I get asked a lot about whether being a practicing attorney is like being a lawyer on TV. Like most people, 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 teaching law students how to kick ass in law school. This one is just for fun.
In this video I tackle some of the most famous courtroom scenes in Hollywood history including A Few Good Men, 12 Angry Men, The Dark Knight, and Erin Brockovich. Great dramas, but BAD lawyering. They are preposterous, but I still love watching them.
SUIT UP! Even if you're not a lawyer, you can still dress like one. All of my suits are from BlackLapel (I've used them exclusively for over five years). Their custom suits are amazing, yet still ridiculously affordable. HIGHLY recommended: https://go.magik.ly/ml/f78n/ (affiliate link, which helps out the channel)
I hope this will be the first video in a series of "Lawyer Reacts" videos. There are a lot of portrayals of lawyers in the media including movies and TV -- and a lot of cringeworthy lawyering.
Got a movie or TV show you'd like me to critique? Let me know in the comments!
Special thanks to Dr. Mike for the idea for this video (https://www.youtube.com/doctor_mike) Check out his channel for his medical review of doctors in the media.
If you're going to law school get our Ultimate Pre-Law Checklist (FREE) here ➜ https://www.legaleagleprep.com/prelaw Learn learn how to get ready for law school, the 5 things you must do the summer before law school, and more . . .
★ Got law school questions? Ask in the comments!
★ Say hi on Facebook: ➜ https://www.facebook.com/legaleaglereacts
★ Tweet at us on Twitter @LegalEagleDJ
I have a question regarding the Al Pacino scene. If as a lawyer your client tells you in confidence that he committed the act he is accused of, but still wants to enter a plea of not guilty because he believes the prosecution is unable to prove it; are you obligated to essentially lie on his behalf by proffering his plea of not guilty; or would it be more proper to ask to be removed as his attorney?
Edited for grammer/spelling mistakes.
Why didn't you mention how Hollywood fake it was that Tom Cruise, a lawyer and a low rank officer blatantly curses ("SON OF A BITCH") to a GENERAL and gets away with it???
That looked cool in the film but it was such great BS! Common lawyers even don't curse against rapists and murderers like that, and to think that it would happen in a military court??? They may know about law but most in Hollywood people don't know anything about military, except for real soldiers like Oliver Stone.
Nicholson is the witness not the defendant, but he’s arrogant enough to admit it, because he doesn’t see what’s wrong with code reds, but he’s also not going to want to be coached on what he’s going to say because he thinks he’s untouchable.
Love this channel. I recently watched "12 Angry Men" again, and the "new knife" sequence got a snicker from both my dad and I (he's an attorney, too). However, after thinking about it, I thought it provided an interesting question. Jurors are - by law - required to consider only the evidence presented at trial, this is true. However, the law in most American jurisdictions also permits jurors to use their own histories and experiences as filters through which to view the evidence as it comes in. I had this recently happen in a criminal trial when the prosecutor introduced a number of big, scary-looking guns as evidence that the defendant was inherently violent, but it had the opposite effect on the jury because in that particular jurisdiction it would not have been unusual for several members of the jury to own a large number of big, scary-looking guns, as well. We see it in civil circumstances as well, such as car accidents when a defendant talks about how busy the intersection was that night. But if a juror happens to live in the neighborhood, they are more than welcome to suggest in the jury room that the intersection is never busy because they drive by it all the time and it goes to weight of the evidence ("when that witness said it was busy, I don't believe it because that intersection is NEVER busy!")
When I first watched that scene, I figured immediately that the juror happened to also own an identical knife (which he would be free to bring up in terms of suggesting the weight that the assumed uniqueness of the item happened to have). If he was walking through the neighborhood because he lived nearby, and during that walk he happened to walk into a store and see the same knife, it's a part of his history and experience through which he can view the evidence (how unique is it, really?). There's a gray area when it comes to jury deliberations about what is permissible and what is not with respect to the manner in which they use their histories and experiences to filter evidence in coming to factual conclusions. The film never answers the question whether his discovery of the same knife was coincidental, or whether he was actually conducting his own investigation of the case which would be impermissible.
*Objection:* I really don't think any person in history has ever gone to a movie with lawyers in them expecting a treatise on realistic legal etiquette or proper legal proceedings.
That's like going to watch Resident Evil and expecting to see proper HAZMAT procedure. Or bitching about Star Wars because there are sounds in the vacuum of space.
So I have a general inquiry about law vs obligation to the client. You say that a lawyer can't knowingly lie or knowingly let the client lie but you are also not allowed to tell the court outright he's guilty? You have said if the attorney has an issue with the client he can choose to not be their lawyer anymore but if they all have rights to an attorney doesn't this have potential to just happen all over again? There is a specific episode of SVU let me look it up.........Law & Order: SVU episode titled Confidential and description perfectly sums up my confusion / question:
An attorney confesses that she had knowledge that her client committed a 22-year-old murder that another man was serving time for, but could not come forward because of attorney-client privilege.
Here's the deal, since the Marines were low ranked and the "code red" is something that is somewhat common, there is reasonable expectation that they thought they were obeying a legal order (we know that they were ordered to do it). At that point, they would be acquitted because everything that happened was a result of them following an order in which they believed was legal. Also, all military cases have an automatic appeal, so they would CERTAINLY win that
3:10 it doesn't qualify as a speculation if a commanding officer receives acknowledgement of the order given it is not Jack Nicholson speculating that his order was received clearly it was him knowing that his order was received clearly because it had to have been acknowledged by the person who received the order military doctrine the way the chain of command works the way giving an order works this is why the court system for military courts is quite a bit different from civilian Court
Yeah but that first ones a Jag Court and the military court system is quite a bit different from the civilian court system and if I'm not mistaken last-minute rebuttal witnesses while they are allowed they usually have to jump through more hoops than they would in a civilian Court
The two "rebuttal witnesses" were only presented to Jessup. As you can see, Galloway was explaining to the judge who they were and Ross was objecting, so there had been no hoops; Kafee just brought two blanks to shoot at Jessup and he did not even need them. In the event of their being rejected, Kaffee would only lose one of this tricks.
I have been wondering, why doesn't a case like Wells-Fargo, which systematically defrauded hundreds of clients, draw up RICO charges? I realize that using the RICO Act against legal enterprises is not the original intent, but as far as I know there was evidence of systemic encouragement of and incentives for illegal activities such as fraud and identity theft.
Objection in terms of civil suit yes but in a military trial referring to orders and chains of command And if were to say well maybe, possibly..I don't know.... you have a very shitty commander and army
$20,000,000 divided by 400 people works out to $50,000 for each person. so in the case of california vs PG&E where the settlement reached $333,000,000 and divide that up by 400 that works out to $832,000 per person. now i am not sure how each plaintiff is paid in a class action suit because i don't know if the money is divided up equally.
At 2:56 People make the assumption that someone understood what they said every day. If Col. Jessep had given an instruction to a subordinate, and that subordinate did not ask questions or have a confused expression and was later found by Col Jessep to have actually carried out said instructions, then it's not a stretch for Jessep to be asked if the Marine had understood the orders. Is it?
I searched for law movie and this is what I found. I'm approaching my third year in law school and when I do watch law movies, I often pause it and explain to my wife how it would actually play out. Mostly objections for speculation, unresponsive and badgering the witness, also introduction of evidence. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to do this. Keep up the good videos, I enjoyed it.
Your comment about "beyond a reasonable doubt" meaning "about 95% to 99% certain" nicely illustrates what a *horrible* system lay jury trials are. 95% means that *one in twenty* convictions will be wrong! And that is supposed to be an incredibly high standard?!
Companies like PG&E are why the death penalty needs to be introduced for individuals who are directly involved on the board of directors or above a certain point within any company that knowingly commits criminal acts that result in death or illness.
Question: Are jury deliberations monitored? In the "12 Angry Men" clip, if Henry Fonda had brought in the duplicate knife, would the judge or attorneys ever know about it in order to declare a mistrial?
I watched the movie Howl (based on real events) and I didn't understand it. My biggest question is why someone would be in a trial for obscenity after a poem in a country like America, supposedly the fathers of free speech and such.
I know you say that your channel is to help new law students; but you perhaps have a great untargeted audience with your ability to explain how all this works to the public. I am not a law student at all, but I find your explanations very good and easy to follow. Thank you,
Is it Ok to bring up the other side's other jobs in a court case? Like, If I had a salvation army employee(who introduced themselves as Salvo's employee) call a locksmith to break in my home's door and he tells the court he's also a police officer so it's legal, am I within my rights to kick up 'big stink' because he introduced himself as a charity worker to me and was told to leave the property?
For towns, each building is described, along with what and who can you can talk to, who to buy skills from, and what quests are available. For the outlying areas, the dungeons are listed.
Dungeon maps are not given -- they would be too extensive to fit easily into a web page and the automapping in the game is excellent. Also, every dungeon should be explored completely to get all of the loot, but only puzzles and hidden locations are described. I also skip most of the fighting because it isnt something that you can easily describe, nor does it matter in most places, except that you have to survive it. I do list the creatures that you will encounter in a dungeon or grid location to give you an idea of how difficult the location is.
Stores are listed with a "buy" and "sell". The "buy" value is multiplied by the items value to determine the price you have to pay for it. The "sell" value is divided by the items value to determine the price you can sell it to the store for. Higher is always worse, and a "buy" or "sell" of 1 means that you are buying/selling an item at cost.
Every location has a "reset" timer. This starts when you first enter the area, and after it "goes off", the entire grid square resets: monsters reappear and random treasure is replaced. Nonrandom treasure (including most stat-gaining liquids) is not replaced. All dungeons have a reset of 2 years (24 months), unless otherwise noted. Overland areas have reset times listed with their descriptions.
Artifacts are unique items that can be found. They come in two flavors: Minor artifacts are always benificial and have a value of 20000gp. Major artifacts always have a drawback, but their benificial powers are much stronger. They have a value of 30000gp. There are 15 minor and 15 major artifacts -- some of these artifacts are placed at specific locations; others are randomly generated.
Table of Contents.