I don't know if people understand what happened during that "Mike Holland" story. Dude at the very least committed an ethical violation(if not an actual crime) in open court. He tried to use his personal relationship with the judge to get a favorably outcome. Very bad boy.
that story definitely did not happen. ridiculously over-the-top cartoon villain, no mention of any of the specific arguments made or even what the case was about (typical tactic for a writer who doesn't know enough about law to make up convincing details), the unprofessional protagonist being rewarded for being the protagonist, a waiting list to represent somebody? name-dropping the lawyer (no lawyer ever does that in these threads because they're lawyers and not trying to get sued), the villain lawyer losing his career forever based on one (extremely fake-sounding) comment to one local judge, the claim that he'll have to serve coffee now (this is nonsensical and a bad writer's attempt at irony and coming full circle, he would definitely find another law or law-adjacent job), basically every detail screams "i have no idea what i'm talking about and couldn't even write a bad episode of law and order"
@@ididntknowtheyhadwifiinhell oh I definitely bought it. But after hearing the further stories and thinking about some of the inconsistencies, I changed my mind.. I just didn't feel the need to change my comment because regardless of the veracity, my comment stands accurate as the story is told.
Whiteness: “And I have a video to prove it” Lawyer: “excuse me what video?” Edit: Yes I accidentally typed Whiteness instead of Witness but I’m leaving it like that now lmao.
not a lawyer so I have to ask: shouldn't someone else in the court have known/told the judge that "no, neither lawyer has been made aware of this evidence, nor has it been submitted to evidence officially"
Its amazing how many people actually think they can do this like its some scene from a movie of catching the big bad opposing lawyer off guard and winning the day as the little guy. See a lot a comments like that on dashcam videos were people say they'd not turn over the evidence for review and keep quiet so theu can whip it out in the court as a "gotcha" moment not realizing it would be thrown out and theud shoot their case in the foot.
@@scorch2155 but can someone explain why evidence like that is thrown out? Are we having some sort of game or are we trying to decide whether or not the dude was guilty or not... I mean, video evidence is video evidence... It should be taken into account no matter the situation if we want a trial that does justice... Or just at least reschedule so that they can both prepare for the video...
My aunt is a divorce lawyer. In person, she is really cool and has a really good marriage of 17 years. On the clock, she is a completely different person. She is a hungry pitbull that is out for the kill. She is very expensive, but worth it. She will dig up everything about her clients ex and even the client themselves. She demands passwords for all clients social media accounts and searches through everything. She says that oftentimes, the ex's attorney will strongly advise their client to settle out of court when facing her 🤣🤣🤣
@miner johnny1211 Divorce is a huge pain in the ass. You need a ruthless bulldog in your corner. I am sure she makes clients uncomfortable. But it's not personal. She was hired to do a job and she needs to know what cards have been dealt to her.
Being neighbours means its likely you'll have fingerprints on the neighbours doorknob? Must be a friendly town because i havent even TOUCHED my neighbours property
Yeah, it would've been more believable if he didn't use a name. There is a lawyer in MN named Mike Holland but I couldn't find a single thing about him getting fired or anything similar to this story.
I'm surprised that the second story didn't end with "Everyone in the courtroom stood up and started applauding my victory." Most blatantly fake story I've ever seen in any of these reddit compilations.
Yeah it feels as though they we’re waiting an Ace attorney fan fictions, saw the question on Reddit, and decided to change it to make it sound as though he was some cool lawyer.
@@venus_de_lmao I immediately noticed something was off because the language sounded like fan fiction or a story book rather than someone sharing an experience
I got a police officer schooled by a judge. I was given a red light ticket. I passed on Yellow, in CA you can be in the intersection on yellow. Well suddenly I'm surprised I see lights in my rear view. I for some reason decided to record on my phone, just audio (I'd just moved to this area and was getting pulled over a lot, I have a beater civic, and this rich area everyone rdives Benzes and such. I stood out). So at court I tell the judge I was in yellow when it turned red. My word vs cops. I present the audio to the judge. You clearly hear the cop tell me. "No my light turned green while you were in the intersection." Which is the same as saying the yellow turning red while while in the intersection.
That might not have worked in an area that had a delayed green. I've seen lights in some places (first place I noticed was in NYC) where when one light turns red, the other stays red for a few seconds before turning. I think it's a safety measure for if you have people trying to beat the light, and cross traffic focusing exclusively on the light and floor it the moment it changes. The delay helps prevent two sets of idiots at the same intersection from causing an accident. Thing is, for those intersections in NYC, cross traffic would go when the other light turned red, instead of waiting for theirs to turn green.
@@SenorJoeBiden yeah it's like that in Sweden. I didn't know that there are intersections without any delays in the lights- that seems pretty hazardous
In Canada (at least where i live) lights don't turn green for about 3 seconds after the other light turns red. Very important in the winter when you can't always stop quickly.
@@bradgaines5091 I know there's a delay where I live in NJ as well. Never noticed one not existing. Even so, the officer still didn't see the light was red and the only real sufficient proof at that point would be if his light was already green. But this is also why I'm hesitant to go in the intersection during yellow lights if a cop is around.
That last one, ouch. I might have hired them as a paralegal just to give him a chance to reflect and try harder. Everyone fails and failure is probably more important in the learning process than the trivia one must also learn.
I would agree, except that it wasn't just that he failed to bring the casefile, he didn't prepare, was in no way professional in appearance, and from the description, sounded like he had been up all night. Lawyers work as interns while going through school, so that they can build up the experience and knowledge necessary to be able to perform when they pass the bar. During that time, they learn to keep their appearance up, manage their case files, and prepare themselves for their time in the courtroom. The internship is when these failures should come to light, NOT after they take a case as a full lawyer and are representing a client.
@@jacobg8640 I've heard that some law schools do and some don't. I've read that they're required in Germany and France, but not in the United States - though I'm not sure if that's true.
For real though. It's almost like these writers don't know the difference between a criminal and civil case. "My client was accused of burglary(a crime)" "The person accusing my client was obviously not happy with the result". Person? You mean the state? Or are you suggesting that your client won the case against the state and was found not guilty, then the person who owned the house filed a civil suit? In which case, your client wouldn't be "not guilty" off of this case.
As a huge Ace Attorney fan this was actually very exciting to read, i'm sure some of these are fake (it is the internet after all) but was still fun either way, playing the games made me interested in weird lawyer stories and kind of interested in how this stuff works, i'm not gonna go into law I've already found what I want to do in life (I'm an artist) but it's still very interesting to me and fun hearing about this stuff
6:44 IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that at least in the US, an accused person's past convictions cannot be used as evidence of the current crime they are being tried for.
The entire story is nonsense. Is it a civil trial or criminal? If criminal, why is the victim hiring the attorney? If it's civil, guilt or innocence is not the relevant issue. A layman might make that mistake but no lawyer would.
@@Tijggie82 My understanding is that you can't use "character evidence" unless the defense is using it--that is, you can't point to evidence of a 'pattern of behavior' unless the defense is trying to argue that you're too good a person to be committing such a crime. In other words, if you get pulled over for a DUI, the prosecution would not be allowed to bring up past DUIs *unless* you argue that you would *never* drink and drive (at which point not only are you making a character argument as the defense, you're also exposing yourself to perjury if it turns out you *DO* have a DUI on record).
@@TehNoobiness not sure about the US, as I never practiced Law there, but in my country it is quite common to se prosecutors utilising past criminal conviction to try to establish a pattern of criminal behaviour. And with considerable success too.
The very first case makes me think about how, if Phoenix had been ALLOWED to shut down anytime Edgeworth showed up with the "outdated evidence" / unknown evidence tricks, he could've won his cases in double time lol
@@toad2117 I think PLUSKA's point is that some of these stories don't make sense in the context of those country's legal systems. (If that is the case, than it probably doesn't make sense in any "common law" jurisdiction at all).
So many of these were written by people who obviously aren't lawyers, have ever set foot in a courtroom, or have even the vaguest knowledge of how the legal system works.
It wasn't a simple mistake. Also note his obvious unpreparedness and sloppy appearance. That's a mistake you'd expect from a beginner intern, never an experienced lawyer. They always start as interns for a reason, and the importance of maintaining one's appearance in court is one of the first things they learn.
For anyone wondering what the counter argument would’ve been to the “commonality” of the fingerprint between neighboring doors, here it is: first, the accused had no occasion to ever visit the burglarized residence, and there is no record of him visiting; second, the space and orientation of the doors between the two residences make it highly unlikely that the residents will mistake their neighbor’s door for their own; and most importantly, the fingerprint was fresh and undistorted, suggesting it had occurred recently (i.e., proximate to when the burglary occurred). That’s all he needed to say- it would’ve most likely been sufficient to satisfy a jury or judge.
@@scout360pyroz And I agree, but we can not look past the fact that it has stated that it takes place in America, as Spirit of justice clearly states it's based in Los Angeles.
Not seeing why the 1st lawyer went so hard on the opposing lawyer for the evidence. The guy straight up said the other lawyer looked like he didn't know the tape existed either. Hard to disclose something you don't know exists. And hell, it was a witness that brought it up even.
But it seems to have been played anyway. The other lawyer should not have allowed that to happen. "The witness proceeds to show the video to court." Like how? Hold up his phone?
That’s what I found weird also. Because normally a judge would not have allowed the video to play at all. And even then if they wanted to enter it, the other attorney (OP) would have had to have allowed it enter into evidence BEFORE it was played. I just fine the story fishy
Also, how did the video get shown in the first place? The defense attorney would surely object the moment the video was mentioned and ask the judge to strike even a mention of it. If the judge allowed it, then that judge couldn't throw out the result. Well, I guess he could, but it would be the judge facing censure, not the prosecuting attorney.
@@thevoxdeus Exactly, either the judge should have denied it's showing, or the OP would have given his consent to have it shown. Cause in the end, the judge can say to ignore what was shown, and to strike it from the record, but it's already been shown. You can't just forget that without it affecting you.
IANAL but part of lawyering is knowing how to talk to non-lawyers. You know all those fancy latin phrases you hear in TV shows? Lawyers deliberately *avoid* using them when talking to the jury, because you want the jury to understand you. Thus, 'hammer' instead of 'gavel', because some people don't know what a gavel is.
@@TehNoobiness ummm, no. First: judges almost NEVER bang a gavel. That is a trope on TV. Ionly say "almost never" cause I'm sure there has been one, but it is so rare as to be non existent. Second, gavel is it's name. No lawyer would call it hammer.
No they don't. Between the "hammer" thing, the mixing of criminal/civil trial tropes in a single story,obvious overly verbose bad writing and a few other things, you can tell these stories are fake as hell.
That story seems awfully fishy. The OP is talking about things that would only happen in a civil case, yet referred to the opposing side as "guilty" which isn't the point of a civil trial. The point of civil court is to assess damages caused and compensation, not guilt or innocence.
I was too young to remember my parent's divorce, but was later told that my mum's lawyer was so incompetent that after the divorce was finalized my dad's lawyer got my mum's lawyer disbarred.
Why do all of these stories sound like complete BS written by non-lawyers? Like the guy who is a defense attorney for someone who is accused but not guilty of burglary. If it's a civil trial, innocence and guilt, shadow of a doubt, etc are not the standard that needs to be met. Preponderance of evidence and liability are the standards in that case. If it's a criminal trial, the opposing attorney would represent the state, not the victim, and the victim would be present only to testify if needed.
I agree. In the first story about the alleged drunk driver the opposing lawyer was referred to as the prosecution. Also, there was mention of the client who was a truck driver losing his license if the court decision went against him. It smells like criminal proceedings. Yet at the conclusion there was mention of the opposing lawyers "client" being less than satisfied by HIS lawyer's performance!?!
As an (admittedly British) retired lawyer I was totally unconvinced by these stories. I know courts and proceedings vary across the English-speaking countries, but come on guys, this reads like pure fiction written by someone who gets all their legal "knowledge" from daytime television.
I actually feel bad for the first lawyer. I may not be a lawyer myself, but I know for a fact that there are people so friggin stupid that they will do shit even if you specifically told them not to do it beforehand. Witness probably wanted to look cool and pretend it was like in the movies or something.
That reminds me of my paralegal classes. On the first my instructor was talking about "discovery" and said, "it's not like Perry Mason" where you can surprise the other side with hidden evidence.
it’s faked…both prosecutors and defense lawyers talk with witnesses and know what will be said ahead of time so something like a surprise video is extremely hard to slip in unless the witness hid it from the prosecutor and even then it would have caused a mistrial rather than the trial continuing on then going to jury deliberations
Not a single story that wasn't RIDDLED with mistakes. It's like every single "lawyer" presenting their story is a drunk aspiring novelist trying to sell a manuscript on Reddit...
So in the third story we have a trial about an alleged burglary that can't seem to decide if it's a criminal trial or a civil trial. The OP's client was found not guilty, so it must be a criminal trial, but then why does the prosecutor have a client who's now looking for a better lawyer, smearing the prosecutors name and refusing to pay him?
That first one is like, if he didn't even know about the video, how was he to disclose it? That sounds like a witness wanting to play hero or something. Not a fault of the prosecution.
One thing I love about these lawyer reddit story videos is they all use Phoenix Wright for the thumbnail and then when you listen to the story it really feels like an Ace Attorney case
That first story makes me sick. A fucking drunk driver, especially a drunk trucker, should be in prison for 25-life. And a technicality shouldn't get them off if there is video evidence.
the one that starts at 6:50 - you can't bring up previous convictions as evidence that someone committed a crime. It's taken into account at sentencing.
First story is so obviously fake if anyone knows anything about court. There’s no way the video would be shown, and even if it was shown for some absurd reason, the case would likely be mistrialed without prejudice, meaning that they can just redo the trial with both parties able to prepare for the evidence. But the much much more likely outcome is the judge or prosecutor just don’t let the video be played cause it’s obviously not part of the submitted evidence. Even if the trial part of the story is true, the other lawyer wouldn’t have gotten fired or yelled at for a witness randomly bringing up their own evidence without the other lawyers knowledge.
9:23 Did they not catch any shoeprint/footprint? Not a lawyer/detective, but pretty sure a neighbour has little reason to touch a doorknob, as the owner would typically let the neighbour in after the latter knocks/rings, and they'd touch the inside doorknob on the way out, with exceptions being emergency, although it'd indicate leaving the front door unlocked. Nonetheless, they had enough effort to note a finger print but no other fingerprints/footprints/dead-cells/etc, huh... Putting that aside, the only thing that could make one of these tales of woe better would be "I may be the worst lawyer in the company, but I could still put famous lawyers to shame" ([Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney] style)
I don't know if people understand what happened during that "Mike Holland" story. Dude at the very least committed an ethical violation(if not an actual crime) in open court. He tried to use his personal relationship with the judge to get a favorably outcome. Very bad boy.
That, and in general, you do not ever want to break decorum.
that story definitely did not happen. ridiculously over-the-top cartoon villain, no mention of any of the specific arguments made or even what the case was about (typical tactic for a writer who doesn't know enough about law to make up convincing details), the unprofessional protagonist being rewarded for being the protagonist, a waiting list to represent somebody? name-dropping the lawyer (no lawyer ever does that in these threads because they're lawyers and not trying to get sued), the villain lawyer losing his career forever based on one (extremely fake-sounding) comment to one local judge, the claim that he'll have to serve coffee now (this is nonsensical and a bad writer's attempt at irony and coming full circle, he would definitely find another law or law-adjacent job), basically every detail screams "i have no idea what i'm talking about and couldn't even write a bad episode of law and order"
@@ididntknowtheyhadwifiinhell it's pretty obvious none of these stories happened.
@@Mewse1203 your original comment made it seem like you were buying it
@@ididntknowtheyhadwifiinhell oh I definitely bought it. But after hearing the further stories and thinking about some of the inconsistencies, I changed my mind.. I just didn't feel the need to change my comment because regardless of the veracity, my comment stands accurate as the story is told.
Literally "imma bout to ruin this man's whole career" moment
Yep i like this comment but can't like to keep it on the sacred unholy number 69 😎👌
@@otgfurrygaming24 you know what's up
yes but in court
Whiteness: “And I have a video to prove it”
Lawyer: “excuse me what video?”
Edit: Yes I accidentally typed Whiteness instead of Witness but I’m leaving it like that now lmao.
not a lawyer so I have to ask: shouldn't someone else in the court have known/told the judge that "no, neither lawyer has been made aware of this evidence, nor has it been submitted to evidence officially"
Its amazing how many people actually think they can do this like its some scene from a movie of catching the big bad opposing lawyer off guard and winning the day as the little guy.
See a lot a comments like that on dashcam videos were people say they'd not turn over the evidence for review and keep quiet so theu can whip it out in the court as a "gotcha" moment not realizing it would be thrown out and theud shoot their case in the foot.
whiteness it's witness
@@scorch2155 but can someone explain why evidence like that is thrown out? Are we having some sort of game or are we trying to decide whether or not the dude was guilty or not... I mean, video evidence is video evidence... It should be taken into account no matter the situation if we want a trial that does justice... Or just at least reschedule so that they can both prepare for the video...
“That autopsy report is… outdated, your honor”
My aunt is a divorce lawyer. In person, she is really cool and has a really good marriage of 17 years.
On the clock, she is a completely different person. She is a hungry pitbull that is out for the kill. She is very expensive, but worth it. She will dig up everything about her clients ex and even the client themselves. She demands passwords for all clients social media accounts and searches through everything.
She says that oftentimes, the ex's attorney will strongly advise their client to settle out of court when facing her 🤣🤣🤣
@miner johnny1211 Divorce is a huge pain in the ass. You need a ruthless bulldog in your corner.
I am sure she makes clients uncomfortable. But it's not personal. She was hired to do a job and she needs to know what cards have been dealt to her.
Ehhehe
Your aunt sounds like a badass
If my mom met your aunt, my dad would’ve been traumatized from the aggression alone.
Your aunt came out of Law school and choose violence lmao
Being neighbours means its likely you'll have fingerprints on the neighbours doorknob?
Must be a friendly town because i havent even TOUCHED my neighbours property
It's not about it being likely, it simply needs to give only reasonable doubt.
You've never been to your neighbors house?
If so i think you're the exception
@@עמיחירכטמן in multiple neighbourhoods too, i never visit my neighbours. Didnt realize it was a reasonable or common enough thing
Honestly I do visit my neighbors a lot. In my case though, my neighbor is my mom
Same lol the closest I’ve been with my neighbors was talking for 1 sentence about a missing package
humans: doorknob
reddit text-to-speech bot: *dork knob*
Who else is getting extreme Ace attourney vibes
Yup
It's like phoenix vs any other lawyer
TAKE THAT!
*OBJECTION!*
HOLD IT!
EURICA!
That mike Holland one was so fake it's like the guy wasn't even trying to be believable
Reads too much like a book.
It was entertaining anyways
Meh, it was a fun story anyway, Regardless of its truth
Yeah, it would've been more believable if he didn't use a name. There is a lawyer in MN named Mike Holland but I couldn't find a single thing about him getting fired or anything similar to this story.
"Your honor, Denny Crane!"
"That is not a legal argument!"
I'm surprised that the second story didn't end with "Everyone in the courtroom stood up and started applauding my victory." Most blatantly fake story I've ever seen in any of these reddit compilations.
It did have an "Oppa Homeless Style" vibe to it, didn't it?
Yeah it feels as though they we’re waiting an Ace attorney fan fictions, saw the question on Reddit, and decided to change it to make it sound as though he was some cool lawyer.
These all feel fake, and the language is all weird and stilted
@@venus_de_lmao I immediately noticed something was off because the language sounded like fan fiction or a story book rather than someone sharing an experience
The last one too
I got a police officer schooled by a judge. I was given a red light ticket. I passed on Yellow, in CA you can be in the intersection on yellow. Well suddenly I'm surprised I see lights in my rear view. I for some reason decided to record on my phone, just audio (I'd just moved to this area and was getting pulled over a lot, I have a beater civic, and this rich area everyone rdives Benzes and such. I stood out).
So at court I tell the judge I was in yellow when it turned red. My word vs cops. I present the audio to the judge.
You clearly hear the cop tell me. "No my light turned green while you were in the intersection."
Which is the same as saying the yellow turning red while while in the intersection.
That might not have worked in an area that had a delayed green. I've seen lights in some places (first place I noticed was in NYC) where when one light turns red, the other stays red for a few seconds before turning.
I think it's a safety measure for if you have people trying to beat the light, and cross traffic focusing exclusively on the light and floor it the moment it changes. The delay helps prevent two sets of idiots at the same intersection from causing an accident.
Thing is, for those intersections in NYC, cross traffic would go when the other light turned red, instead of waiting for theirs to turn green.
@@bradgaines5091 It's like that in Nasau County, NY, as well. It's maybe ~2 seconds delayed. Are there places without any delay at all?
@@SenorJoeBiden yeah it's like that in Sweden. I didn't know that there are intersections without any delays in the lights- that seems pretty hazardous
In Canada (at least where i live) lights don't turn green for about 3 seconds after the other light turns red. Very important in the winter when you can't always stop quickly.
@@bradgaines5091 I know there's a delay where I live in NJ as well. Never noticed one not existing. Even so, the officer still didn't see the light was red and the only real sufficient proof at that point would be if his light was already green.
But this is also why I'm hesitant to go in the intersection during yellow lights if a cop is around.
That last one, ouch. I might have hired them as a paralegal just to give him a chance to reflect and try harder. Everyone fails and failure is probably more important in the learning process than the trivia one must also learn.
I would agree, except that it wasn't just that he failed to bring the casefile, he didn't prepare, was in no way professional in appearance, and from the description, sounded like he had been up all night.
Lawyers work as interns while going through school, so that they can build up the experience and knowledge necessary to be able to perform when they pass the bar. During that time, they learn to keep their appearance up, manage their case files, and prepare themselves for their time in the courtroom. The internship is when these failures should come to light, NOT after they take a case as a full lawyer and are representing a client.
@@tmac2744 ah, good point.
@@tmac2744 yeah, that level of unprofessionalism is something you'd expect from an interns first trial, never from an experienced lawyer.
@@tmac2744 Do they do mock trials in law school to catch these mistakes? I would imagine so.
@@jacobg8640 I've heard that some law schools do and some don't. I've read that they're required in Germany and France, but not in the United States - though I'm not sure if that's true.
MIssed the chances of adding Ace Attorney OST in here.
The mike hall story sounds just like a Phoenix Wright trial, mike Hall seems just like Manfred von karma
@@arandominternetperson437 holland?
@@arandominternetperson437 I love that reference! You didn’t miss the opportunity!
Was about to say the same thing XD
What’s funny is that you can tell at least half of these are totally fake. Nobody is “guilty” in a lawsuit. That’s like Law School 101
For real though. It's almost like these writers don't know the difference between a criminal and civil case.
"My client was accused of burglary(a crime)"
"The person accusing my client was obviously not happy with the result".
Person? You mean the state? Or are you suggesting that your client won the case against the state and was found not guilty, then the person who owned the house filed a civil suit? In which case, your client wouldn't be "not guilty" off of this case.
I can only imagine these cases in Ace Attorney fashion.
In my head I can only see these lawyers as Phoenix Wright.
what if their name is pheonix wrong
@@quinnception631 birb yes
I couldnt help but think of a lot of the opposing lawyers as Winston Payne
For the first one, I’m actually thinking it’s very accurate.
5:54 that was the mos real life Von Karma vs Phoenix thing I heard in my life.
That dude must've played too much Phoenix wright to act that stupid in court and think to get away with it
That story is made up
“For you see, it was _I_ who made the fake reddit post all along,”
@@thatoneguy9582 Von Karma no!
@@joefuller1207 What will you do now, mr. Joe Fuller?
As a huge Ace Attorney fan this was actually very exciting to read, i'm sure some of these are fake (it is the internet after all) but was still fun either way, playing the games made me interested in weird lawyer stories and kind of interested in how this stuff works, i'm not gonna go into law I've already found what I want to do in life (I'm an artist) but it's still very interesting to me and fun hearing about this stuff
Just wait. Something’s gonna happen and you'll be a lawyer /j
IGIARI!!!
6:44 IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that at least in the US, an accused person's past convictions cannot be used as evidence of the current crime they are being tried for.
The entire story is nonsense. Is it a civil trial or criminal? If criminal, why is the victim hiring the attorney? If it's civil, guilt or innocence is not the relevant issue. A layman might make that mistake but no lawyer would.
Ahahahahahahahaaaahhahahahaha
Yeah, on paper that's not allowed. Guess what rule gets ignored *constantly?*
I think it could be used as pattern of behavior, but then again IANAL...
@@Tijggie82 My understanding is that you can't use "character evidence" unless the defense is using it--that is, you can't point to evidence of a 'pattern of behavior' unless the defense is trying to argue that you're too good a person to be committing such a crime.
In other words, if you get pulled over for a DUI, the prosecution would not be allowed to bring up past DUIs *unless* you argue that you would *never* drink and drive (at which point not only are you making a character argument as the defense, you're also exposing yourself to perjury if it turns out you *DO* have a DUI on record).
@@TehNoobiness not sure about the US, as I never practiced Law there, but in my country it is quite common to se prosecutors utilising past criminal conviction to try to establish a pattern of criminal behaviour. And with considerable success too.
This is literally “I ended this man’s entire career”
The very first case makes me think about how, if Phoenix had been ALLOWED to shut down anytime Edgeworth showed up with the "outdated evidence" / unknown evidence tricks, he could've won his cases in double time lol
"Ready to admit his possible quilt" had me dying 😂
The man telling the second story has extreme old storytelling radio vibes.
It sounded to me like he was making it up, but I suppose it doesn't matter
Like half of these stories are either utter bullshit or at least stories that didn’t take place in the US, Canada, or the UK.
Well there are a lot of places that aren't those three
@@mrpedrobraga reddit is a primarily English speaking website and those are 3 of the largest English speaking countries
@@toad2117 So? You don’t think other countries know English?
@@toad2117 I think PLUSKA's point is that some of these stories don't make sense in the context of those country's legal systems. (If that is the case, than it probably doesn't make sense in any "common law" jurisdiction at all).
@@mrpedrobraganone of which use the terminology used in the stories
So many of these were written by people who obviously aren't lawyers, have ever set foot in a courtroom, or have even the vaguest knowledge of how the legal system works.
Gotta feel bad for the dude who forgot the file. A simple mistake caused his downfall
It wasn't a simple mistake. Also note his obvious unpreparedness and sloppy appearance. That's a mistake you'd expect from a beginner intern, never an experienced lawyer. They always start as interns for a reason, and the importance of maintaining one's appearance in court is one of the first things they learn.
The first case is definetely ACE Attorney IRL
for real tho
these people sound like they've played ace attorney's first case and are ready to write about their successes in court
For anyone wondering what the counter argument would’ve been to the “commonality” of the fingerprint between neighboring doors, here it is: first, the accused had no occasion to ever visit the burglarized residence, and there is no record of him visiting; second, the space and orientation of the doors between the two residences make it highly unlikely that the residents will mistake their neighbor’s door for their own; and most importantly, the fingerprint was fresh and undistorted, suggesting it had occurred recently (i.e., proximate to when the burglary occurred).
That’s all he needed to say- it would’ve most likely been sufficient to satisfy a jury or judge.
The 2nd post yeah never do the "c'mon you know that opposition lawyer isn't anywhere near as good as me so can we just wrap it up"
"not meeting his needs perfectly"....The way he likes to put it.
Excellent choice of words !!
Being lawyer is basically getting paid to agure, it'll make a great job for younger and older siblings
“I’m about to end this man’s entire career.”
3:34
This sounds like the final case in a Phoenix Wright game
3:32 actually sounds like an alternate universe Ace Attorney
Phoenix Wright lied to me
That is a game based on the Japanese justice system, not the American.
@@scout360pyroz yes BUT it is technically set in America.
@@superhimechan531I would argue that its setting matches america as much as its justice system does
@@scout360pyroz And I agree, but we can not look past the fact that it has stated that it takes place in America, as Spirit of justice clearly states it's based in Los Angeles.
Now, in the japanese version it's clear that it takes place in Japan.
This is literally just a creative writing exercise
“And I have the video to prove it”
Prosecutor: **soul leaves body**
6:43 that sounded like a Phoenix Wright case…but with actual logic
Did anyone else notice the goat spinning?
Not seeing why the 1st lawyer went so hard on the opposing lawyer for the evidence. The guy straight up said the other lawyer looked like he didn't know the tape existed either. Hard to disclose something you don't know exists. And hell, it was a witness that brought it up even.
But it seems to have been played anyway. The other lawyer should not have allowed that to happen. "The witness proceeds to show the video to court." Like how? Hold up his phone?
That’s what I found weird also. Because normally a judge would not have allowed the video to play at all. And even then if they wanted to enter it, the other attorney (OP) would have had to have allowed it enter into evidence BEFORE it was played. I just fine the story fishy
Also, how did the video get shown in the first place? The defense attorney would surely object the moment the video was mentioned and ask the judge to strike even a mention of it. If the judge allowed it, then that judge couldn't throw out the result. Well, I guess he could, but it would be the judge facing censure, not the prosecuting attorney.
@@thevoxdeus Exactly, either the judge should have denied it's showing, or the OP would have given his consent to have it shown. Cause in the end, the judge can say to ignore what was shown, and to strike it from the record, but it's already been shown. You can't just forget that without it affecting you.
Also being proud for getting a drunk driver off the hook...
The Mike Holland story seems too fitting to be an Ace Attorney story.
because it never happened
Ah yes, Ace Attorney's future plot twists
Do lawyers really call gavels hammers? It just seems weird to me because you usually hear that from people who don't know what they're called.
IANAL but part of lawyering is knowing how to talk to non-lawyers. You know all those fancy latin phrases you hear in TV shows? Lawyers deliberately *avoid* using them when talking to the jury, because you want the jury to understand you. Thus, 'hammer' instead of 'gavel', because some people don't know what a gavel is.
@@TehNoobiness ummm, no. First: judges almost NEVER bang a gavel. That is a trope on TV. Ionly say "almost never" cause I'm sure there has been one, but it is so rare as to be non existent. Second, gavel is it's name. No lawyer would call it hammer.
No they don't. Between the "hammer" thing, the mixing of criminal/civil trial tropes in a single story,obvious overly verbose bad writing and a few other things, you can tell these stories are fake as hell.
@@Mewse1203 Seems a bit condescending, are you a law student or lawyer?
That story seems awfully fishy. The OP is talking about things that would only happen in a civil case, yet referred to the opposing side as "guilty" which isn't the point of a civil trial. The point of civil court is to assess damages caused and compensation, not guilt or innocence.
I was too young to remember my parent's divorce, but was later told that my mum's lawyer was so incompetent that after the divorce was finalized my dad's lawyer got my mum's lawyer disbarred.
The most shocking thing to me is the grammar of all these supposed lawyers.
These are some Phoenix Wright levels of attorney intellect and luck
2:18 I really wish that this lawyer punted this case. Last thing we need on the roads is truck drivers who have a habit of driving drunk.
*OBJECTION!*
*HOLD IT!*
The reference just seemed appropriate
Good job dude you got a drunk driver off free. All the victims of dui's will thank you.
I love how the text-to-speech kept pronouncing doorknob as “dork nob”
I see the years of arguing with strangers online has paid off
I mean 50% of all lawyers graduate bottom half of their class so it’s not too surprising. You get interesting cases like this.
When I get my own house, I'll put a dork knob on the front door.
That witness probably played to much ace attorney and thought you can do that in real life
I was questioning Phoenix in the thumbnail but then I remembered what happened in the fourth episode of the first game. He does fit there.
2:55 so like a TH-cam argument
Damn,the defendant on the first case had 100 plot armor
Why do all of these stories sound like complete BS written by non-lawyers? Like the guy who is a defense attorney for someone who is accused but not guilty of burglary. If it's a civil trial, innocence and guilt, shadow of a doubt, etc are not the standard that needs to be met. Preponderance of evidence and liability are the standards in that case.
If it's a criminal trial, the opposing attorney would represent the state, not the victim, and the victim would be present only to testify if needed.
I agree. In the first story about the alleged drunk driver the opposing lawyer was referred to as the prosecution. Also, there was mention of the client who was a truck driver losing his license if the court decision went against him. It smells like criminal proceedings. Yet at the conclusion there was mention of the opposing lawyers "client" being less than satisfied by HIS lawyer's performance!?!
@@Grapo77 Also if there was monetary reparations that means it was obviously a civil trial rather than criminal.
As an (admittedly British) retired lawyer I was totally unconvinced by these stories. I know courts and proceedings vary across the English-speaking countries, but come on guys, this reads like pure fiction written by someone who gets all their legal "knowledge" from daytime television.
They keep talking about arguing, as though the opposing lawyers get up and have a debate lol
I like how the voice pronounced doorknob. More like dorknob.
I actually feel bad for the first lawyer. I may not be a lawyer myself, but I know for a fact that there are people so friggin stupid that they will do shit even if you specifically told them not to do it beforehand. Witness probably wanted to look cool and pretend it was like in the movies or something.
That reminds me of my paralegal classes. On the first my instructor was talking about "discovery" and said, "it's not like Perry Mason" where you can surprise the other side with hidden evidence.
it’s faked…both prosecutors and defense lawyers talk with witnesses and know what will be said ahead of time so something like a surprise video is extremely hard to slip in unless the witness hid it from the prosecutor and even then it would have caused a mistrial rather than the trial continuing on then going to jury deliberations
That first one, can you imagine if BOTH lawyers stood up yelling “I object!”?
1st one is definitely Ace Attorney hahaha
Judging by what they said, we can actually find lordofallkings by going through Mike Holland’s trials
Why did the other lawyer in the first story get punished when he clearly didn't know about the evidence either.
he didnt ask for evidence
Still hate the fact that a drunk driver got away with it and the lawyer was only happy about a win, even though he knew he was guilty.
'sokay, it was a fake story anyways.
There are two types of lawyers, the Mike-Ross type and the Mike-Holland type.
Pick wisely ladies and gentlemen
Mike Holland should be renamed to Godot Von Karma lol
Not a single story that wasn't RIDDLED with mistakes. It's like every single "lawyer" presenting their story is a drunk aspiring novelist trying to sell a manuscript on Reddit...
I'm starting to get some updated autopsy vibes
"dork knob"
-Text-to-speech
Man, this Mike Lient guy is always in trouble, isn't he?
So in the third story we have a trial about an alleged burglary that can't seem to decide if it's a criminal trial or a civil trial. The OP's client was found not guilty, so it must be a criminal trial, but then why does the prosecutor have a client who's now looking for a better lawyer, smearing the prosecutors name and refusing to pay him?
i want a video of just the goat for some reason, the goat is making me want to watch m o r e
That first one is like, if he didn't even know about the video, how was he to disclose it? That sounds like a witness wanting to play hero or something. Not a fault of the prosecution.
Yeah and not for nothing but “trial of the year” that office has been having a slow year
You can tell that they’re actually lawyers because the stories are written like an excerpt from a book
Why does the second one sound like a plot to an underdog movie
First Story: Should not even need a trial. The guy was guilty and caught on video.
They deadass made "I'm bout to end this man's whole career" a real thing 💀
That last one was beautifully written, like a good short story but about a presumably real event
One thing I love about these lawyer reddit story videos is they all use Phoenix Wright for the thumbnail and then when you listen to the story it really feels like an Ace Attorney case
That first story makes me sick. A fucking drunk driver, especially a drunk trucker, should be in prison for 25-life. And a technicality shouldn't get them off if there is video evidence.
8:09 "dork nobb" lol I love robot voices
The second one sounds like the opening of an ace attorney game
Being an attorney kinda sounds fun sometimes and hell some other times
For the first case, why was the opposing attorney at fault when he/she didn’t know about the video?
That Mike Holland story was the most bullshit, fake, out of the ass shit I've heard. It was painful.
The second one seemed bull shit
all of them were
Reddit stories are always good tea.
2:59 This technique is called "Swallowing elephants and choking on gnats". (picking holes rather than offering facts/evidence)
the thumbnail is an absolute piece of art
the one that starts at 6:50 - you can't bring up previous convictions as evidence that someone committed a crime. It's taken into account at sentencing.
First story is so obviously fake if anyone knows anything about court. There’s no way the video would be shown, and even if it was shown for some absurd reason, the case would likely be mistrialed without prejudice, meaning that they can just redo the trial with both parties able to prepare for the evidence. But the much much more likely outcome is the judge or prosecutor just don’t let the video be played cause it’s obviously not part of the submitted evidence. Even if the trial part of the story is true, the other lawyer wouldn’t have gotten fired or yelled at for a witness randomly bringing up their own evidence without the other lawyers knowledge.
'dork knob' - TTS being hilarious, as always...
I had to scroll the progress bar so i could see that the background image is actually rotating.
9:23 Did they not catch any shoeprint/footprint? Not a lawyer/detective, but pretty sure a neighbour has little reason to touch a doorknob, as the owner would typically let the neighbour in after the latter knocks/rings, and they'd touch the inside doorknob on the way out, with exceptions being emergency, although it'd indicate leaving the front door unlocked. Nonetheless, they had enough effort to note a finger print but no other fingerprints/footprints/dead-cells/etc, huh...
Putting that aside, the only thing that could make one of these tales of woe better would be "I may be the worst lawyer in the company, but I could still put famous lawyers to shame" ([Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney] style)
I’m like 99% sure that the Mike Holland one is fake.
Needs more subs
8:11 "dork nob" only way to say doorknob from now on
Ianal, but I'm pretty sure you need to submit evidence *before* the trial, can't spring things like that one guy did.
To the court, not the opposition
To both actually. With some narrow exceptions, you have to disclose your evidence and witness list to the opposition.
I lo0ve it when there are typos and the robots is like "A BURGER IS IN THIS ROOM, HE STOLE MY HAT!"
That Mike Holland one was written like a book, bruh.