upholding the law equates to irritable, I will take an irritable judge every day of the week.
This judge would’ve hated Darrell Brooks
Can't the questioning be what leads to the "facts" of the timeline? I mean... there's no indicators the dog didn't bite him 20min before the incident, etc, etc. Because all the indicators are muddled up.
@@udhehfhehcuw9169 Might end up being a potential source for appeal... wasn't allowed to establish the timeline of events, or provide alternative theory. But I thought they were going for "insanity" defense? Are they back to trying for justified self defense? Or mashing it all up together and making a mess out of all of it?
@@cycleboy8028 he's trying both at the same time, and it's a mess.
Don’t forget this attorney had years to prepare for this trial. There was plenty of time to conduct private investigations and discovery which would have led to his speculative evidence being entered into the record as factual evidence prior to his questioning the witness. He could have, should have, would have done his homework on that, if he thinks that “fact” important. He’s grasping at straws with his speculative questions and trying to muddle the facts to confuse the jury.
Yes and no. It can be but it has to be collaborative by a person who actually can testify to the validity of the facts. You can't just throw Joe Smoe up there n lead him to suggest or assume to a possibility fact.
Very nice of the judge to give a free lecture.
Come on judge, I can't get my client off, if I can't lie!
Back to law school for a refresher, Buddy.
And he keeps arguing after everyone knows he's lost.