Real Lawyer Reacts to the Exorcism of Emily Rose - Demons or Negligence?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ต.ค. 2019
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
“The Devil made me do it” is not a good legal defense...Even on Halloween...
Get my favorite suits -- [whispers] INDOCHINO -- for only $359: legaleagle.link/indochino
Summary from Wikipedia:
Emily Rose, a 19-year-old American teenager, dies of self-inflicted wounds and malnutrition following an attempted exorcism. Father Richard Moore, the Catholic diocesan priest who attempted the exorcism, is arrested and sent to court. While the archdiocese want Moore to plead guilty to minimize the crime's public attention, Moore instead plans to plead not guilty. Erin Bruner, an ambitious lawyer hoping to use the trial to become a senior partner in her law firm, takes on the case. Moore agrees to let her defend him if he can tell the truth behind Emily's story.
During the trial, Emily's past is told through flashbacks and the evidence provided by witnesses. Presiding over the trial is Judge Brewster, with Ethan Thomas, a practicing Methodist, serving as prosecutor. The prosecution claims Emily suffered from epilepsy and psychosis to explain her behavior. Emily received a scholarship to study for a bachelor's degree but displayed signs of demonic possession after she began attending classes, experiencing visions and physical contortions. Diagnosed with epilepsy, Emily received anti-seizure medication but the treatment failed to cure her. A friend named Jason took Emily back home to her family, where she continued displaying traits of possession until Moore was summoned to attempt an exorcism.
Bruner begins experiencing supernatural phenomena at home, waking up at 3:00 a.m. to the smell of burning material. Moore warns her she may be a target for the demons, revealing he too has experienced similar phenomena on the night he was preparing the exorcism. With the prosecution building a strong case, Bruner steps up her own by trying to legitimize Emily's possession.
(Thanks to Indochino for sponsoring this video and helping to make this channel possible)
New episodes weekly! Subscribe here:
th-cam.com/users/legaleagle?su...
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
I get asked a lot about whether being a practicing attorney is like being a lawyer on TV. I love watching legal movies and courtroom dramas. It's one of the reasons I decided to become a lawyer. But sometimes they make me want to pull my hair out because they are ridiculous.
Today I'm taking a break from representing clients and teaching law students how to kick ass in law school to take on lawyers in the movies and on TV. While all legal movies and shows take dramatic license to make things more interesting (nobody wants to see hundreds of hours of brief writing), many of them have a grain of truth.
This is part of a continuing series of "Lawyer Reaction" videos. Got a legal movie or TV show you'd like me to critique? Let me know in the comments!
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ ➜ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta ➜ / stellathelegalbeagle
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here: legaleagle@standard.tv
Watch out for the INDOCHINO GHOST who will save you a SCARY amount on TERRIFYINGLY good-looking suit: bit.ly/2IeeB8W
LegalEagle I know it’s not your wheelhouse, but could you do a review of Netflix’s Insatiable?
It’s funny and also has a lot of jokes centered around the legal system in the USA. 😁
objection this is a religious matter and we have no scientific proof to show that demons even exist that all so there for lack of evidence is applied to this case.
Objection: Please review movie Fracture, it is the best legal movie ever made, and very clever use of double jeopardy.
Please review some of Raylan Givens questionable legal behavior as a US Marshal, on the show Justified. 😀
I'm getting married soon and truly have no good suits/tuxes for it. I actually like what Indochino offers for this and will be going with them. Great sponsor
Legend has it if you utter the phrase "Indochino" into a mirror three times, you get a wicked deal on some custom suits.
Lol. I wish I had put that in the sponsor read...
I tried this and a custom-made suit fell from the sky unto my roommate's head. Thanks Indochino!
Tried it myself! Whispered three times, and a wonderful suit appeared behind me with a ridiculously low price tag
Please bear in mind that the suit *will* be haunted
And don't mispronounce it or you end up with Sears off the rack 😱🤢
‘Objected!’
“Finally!”
‘Silliness’
“NO”
*”Objection”
@ShalakumX Simba As you should be.
WHAT THE FFFF 😂🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
look at exorcism in rock anneliese michel
"objection"
"On what ground"
"Silliness"
This sounds like a Muppets trial.
Or Monty Python.
@@MissBee13 would silliness be a viable cause for the ministry of silly walks
@@johnc6158 indubitably. 🧐 🤣
Jim Henson did believe the most sophisticated people he knew were children inside. So this might actually be a Muppets trial
his objection was not suppose to be meant argumentative. he was just skeptical to professors (or was she?) description of who gets possessed and if that's even plausible to be discussed at court. he finds it silly
Objection: Your honor, LegalEagle does not call his office 'The Nest', clearly, he is a fraud, and should have his bird law credentials revoked.
Objection: calling his office "the eagle's nest" might not be the look he's going for.
@@charlesrm5817 Exactly what I thought too.
I enjoy the irony of a Changling calling someone a fraud.
@@XThegamingcomedianX And that makes you my new favorite person in this comment section :P
To be fair, some birds have burrows or hollows
Who ya gonna call?
My attorney!
mccabber24 Unrelated to your comment but I appreciate your pfp
I would also accept Who ya gonna call? indochino but my attorney works too.
So Phoenix Wright?
LegalEagle is my personal lawyer.
But hopefully not before you're indicted.
"Silliness is not in the federal rules of evidence!"
I think this is one of the best quotes I've heard in a long time. 😂
Actually, Silliness IS in the federal rules of evidence. Open any page, close your eyes and....point.
Sure it is in the rules
I really want to like your comment but if I did I would change the number of likes from 666 to 667. Let’s keep it at 666. Fits the video.
@@humanbeing5396 didn't even notice that
Not in U.S. Courts, perhaps, but in the UK, where they have the Ministry of Silly Walks, silliness is not only in federal rules of evidence, silliness is _required_ evidence in order to join Ministry of Silly walks.
I love that the defense calls the "scientist expert witness" for their side, and explained that she went the Yale and Cambridge, but Hollywood still felt that they had to make her all spooky and mysterious, like a strip mall psychic.
I was called a hypersensitive as a child, turns out child abuse, neglect and anxiety makes you sensitive to surten triggers, who knew
@@cheseburger0912 They share that they underwent abuse and neglect as a child and you choose to criticise them publicly for their spelling? Come on, mate. Be kind.
@@jaycievictory8461 so alleged abused people can never be criticsized?
@@duckmeat4674 Not when you're criticising them when they're sharing their abuse, no.
@@jaycievictory8461 alleged abuse. This is the internet. I was abused, prove me wrong
@@duckmeat4674 As you say, it's the internet, not a court of law. The OP hasn't accused anyone. Hasn't named anyone. There is absolutely no disadvantage to taking them at their word. But there is great possible harm to not believing and/or mocking them when they talk about it. So when there is no possible negative consequence, it's always better to be kind 🌻
The faces you made when the "possession expert" was talking made me spit out my drink. I object on the grounds of spilled hot chocolate.
I felt his stance even before he started following up the scene with the legal breakdown
You might actually have a shot, considering the McDonalds precedence.
@@BlueGangsta1958 You might want to review that case beyond the McMedia coverage. People spill coffee on themselves every day and don't get hurt. She was one of hundreds who got third degree burns, and McDonalds had been advised to lower the temperature but refused to do so due to cost savings of keeping it at a higher temperature so it didn't have to be thrown out as frequently. Furthermore, she got less after appeal than the cost of her medical bills, so McDonalds still won that.
@@Merennulli I knew she got injured, my point was on the mental pain caused by spilled hot chocolate.
I was not aware that McDonalds won the appeal, that sucks. Poor lady was in misery from those injuries.
@@BlueGangsta1958 To be clear, the appeal wasn't decided either way, they settled out of court during the appeal. Her initial award was also lowered by the trial court to $640k prior to the appeal process, so it was never going to be the few million (2 days of McDonalds coffee sales as punitive damages were reduced to $480k, while compensatory damages weren't changed) that the jury recommended. It was never publicly released what the final settlement was, only that it was significantly lower and that it didn't fully cover her expenses.
It's also not clear why she settled, but with her medical bills and the appeals process tending to favor deep pocketed businesses in these cases, I'd imagine it was on advice from her lawyers.
This guy looks like if Ryan Reynolds matured and became a lawyer
sustained. that’s not Ryan Reynolds?
He also sort of looks like Billy Eichner...
Kanyn Crawford ok i just watched some clips from billy on the street and got this notification. thank you.
AxeKick80 what? He looks nothing like Tom Hiddleston lol
He needs to dress as Deadpool for Halloween.
I think the problem here isn't "Was she possessed or epileptic" but "did she and the priest have the right to choose to ignore a doctor's opinion" Which Emily did have to right to do, but if the priest was sewing doubt that wouldn't have existed otherwise, that may have undermined her choice.
For future use. Sowing doubt.
@@khamjaninja. Yeah, rewatching it feels like the defense's argument should be focused on Emily's apparent decision to go through with the exorcism. They would need to prove that this decision actually WAS made in an appropriate sane state of mind (as they talk about how Emily would "come back" between outbursts, but we're never shown this). They would need to show that she was aware of what the exorcism would entail and had the ability to consent.
The prosecution, meanwhile, would need to show that the priest's actions actually caused her death and that it wasn't merely circumstantial. (If you throw holy water on someone who's bleeding out, and then they die, it isn't because you threw holy water on them.) I don't think this is clear within the movie.
I also find it interesting that only the priest is charged. The parents, who also wanted the exorcism, are not on trial. Neither is the archdiocese who approved the exorcism (it even comes up the movie that he's afraid the priest's testimony will incriminate him, though this thread is dropped).
FWIW, Eagle briefly mentions this is based off a real trial (Anneliese Michel, and it was in Germany, don't look up the photos it's so much gnarlier than the one in the movie), the cause of death was pretty clearly starvation, Annelise refused to eat, and the exorcism team was pronounced guilty bc they had a responsibility to ensure she had nourishment (feeding tube, IV) and refused to do so, to oversimplify. In short: Regardless of anybodies belief, & regardless of if Annelise was in the state of mind to agree to the exorcism, the priests where, in fact, negligent leading to her death.
Also there where no doctors present & she claimed to be possessed by (iirc) 7 demons, including Hitler. That last one isn't rly relevant to the trial rly but it's memorable.
@@10094926 I love how the movie completely omitted the fact that Hitler was apparently one of the spirits possessing her. When I first heard that I almost burst out laughing wondering how ANYBODY could have taken that seriously.
@@khamjaninja. but you can't be sure that it did result in her death.
That is not a fact as it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, it is however a possibility.
I think the "silliness" line was just inserted to give a little chuckle and break from the seriousness, for the audience. I saw it in a theater (remember those good 'old days?) and it worked.
@Autarch Imperial It's a place people went to in the before times.
@@afroditesis4738 before the dark times, before the empire
@@saiinnhtongkham306 you could find them almost anywhere
Ah yes. I miss the popcorn
@Autarch Imperial another way to call a cinema, it could also be a place where you can watch a live play, but in this case is referring to a cinema.
I love how confused you were at how legally sound the prosecution's opening statement was
Waiting patiently for legally blonde the movie
Me too! I'd love to hear his reaction of it and know if it is accurate
same!!!
he hearted this comment its too late im getting my hopes up! best movie ever
Facts
Yes! Love that film
"Emily's condition was infact demonic possession"
There should have been:
"Objection your honor, the defense's lawyer is not an expert in the field of demonic possession, nor medical practice, and she cannot state that Demonic possesion was Emily's condition as fact."
Should that be where the defense could have said “the facts will show” or “we will prove” that her condition was demonic possession?
@@benedictifye No, because the court won't decide on religious matters. What the defense should have said was, "The facts will show/prove that my client and Emily willingly and with full understanding took part in a spiritual treatment. The facts will shows that my client perform due diligence to prepare for said treatment and ensure it was safe. The facts will also show that under the circumstances my client did everything reasonably possible to save Emily and that her death, while tragic, was an accident."
Granted I'm not a lawyer but I don't believe it matters what Emily's condition really was. What matters is that did Emily make an informed willing decision in her choice of care; and was the priest negligent in his services?
It sure was!!!
"the court is not going to recognize the existence of demons"
Utah: *sweats in religion*
Does mormons believe in demons? Or exorcism?
Sweats nervously
@@travisrocks21 not necessarily, utah just happens to be infested with literal demons
I don't get it, does Utah actually recognize such things in court or something ? Is there a precedent or what ?
@@idenree8606 no they don't, but they are very known for having a hard time separating church from state.
Well, personally I object to the silliness.
"Objection! I object to the witness talkativity!" (Prosecutor Miles Edgeworth)
Silliness sounds like a monty python line.
@@Phil9874 Let's not go to Camelot. Tis a silly place.
*Dodges tomato* I concur.
Your honor, my lawyer is spooked. I'd like to postpone this trial.
Move it along, counselor...
@@LegalEagle Objection! The judge is being unreasonable.
Yeah that objection sounds as questionable as the sillyness defense lol.
@@LegalEagle Objection! The sixth amendment includes the right to counsel. Said counsel has to be mentally competent for their assistance to be of use to the defendant.
It reminds me of the Fletcher reed arguement "because it's damaging to my case!"
This whole case makes me angry. It always makes me think about the French attorney who, while defending an accused witch, called the devil to the stand in Gods name then said "if God and this court cannot summon Satan what makes you think this uneducated farm girl can.
wow this attorney was pretty dumb
I'm sorry what?! Unbelievable.
I think that's a great defense to be honest. They were trying to convict her of witchcraft, that attorney was brilliant.
wtf
I mean, it helps her case? Like, the girl probably can't even read, and the court would have more demon summoning resources.
My mom was hit by a car when she was little which caused her to develop temporal lobe epilepsy from brain damage. She ALSO developed schizophrenia which continued to get worse as she got older. Schizophrenia can cause auditory and/or visual delusions as well as religious ideations. They can hear voices and see demons/spirits and believe their lives are in danger. During a psychotic break they can believe demons are after them etc. and they will behave in ways that are not "normal" because their delusions are very real to them.
I've often wondered why schizophrenia causes people to hear several different voices speaking (and in most times saying horrible things to the person). It's a cruel disease that takes a persons' peace of mind. I feel for any person or family member affected by a loved one suffering in this way. I also wanted to add my mother never thought anything was wrong with her either and ended up becoming a ward of the state. She lives in a group home.
*hug*
"Objection!" Finally. "For silliness!" ARE YOU KIDDING ME
The court won’t accept the existence of demons? But I thought possession was nine tenths of the law?
*Rimshot*
Very underrated comment.
Good joke. Your username just makes that joke so much better.
HA! lol
OBJECTION: Are you entering subliminal DxD in the courtroom? Or are we talking drug possession? Sorry I'm slow
"Objection!"
"On what grounds?"
"Silliness"
And that's how half of all Money Python skits end.
Well... you’re not wrong...
Now that you mention it the prosecutor somehow really reminded me of John Cleese.
Also, the movie is wildly different from the actual events. The original girl went through like 67 exorcisms, and there were multiple priests involved.
Seems like exorcisms might be ineffective for dealing with psychological issues.
@PKD Orion as a epileptic her parents were crazy you have to chose the right mixture of medicine and that can take years to get right
@@shaijohnson2433 agreed. the patient was also severely abused - she was beaten and starved and her knees were broken from repeated genuflections. you can't just give up after two relatively unsuccessful prescriptions and pray the cray away, that's not how epilepsy works lmfao
@@thoughtfuldevil6069 Surprisingly enough, exorcism can be an effective way to deal with psychological issues for some people! Obviously the parents of the poor girl failed her- from what I understand about the case, the priests the parents consulted advised the parents to continue seeking medical treatment- but exorcism can help those with psychological issues improve.
Let's put the question of supernatural interference to the side for now. Even if exorcism is just a placebo, it is a potentially very powerful one for those who are religious, spiritual, or strongly affected by performances.
Western medicine tends to discount the value of placebos, but I strongly disagree with that POV, particularly when it comes to psychological treatments.
@@shaijohnson2433 she sought five years of medical treatment before any other options were considered. Meanwhile, her condition was rapidly declining.This is literally all on Wikipedia.
Prosecutor: Taking this girl off medicine killed her.
Defendant: Demons though?
I’m glad I wasn’t on that jury, sounds like a hard one.
Aiden Potter it is a hard one how hard of a sentence will be given? Lmao
The key wouldn't really be whether demons exist or not, like the guy said. It would be if the actions or inaction of the priest were causal of the death. Or, if it could be said he is legally responsible. It might've been that even with medical treatment she still would have died.
@@JohnSmith-wx9wj yeah but the defendants believeing in demons could bring their judgment into question in the eyes of some jurers.
@@saphired02 No helping that. No human can truly stick with nothing but the facts and circumstances.
@@saphired02 Being a priest the defendant is basically assumed and required to believe that. A juror who doesn't believe in their judgment because of it is technically supposed to withdraw themselves
"HEY LEGAL EAGL-"
I've already hit LIKE.
hqbattery HAHA I hit the like while it was loading
S L A P P Like now!
Wait, wrong channel.
Exactly, i know he’s gonna deserve the like before I even watch the video
One more like until demonic possession. I'm like number 665.
Objection: Prosecutor refuses to make enough ghost puns. I declare a mistrail even though that is how nothing works.
I like "that is how nothing works" a lot more than "that's not how anything works"
I dunno, it's more direct and definitive.
Maybe he wanted the wight not to incriminate himself?
I want to point out a fact I found out years ago.
When you go to a priest for a suspected exorcism or demonic possession.
While they do pray for you and put a blessing upon you they look for psychiatric health issues, physical health issues, or environmental and family issues first.
And not suggesting refusal of medically directed treatment. The black or white approach here is a strawman.
Did you find that out by watching The Exorcist?
@@broadsword6650
No.
I work in the medical field.
True, but that standard is a result of cases such as the one in this video
Because they have to
"Yeah, that's not correct"
Judge: I'll accept that.
Man, the timing!
"That is not correct"
Judge:...I'll accept that.
" *Laughs in Lawyer* "
Imagine if during such a trial a demon actually appeared as was all like "Yeah, I did it, so what?".. cause what you really going to do then?
The judge will order the jury to ignore the demonic spawn and tell the bailiff to tackle Lucifer.
I think what also annoyed me was that the defendent's lawyer said that after the doctors couldn't help her he tried to help her in a different way. But before the doctor even said he prescribed medication, did tests and advised a specific treatment plan for her condition, she chose to not come in for further testing. So from what I understand it's not that doctors couldn't help her. It's that she didn't allow them to help her. Which is her choice. So to make that statement didn't really make her seem trustworthy or reliable to me right from the start, as she seemed to make claims that were proven to be incorrect already.
In the real case, I believe she did follow medical advice and continue taking the medication- it just never helped.
@@theOasisSeTarot I don't understand why people find it so hard to believe that things different from human consciousness exist. What's so damn hard to believe about it? We know almost nothing about the oceans that cover 70% of the earth, but these people are absolutely convinced they know God and demons can't exist lol. Atheists are a truly unique and thorough brand of stupid.
@@theOasisSeTarot You believe incorrectly. :)
Digging the nice halloween color combo in your suit!
You noticed!
@@LegalEagle How many suits do you have btw?
LegalEagle If only there was a store to purchase these items from...
Suit looks damn good!
I'm the 550 like
"The court is not going to recognize the existence of demons."
Objection, demonstrably false statement. The court fully recognizes and acknowledges Lawyers in all relevant respects. This obviously includes the undeniable fact that they exist both in common understanding of the term and as legal entities.
Took me a sec but still died laughing... Facing a legal battle myself, this took the edge off the sharp tension brewing from the impending fact that I'll be soon facing both my lawyer and the enemy's about land rights and inheritance jargons I've no clue about.
Not to forget that the judges, for the most part, are lawyers too. The actual word Satan is Hebrew for the accuser. So there is a historical and religious argument that a district attorney, present in the above case, is in fact the devil or at best the devil's advocate. There is more that could be said about statism that attorneys [and democrats and federalist] so love, and the antichrist, but that is another topic.
@@michaellake4633 sort of. Ha satan translates to accuser/ opposer/ prosecutor, could be anyone, and is an agent of Yahweh. Big S Satan as a specific character didn't come along until much later
@Nick Moore you say joke, as if implying that they really aren't
the fact this comment has 666 likes just makes it much better
A morbid detail in this movie, particularly during the attorney's opening statement that I thought was brilliant, was in the photo he held up. Shes making eye contact with you. Freaky and so powerful.
To be fair, with the whole cross examination mishap, they clearly did that for the flow of the movie; not so much as a direct play by play of the real trial. Otherwise, none of the flashback scenes would be able to break up the heavy legal scenes; it would be a beginning trial, her flashback thing and then the middle and end of the trial. It was used so that viewers aren't so overwhelmed by the trial stuff.
Ya. It's a movie.
The prosecution should have demanded that the alleged demon be called as a witness.
Part of me just wants it to arrive in a suit and tie with his own individual lawyer.
@@dastvan8002Beelzebub files an amicus curiae brief?
In Ace Attorney, the totally would do it.
@@dastvan8002 A ghost in an indochino suit?
"Mr. Pazuzu, can you confirm your existence to the court please?"
"Silliness is not part of the Fenderal rules of evidence..."
That explains a lot, actually...
I feel like it should be. Objections on the grounds that something is just too silly makes perfect sense to me 😅
@@albinoshamrock8871 Rules #701 and #702 pretty much translate to "they must know what they are talking about and be able to prove that $#!+ with science", so... basically this guy was just speaking too informally for court. Understandable based on the amount of verbal guano he just had to wade through.
@@albinoshamrock8871 not to me. they already have Contempt of Court for people who are getting up to antics in the courtroom, and sometimes you can't avoid silliness when dealing with all the weird shit that humanity can get up to.
@@albinoshamrock8871 It's too vague. Any lawyer could use it at any time against any argument/evidence they didn't agree with.
"I object to that argument/evidence, Your Honor, because I think it's silly."
@@b0bkakkarot Yeah even Saiyans understand that a vague answer is often little better than no answer at all. Thus if you're objecting you need to be specific as to why. Describing an argument as "silly" is not being specific.
"He has asserted that any attempt by my client to help Emily by anything other than medical means was not only inappropriate but criminally negligent"...um, objection as this was not the assertion of the expert witness. He never said that "anything other" than the treatment that was medically recommended would be criminal, he said that treating her by other means "instead" of what was medically recommended was criminal. And there is a difference. The first one implies that it was the addition of the religious treatment that caused issues, in actuality it was the replacement of medical treatment with religious methods that was damaging.
I’m not even a lawyer, and I know that jurors can’t make recommendations for sentencing. Although I have been on The United States Federal
Grand Jury for 18 months. It was a very educational, and was glad I served.
Curious how many times do movies like this accidentally cause a juror to do something stupid or incorrect because they saw it in a movie?
Too many
RIIGHT? Court movie scenes should be prohibited.
plasmaburndeath My husband was on a juror once. He was telling me they had someone from the courthouse have a meeting with them explaining how tv/move aren’t accurate so don’t base your judgment from TV and movies.
There is something called the CSI Effect, where juries insist on direct DNA evidence and such. Which completely discounts that most DNA labs in the US are massively overloaded and months behind schedule, so yeah, that sample isn't gonna show up.
wow I must say first time almost hitting 200 likes on comment within this channel, and I'm honored =)
and thank you guys for the comments.
I can't believe you didn't cite the legal principle most relevant to this case: "Possession is 9/10 of the law."
Shirt design, pentagram with”possession is 9/10 of the law” and like there’s a briefcase or something.
Criminally underrated comment.
Booooooo
@@demoneon9527 the band Possessed may have had one
@@willh3972 You're welcome 😉 😇
Real talk: I cried hard when I saw this movie on TV, the scene where it showed how Emily ultimately died got me teared up.
I watched it too and it low-key scared me. And I remember feeling so bad for her, but also really impressed with her actress.
Am I the only one that takes the closing statement "I will see you in court" like a threat? Like jesus, better buy me one of dem Indochinos :P
Judge: Time for sentencing.
Juror: We want him to go free!
Judge: Sounds good.
woah.
At least they didn't show "Give us Barabbas!" this time.
IRL he and another priest was seen guilty and put into jail. The real excorcism was f--ked up and uneccessary
@@phoenixwhiler943 Nope, that jail sentence(6 months) was suspended and they only got 3 years probation. The defendants even filed an appeal because in their mind only God could judge in this case. They redacted that appeal when their lawyers told them the chances of that working.
thats mostly because it happend in realive to but that was because of an techincality and because german law recogniozed religion as a defence back than
@Dominic It doesn't follow that because he had sat in jail since before the trial started, that he didn't go free after it had finished. That's the wrong counter.
„The court is not going to recognize the existence of demons“ - thanks for the laugh man, perfectly put!
For the simple fact that it is not scientific, or a fact.
Yeah, it's about three and a half centuries too late for that line of argumentation to be valid. 🙃
If they did it would be Salem era all over again
“Silliness is not in the federal rules of evidence.”
Yeah, but how great would it be if it were.
"Objection!" - Finally!
"How about silliness." - Ima head out
“The court is not going to recognize the existence of demons.”😂
At least, not without evidence. ;)
"I've seen it ever since"
"No further questions"
Honestly, I'd start by asking something like, "Where do you see it now?"
The court foolishly recognises the existence of God so I see some double standards here
Yet they recognize God 🤔😏🙄
"In other news, water is wet" How could you say something so brave yet so controversial
I'll give you a better one. If humans are made of water, does that mean humans are wet?
@@Spectre1578 in some circumstances, yes.
@@Spectre1578 depending how the night progresses. An intimate dinner, stimulating conversation perhaps, followed by some light hearted mischief on the town and finish off with a Marvin Gaye record and a bottle of wine to share.
@@Spectre1578 I'd say yes...and if you find one that isn't wet just tickle them silly...but be warned. If they are truly dry: send them away with haste. You've been warned 😑
Uh... anybody gonna bring up that water in itself is *not* wet?
Love this channel as a Social Worker I spend quite bit of time in court however we get zero legal education in school. This offers good insight on the ins and outs of the courtroom
11:40 Objection. You say the defense's expert witness, a researcher on the phenomena of possession, is not admissible because it must be rooted in scientific knowledge. I think you are making a mistake in your understanding of what it is she studies.
She is an anthropologist. One of the things anthropologists do is they look at the way humans experience and relate to the world and themselves across time and across cultures and try to draw conclusions about what those forms of experience and relating mean about humankind. The expert witness says that when humans experience possession, which is something humans have experienced across time and cultures, and that that experience of being possessed is an interpretation of a basic human experience. At least in the clip you provided in this video, she never says that there are actual spirits/demons out there possessing folks, just that the subjective experience of that happening is a fairly ubiquitous human experience as can be scientifically illustrated by ethnographic and neurological/psychological research.
Yeah, I thought the point of that expert witness was to define possession as a psychosis and exorcism as a treatment to break this psychosis in a pseudo-medical manner.
The expert witness could argue that it is a historically proven method of fixing similar cases.
Falling Petunias they could argue that until they’re blue in the face and getting they’re own visitation experience, still doesn’t make it a factually true statement without supporting evidence to back it up.
It's pretty simple. If you talk about possession, you lose scientific credibility
I was also bothered by that.
No anthropologist would claim that demons/other supernatural entities "objectively" exist, but rather that in order to understand human behaviour, we might sometimes have to act as if they do, because they exist for our informants and it is impossible to understand why they do what they do, if we do not fully engage with their worldview. Furthermore, the expert witness in the clip actually mentioned "hard science", neuroscience to be exact, which makes the claim that she is being unscientific even more audacious.
Dissociative phenomena (as they may also occur as part of temporal lobe epilepsy, but much more commonly due to various environmental or chemical triggers) are fairly well studied and as the witness said are attested in most cultures across the globe. Studying them from the neuroscientific perspective (most recent finding here: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32939091/ ) is important to develop treatments for instances when those phenomena occur as part of a disorder or are simply experiences as a negative force by the affected individual/s.
However those phenomena have been interpreted indigenously in a variety of spiritual, religious, medical or other ways and those frameworks that people might use to make sense of their experiences are what ultimately guides how they will "deal with" them - which is why it is essential to also study those cultural aspects of dissociative experiences, because we are dealing with culturally embedded human beings, not neurons in a lab.
As an aside, there is a very well-known and talented professor at my university, Prof. Sax, who has worked extensively on possession in Northern India and on the efficacy of rituals, including exorcisms, who interestingly enough found that possession cults often function as a sort of legal system in those parts of the world, with possessed mediums mediating between feuding clans etc. A list of his publications on the topic can be found here:
www.sai.uni-heidelberg.de/ethno/index.php?page=staff/sax
I recommend in particular "God of Justice" and "The Law of Possession".
No. It’s fine if you like what she was saying, but nothing she said had anything to do with the case before the court. Opposing counsel could have raised a legitimate objection to every sentence.
Objection: the Indocino ghost isn’t wearing pants. The promo code should be at least 50% off.
OVERRULED. On the grounds of dirty britches.
Overruled. Ghosts don’t have legs; it was tailored perfectly for him.
@@samboujaiteh3331/videos Inseam: 0. Fit: Scary good.
brilliant!
@@PongoXBongo
“Objection!”
“Finally!”
“On what grounds?”
“Silliness.”
“NO!”
Aw, you didnt get 2.3k likes.
"The court is not going to recognize the existence of demons."
Objection, demonstrably false statement. The court fully recognizes and acknowledges Lawyers in all relevant respects. This obviously includes the undeniable fact that they exist both in common understanding of the term and as legal entities.
@@xMorbidArtx y so specific
@@adios5072 Because he copied the same comment that had 2.3k.
@@xMorbidArtx oh
I really liked this movie. Jennifer Carpenter's acting in this role was pretty incredible . Also, I loved how you incorporated the sponsor into your video. Very creative! 😂
I recommend researching the case this movie was based on, that of Annelise Michel - the trial after her death would make a very interesting legal study, and her parents as well as the priests were held accountable for her lack of medical care
“The court is not going to recognize the existence of demons.”
Not a phrase I thought I’d ever hear a lawyer say, but one that I am glad to have heard from a lawyer nonetheless.
But it WILL recognize the existence of Santa, at least. XD
But that's because Santa is _real_
@@fabrisseterbrugghe8567 Exactly! So sayeth the Federal Postal Office in court! Lol
Demons: HEY! Demon lives matter too!
Prosecutor: You little devils are the reason we’re here in the first place.
Defendant: Objection! The Prosecution is badgering our witness.
Judge: overruled. The court does not recognize the existence of demons. Father, could you assist security in removing them?
Fire Power701
Partly why Thor doesn’t have to sign the accords.
Objection!
Still waiting on a review of "To Kill A Mockingbird."
Isn't that a how-to book?
LegalEagle: "This thing is, the court is not going to recognize the existence of demons."
I was going to make a joke about lawyers, but it's too easy. Plus, you're one of the few lawyers that it might not apply to.
LegalEagle: "I'd like to exorcise some the demons... Some of the *legal* demons."
You're definitely making it too easy for me.
Campbell Scott, the actor playing the lawyer Ethan Thomas, is always exceedingly believable in all of his roles. This film is no exception. I appreciate that you laud his work right off the bat, here. Great movie, excellent cast, and a very good in depth analysis, J.D.. It seems as if most of your issues boil down to the script writers not having the proper consultaion with legal experts, which would have helped with the leagl dialogue, without sacrificing dramatic effect.Thank you for this one! Hugs
Judge: *Makes some poor guy say the verdict*
Legal Eagle: “Wait! That’s illegal!”
Legal Eagle: *Its Actually Illegal*
I just hope lunch was provided. That at least makes up for some it
UnwaveringBackBone I hope so, but I don’t see the reason the judge put that pressure of reading the verdict to someone else
@@sabertheodst/videos Maybe it was payback for his super special custom lunch that delayed proceedings? The man should have just been happy with a sandwich. ;)
PongoXBongo true
"But that's boring!" - Hollywood 🤣
I love how you're silly and do jokes, but it's not over the top. Like it's perfect, cheeky and just...I love it 💗
I love your indochino ads. They are quick, to the point and very entertaining. If I ever need a suit it'll be the first place I'll go.
"Emily Rose's condition was, in fact, demonic possession..." OBJECTION: Unsubstantiated claim? Lack of basis? Does the state recognize "demonic possession" as a valid medical condition? If so, what are the criteria? How can it be a "fact" with no forensic evidence for the claim?
That's the real crux of this right from the start. What's the basis for this claim at all? I don't believe a case can be made with evidence that takes the form of "no evidence can be provided because I cannot prove demons exist, that demons can possess people, or that Emily was possessed by a demon". The entire chain required is absent.
Well it really is impossible to tell if it was demonic possession. There could be some sort of invisible creature that tortures things for fun then jumps from the host. Cant disprove it or prove it. Its interesting theres been no deep scientific search to prove or disprove the existence of an entity like that.
@@Garet53 A claim that cannot be proved or disproved scientifically is called "unfalsifiable" and is not admissible in court. It is the job of the person making the positive claim, that there are invisible creatures, to propose and perform a test proving their existence. Otherwise, the default position is that they do not and courts cannot run under the assumption they do.
Thats a hard morality choice to make. The best that can be done though without evidence to prove somthing invisible. Thank btw couldnt find a good answer to that. also its hard making the assumption as a human that somthing cant exist. Not making excuses for these guys also. Im just trying to figure out what they were thinking. Why they were think that way. I believe there is things we dont understand yet. But these priests were outright torturers in most cases. Also sorry any mistakes in my words my hands are abit messed up. Makes me type funny i find
balrog durins bane we could prove invisible thing such as gravity or gasses. However religious ppl have been incredibly insistent for centuries, that demon exist, with out a single piece of evidence. They could have switched the word from “demon” to “flying spaghetti monster”. Who ever claims said monster exists, they need to demonstrate it. Why not try summoning a demon in court?
“There’s no such thing as ghosts”
- A dude whose office was inexplicably freaking out and inhabited by a ghost Indochino suit
Nah, that’s just how suits are.
It happens when a lawyer gets a particularly interesting LawSUIT.
I know it's an old movie and laws change, but I would love to see you do To Kill a Mockingbird based on the laws back then! My favorite book of all time!
I found your channel about 3 hours ago, and have binged so many episodes. Really enjoy the content! Never have been interested in law but, this is very entertaining and informative? haha. Love it!
11:26 Objection. She clearly speaks with proper mystical accent to qualify her expert status.
Taistelukalkkuna I just binged the Expanse I was surprised to see her here, too.
@@WitzyZed her defense for anything should have been "legitimate salvage"
Shohreh Aghdashloo has such a distinct and awesome voice. It's right up there with Morgan Freeman for best voices of all time.
@@DSzaks I agree. I'd probably by instant water from her if she sold it too me because of that voice. "For only $20, you can get this gallon of instant water. Just add water." Wow. You make it sound so great. Here's my life savings. I'm set for water for life.
No one knows more about ancient demons than the Persians.
My Boyfriend: "Why are you watching that? Lawyers aren't funny."
Me: "Clearly you've never seen this channel."
this was funny?
@@65MaX73 Yes. Yes it is.
How do you have a boyfriend if your name is Joseph?
@@olddoggo6769 You do know that homosexuality is a thing, right?
Jamie G that’s a myth.
I’m sooo glad you did this one!! I know I’m a smidge late but I was always curious about the behavior of the Prosecutor and his attitude and treatment of the defense’s witnesses. The condescension and such seemed extreme to me. Are they really like that, rather, are they allowed to be like that?
thanks legaleagle, i felt exactly like you watching this movie. some of scenes in the court sounded like it is very real. I commend the movie to show both sides of the argument, but the side they choose for defence was so ridiculous. People give this movie a lot of credit for being underrated, i appreciate it too but it too silly to call some medicine as the cause of a exorcism not working right that is so convenient. Also i laugh out loud when they tried to explain why he choose Halloween as the day for exorcism. Movie has an excellent performance from Jennifer carpenter.
Ngl I spent all 25 minutes staring at DJ. Man's looking sharp af
I wonder what brand it is...
@@LegalEagle indochiiiiiiinoooooooooooo intensifies
@@LegalEagle Hmm.. I dunno. Indochino maybe?
*loud indochino noises*
"The thing is: The court is not going to recognize the existence of demons." Made me spit out my tea laughing. Well done. 👍🙂
That's the wrong approach. At that point, she wasn't trying to convince them that demons were responsible, just that everyone involved DID believe that and that herefore it wasn't negligence.
@@hughwotmeight2453 Legitimate follow-up question: if everyone involved believed it was demons, would that somehow make it not negligence? Follow-up to that follow-up: if everyone believes shooting someone in the head is the best way to cure a headache, would that make it not murder?
@@IceMetalPunk couple of things to point out.
the first is that Catholic Exorcists are supposed to determine if their might be a medical cause before starting an exorcism, since seizures, delusions, and many types of diseases or infections can be mistaken for Demonic Activity. By ignoring a medical professional's expert opinion in favor of the families, and outright advising against him, the priest is Negligent (he's also pretty much Negligent if he's Catholic, since a Catholic Priest is supposed to collect evidence and send it on to the Vatican for further investigation in cases like this). furthermore, as a PRIEST and not a DOCTOR, he really had no business giving Emily Rose any medical advice beyond "see a professional".
the second is that the Prosecution is arguing that Emily Rose was mentally incapable of making an informed decision, which if successfully argued means that her opinion doesn't matter. since the charge is Negligence, it's more like a parent getting their child killed because they were "just faking sick" when they should've gone to the doctor.
EDIT: I was wrong, it turns out that this WAS a sanctioned exorcism. priest still had no place giving medical advice, though.
@@natesmodelsdoodles5403 Did you mean to reply to Hugh? Because I completely agree with you, and my follow-up questions were meant to point out how Hugh's argument falls flat.
@@natesmodelsdoodles5403 I thought the Church had specialized exorcists that were also psychiatrists? Someone in another comment said that they starved and dehydrated the poor thing. I doubt that would be sanctioned.
Objection! You are too awesome and your suit looks too good on you! So glad you did this movie! I was curious about your thoughts on this! My fave video of yours so far.
Oh wow this video was so enjoyable!! I often hate watching youtube videos (because I'm a bizarre weirdo) so I don't usually watch so much as do other things while listening....but this was so professional AND fun and I love those little slide cards explaining things. Oh my god I love you seriously! Total nerdgasm, better than I expected and totally fit for a lawyer. Total respect and huge slam on that subscribe button!! :D
The Priest is like a Steven King villain, but here he's a hero somehow.
Look into the actual exorcisms they are f--ked up
(Yes there was real audio tapes of the exorcisms)
The movie makes me cringe after learning about the case it's based on, that of a girl called Anneliese Michel. Her parents and two Roman Catholic priests were found guilty of negligent homicide due to their treatment of her. From Wikipedia: "On 1 July 1976, Michel died in her home. The autopsy report stated the cause was malnutrition and dehydration due to being in a semi-starvation state for almost a year while the rites of exorcism were performed. She weighed 30 kilograms (68 pounds), suffering broken knees due to continuous genuflections."
Despite the horrific details of the case, "...Michel's parents and the two Roman Catholic priests were found guilty of negligent homicide and were sentenced to six months in jail (reduced to three years of probation), as well as a fine."
For this film to portray a fictionalised version of one of Anneliese Michel's killers as some sort of hero is tasteless at best, or morally repugnant to be less charitable.
@@MatthewShute it's what some would call a Christploitation. Basically a film the glorifies the worst any religious person has to offer.
@@phoenixwhiler943 There are no actual exorcisms. People can make weird noises.
@@smaakjeks Exorcism is the pre-Freudian form of psychotherapy, demons or ghosts instead of complexes, and a priest or religious leader instead of a psychotherapist.
"Hearsay"
Objection: This is based off the 1978 trial of Anneliese Michel in GERMAN court, where hearsay is admissible.
Joshua Heim objection, perhaps it’s based on that trial but this case is taking place in the US as such normal hearsay rules apply.
@@thenerdviewreview8431 Were hearsay rules in 1978 different from today?
Rockymann27 mean, I ain’t a lawyer so no idea 😂
Basing it off of a German court case, and setting the film in the US brings up a conflict
@@thenerdviewreview8431 They were adopted in 1972 and I think they went into effect in 1975 or so. There have been numerous amendments over the years and some substantial changes to hearsay. However, most of those changes would not have significantly impacted what was depicted in this movie.
wow I love this guy! This video not only helps me learn English but I learn about how to think in English if that makes sense...I had a completely idea of lawers in the usa
"The utter failure of the physicians" , i.e. Emily refusing treatment due to spiritual belief? Alrighty. Guess that's their failure.
Expert scientist of the paranormal? Too bad Randy wasn't around so she could get that million dollars from his foundation.
Aw, I'm reading this on 10/25/20, rip :/
CTJAudio damn I just found out he died 2020 sucks :(
Dunno what the Randy thing is, but if she wasn't taking her medication, then yeah, it's the failure of the physicians for not making sure she was aware enough of her condition and the risks involved with not medicating and stuff. If like people say she was so bad that she was unable to consent to the exorcism then why would they let her just leave and go home? Why wasn't she hospitalized? Why wasn't she kept in hospital after the initial episodes until she was on her way to recovery? Because that's not her fault if they barely check in on her and then ditch her to the care of whoever is around. Why wasn't she in some hospice or whatever? Why was there no care plan put in place to ensure she got better? Heck, with the same Merritt, how can she be lucid enough to legally refuse medication but also considered incapable of consenting to an exorcism? How is it the fault is only hers and the priest's but the medical professionals who knew what was going on and just said "m'kay" to her being discharged, going home and refusing medication aren't considered at all responsible or negligent?
Nonsense. She was taken by her parents to half a dozen doctors who provided medication of various kinds for epilepsy over the last 6 years of her life. The more moronic atheist propagandist has been climbing on your bandwagon of lies for years now, despite the fact that disproof of your assertion in the comment sections is to be found on just about any video you people post on re this unfortunate lady.
@@sweeety969 you'd have to get a civil commitment or conservitership... You can not force people into treatment unless you can deem them incompetent... She had the right to refuse medical treatment... Only in extreme circumstances can you force someone into hospitalization... It's one hell of a double edged far far too often... But it is that way for very valid reasons...
“You don’t want wild discrepancies between people who have committed exactly the same crime.”
Is the, uh, justice system aware of this?
A good argument for mandatory sentencing ranges.
OBJECTION: Actually not an objection, but... could you check "God's Not Dead 2" most of the movie is all about a legal case. It would be really interesting to have a lawyer's point of view. Thanks.
Oh please don’t. Don’t give those movies any more coverage than they’ve already got. I’m a Christian myself and those movies are so cringey and pandering.
Muirkat yeah we can all agree the best Christian movie is prince of Egypt there’s like one movie review on TH-cam about it
For anyone in the future, Lucas said “oye, no esperaba encontrarte aquí XD” in Spanish, I’m assuming the original commenter (El Reviewer Ramdom) Is his friend, using my impeccable skills of deduction this is my conclusion.
@@TailcoatGames that one and Martin Scorsese's Silence is a fantastic film! It had me in tears!
@@TailcoatGames Yes, and it works well at being Christian by oddly IGNORING Leviticus and Joshua, say...
Love your channel. I am a non-lawyer (though I did attend law school for a while...long story), but work as a Litigation Specialist partnering with attorneys to defend personal injury claims for a third party administrator. So, in almost 30 years, I have attended hundreds of mediations and some trials (though most of our cases settle without a trial or adjudicated on summary judgment, of course). This is just great fun!
Your videos are awesome, perfect distraction from what I'm actually supposed to be doing (studying for the LSAT). I wish I worked for you! 😭😭😭😭
I wish legal eagle would do more on Better Call Saul.
Truth
I want to see more ace attorney episodes.
19:12 Witness pulls a letter out of his pocket, "To give me this"
Objection! Is this letter evidence? This is supposedly contact between the victim and the defendant. shouldn't this be introduced before the trial?
Substained.
Letter or contract is inamissable.
Just love your channel!
Loved this episode! While it’s not terribly legally sound, it’s a fun movie that absolutely spooked me when I watched it.
OBJECTION: The Federal Rules of Evidence would be in a federal court case; a murder trial would (most likely) in state criminal court. The question is whether silliness is a rule in the relevant state criminal court.
I second this objection!
In which states is "silliness" a legally valid objection?
@@stevesmith9447 I don't know. I think the more important question is in what state this movie takes place, and if there is a rule of evidence with regard to "silliness." However, I suspect that silliness would fall under frivolous court behavior, which I have seen in the rule books in my state.
@@pipersecretp3 You have me there; identifying the state is a more important question!
According to the film's IMDB trivia, the story is based on a true story from Germany, was shot in Vancouver, and was intentionally directed to establish no specific location for the story's events. Looks like we're SOL.
@@stevesmith9447 Whomp Whomp :-(
Whenever somebody argues with me I'm just going to tell them, "That's not in the federal rules of evidence!"
That is some really good editing skills
Watching you watch this was really entertaining (educational too)! For years I was an Optician have never gotten over the urge to adjust poorly fitting glasses on strangers! 😂
OBJECTION!
How come we never see your comments within the comment section?!
LegalEagle? Why, he's been dead for 20 YEARS!
Good Call!
@@LegalEagle **cue X-FILES theme**
@@LegalEagle So these video are like Jigsaw's games, the man died and others are just continuing his work.
@@Commander_Shepard. Is this your favorite channel on TH-cam?
This film is based on the case of Anneliese Michel. In the real life story two priests as well as her parents were put on trial. Tapes were played and the six names said in the movie were also said in the tapes. All were found guilty of manslaughter through negligence, sentenced to six months in jail, which was later dropped, and three years probation.
very true how powerful pictures are. i watched the jodi arias trial and i accidentally looked down when they were talking about Travis’s wounds... definitely can’t unsee that. and Juan Martinez wasn’t even screaming.
Your content is super entertaining.
Mike Judge and his team did a lot of good episodes for your show:
Beavis and Butthead "The Trial"
King of the Hill "Hank's Dirty Laundry"
King of the Hill "Lucky's Wedding Suit"
B&B isn't "politically correct" enough for this show. Sorry.
@@user-ei9ns9hq6b oh boy.
Those are episodes I haven't seen in a long time
@@BeeHatGuy hey in a lot of ways that's a legitimate point. If LE is still practicing law maintaining a squeaky clean image may be important.
It's a shame we'll never see the trial scene from Idiocracy earn its F-.
As a practicing occultist I believe...
...that Emily Rose was suffering epileptic seizures.
In addition to other, likely undiagnosed, mental conditions. Epilepsy doesn't turn you rabid.
well, technically "Emily Rose" never existed. She is an Americanized, modernized, fictionalized Hollywood version of Anneliese Michel (who lived in Germany and died in 1976). But yes I think most people feel it was a medical issue.
As a practicing occultist, you're mistaken on the grounds of claiming speculation with spiritual blindness and neglecting due diligence in researching her case.
Doesn't matter what you believe, moron, you already admitted you think that fairy tales are real; that makes you delusional.
@@aperta7525 I am a pagan witch I say that because I care not to be pacific. But I believe that you can never jump too far into any One Direction and that you should have looked all subjects with a grain of salt. And looking at her case I believe she had epilepsy. Religiously I do not believe that possession can happen to anyone other than an oracle. Spirits must ask permission in oracle's must give it. But putting all spirituality aside this girl has all the side effects of epilepsy.
Omg. I just saw the title and thought "but how? But why?" But yeah I guess it is interesting from a legal standpoint. Thank you! ❤👍