Real Lawyer Reacts to A Time To Kill (full movie) // LegalEagle
⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
Check out the best documentaries and non-fiction movies on CuriousityStream at curiositystream.com/legaleagle LegalEagles get a free account for 31 days.
Unfortunately, racial issues come up in our judicial system. A Time to Kill deals with those issues head-on, in a gripping way. Even though this was a more serious legal movie than I tend to deal with on this channel, it was fun to take a look at Grisham’s first legal thriller. You can tell that some of the nuance of his later works is missing here, but the story is incredible. I missed this when it came out in 1996 (and I don’t think this one gets played on cable -- for obvious reasons).
(Thanks to CuriousityStream for sponsoring this video and helping to make this channel possible)
★ A Few of My Favorite Things★
(clicking the links really helps out the channel)
Custom Suits: legaleagle.link/indochino
Ties: fave.co/2ImLY9I
Tie Clips/Bars: amzn.to/2WIQ6EE
Pocket Squares: amzn.to/2UfsKtL
▶ Why Indochino Suits? (50% off Premium Suits + free shipping) [legaleagle.link/indochino]: Off-the-rack suits NEVER fit right. Indochino makes fully custom suits that fit perfectly using any material I want, with all of the options I want. And they cost 1/3rd of what normal suits costs. I’ve purchased them with my own money for years, so I’m thrilled they are now a sponsor.
▶ Why Ties from TheTieBar? (Free shipping on orders over $50) [fave.co/2ImLY9I]: Normal ties are too fat. Skinny ties are too skinny. So these days I only wear ties that are exactly 2.5” wide. They are fashionable without being hipster. You see them in all of my videos. TieBar ties are perfect, come in every color I want, and never cost more than $19.
▶ Why these Tie Clips? [amzn.to/2WIQ6EE]: It’s really hard to find affordable tie clips that are the right size (1.5”), look good, and are great quality. These tie bars are all three. Plus the 3-pack gives a variety of styles. They pair perfectly with 2.5” ties from TheTieBar (above).
▶ Why these Pocket Squares? [amzn.to/2UfsKtL]: I like my pocket squares perfectly, well, square. Like straight-out-of-Mad-Men square. The only way to do that is with a stiffer material that keeps its shape. I’ve exhaustively tried dozens of pocket squares, and these are by far the best. It’s how I get the perfectly flat pocket square you see in my videos.
--------------------------------------------------
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.
New episodes weekly! Subscribe here:
kzhead.info?su...
You can find more Real Lawyer Reacts Here (including my reaction to Suits, Better Call Saul, A Few Good Men and tons more): goo.gl/mmzShz
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
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta: / stellathelegalbeagle
For promotional inquiries please reach out here: legaleagle@standard.tv
Objection: Your Honor, Mr. LegalEagle has not presented us with any evidence he wears pants in his videos.
@Jacob Dorvinen It's a famous quote, often attributed to Carl Sagan. Here's one explanation of it: "For instance, imagine I am investigating whether or not my neighbor has a dog. If I look in their yard and see no doghouse, this is an absence of evidence, so the conclusion that my neighbor has no dog is at least consistent to believe, if not also true. But, it could also be the case that my neighbor does have a dog and they just keep it inside. So, the absence of evidence cannot conclusively prove the truth of the proposition." www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2o66wm/can_someone_explain_to_me_absence_of_evidence_is/
@Jacob Dorvinen My bad!
@@eastvandb In this case I'd say that the absence of evidence is evidence that the evidence is absent. No claims are made about the pants being there or not. And yeah, I'm a pedantic child :p
@Jacob Dorvinen - say what again!
he has no legs 😳
Objection: you should sell "The bailiff will tackle you" merch.
Even a shirt depicting a lawyer getting tackled in the well would be awesome
Nice to see a fellow dwarf fortress fan
@john fitzgerald yes! objection sustained! I would definetly buy a shirt with that:)))
-andise.
Lol love it!
"Overruled. This better be good, counselor!" -approximately 99% of movie judges and 0% of real judges
"I'll allow it, but you'd better be going somewhere with this..."
Another great performance from Judge Who Allows Everything ("...but watch yourself, McCoy.")
Gotta make the cases more exciting, because real court is boring.
Objection: “Yes they deserve to die and I hope they burn in hell”. -is an iconic line and you did not emphasize it as such.
I desperately want to see a legal drama where a lawyer steps into the well and gets body checked by the bailiff now
Gwendoline Barr me too lol.
Lawyer: “ Shirley you are you allow me to enter the premises without getting tackled by the bailiff. Bailiff “ Sir I’m warning you you enter this without permission I will be forced to tackle you.” Lawyer” i’d like to see you try” Baliff” OK you asked for it” Madison Sue’s for peace
Stuff like that is why comedies are usually more accurate than dramas. SNL courtrooms are more accurate than Good Wife one's.
@@tyrant-den884 Never thought about It that way but... It does make a lot of sense. Dramas usually want to focus on the more "elevated" (to be Aristotelian) aspects of any given situation, while comedy will face the mundane and everyday aspects. A lawyer being tackled would be realístico, but also lower our view on the dignity of that character. That said, The Good Wife had a lot of small comedy bits sprinkled here and there, so...
@@edisonlima4647 but getting body checked is slap stick. Maybe its possible to make it small comedy, but it would be tricky, and unless the whole episode was meant to be more comedic than normal, could ruin the tone. Someone blacking a defendant who was defending them-self from stepping into the well and saying "uhh, we dont actually do that in real life." could be a good little comedy as everyone is a little awkward but the judge is trying to cut them some slack because of course they wouldn't know a lot if this.
“The police can’t use this kind of overwhelming force just because they don’t like what this person has said.” Big oof from 2020
Insanity, at this point, would be an understatement if some of the politicians we have at the moment were to be put on trial.
I was literally coming down to the comments today because of that moment/quote.
I am from a small town in Ohio they do what they want if you can't handle the interrogation people die all the time around here
Wonder how many of us will be here for this, lmaoo
Took the words right out of my mouth!!
I remember as a kid, back in south Texas, a teacher(who happened to be African-American), decided to show this movie to our class so as to show us the horrors of racism. Shortly afterward she got in trouble because some parents, after hearing about it, came to the school and complained, and the teacher was made to apologize to the students that felt offended. What blew my mind, even as a child, was that the parents weren't upset about the language or violence depicted in the movie, but that showing their children this movie made them "feel guilty about their heritage" or something to that effect. That was kind of a critical moment in my life which sadly proved that the issues to which that teacher was trying to bring awareness was very much alive and well in our community. Edit: Man, I really didn’t expect my little anecdote to blow up like this. But after speaking to an old friend who was actually in that class with me, it was brought to my attention that I somewhat mis-remembered a couple details about the situation - The history teacher who showed us the movie was not African-American, she was white, and it was only one kid’s parents who complained to the principal about the film. Everything else happened just the same as was initially posted. I don’t think it really changes much about the story, just wanted to be accurate.
Today, some parents would melt like snowflakes and call it CRT.
Objectively, there is a problem with showing a *drama* and *treating* it as if it were a *documentary* The *real* history through *actual* documentaries is more than sufficient to cover how bad things *truly* were. That said, it's a good movie, even if the law is a bit off, even for the era. It is important that one remembers that it's just that, a movie. That point applies to everyone
The parents were more upset when their kids had questions if what happened in the movie was at all possible and they had to face their own racist viewpoint.
They were ashamed of a past that they had nothing to do with why should they feel guilt about it “feel guilty about their heritage” are you saying they should feel guilt about something they had nothing to do with your comment isn’t clear
Ooor, a little girl got violently raped, two men were shot to death (I'm not shedding any tears about that, though), a married man almost has an affair several times, a woman gets kidnapped, strung up and beat, and Matthew McConaughey describes in detail a little girl getting raped, beat, hung, and tossed into a river... But yeah, sure. It's their "racist viewpoint".
The fact that Kevin spacey is the one playing a man who makes your skin crawl and enrages you is A+ casting
The irony now.
@@cs-zz7jd yall need to get over that shit. This man is Lester Burnham, John Doe, Verbal Kint, and Frank Underwood. By my count, that buys him 4 teenage boys. Michael jackson made thriller and that bought him a couple kids. Spacey deserves the same treatment
@@TheGhostofMrArthurs Wasn't that a Bill Burr bit?
@@davidmaka6742 chris rock i think I'd have to go back through my comedy catalog.
@@TheGhostofMrArthurs so you’re fine with the fact that he’a p3do because he’s a good actor? Imagine if it was your kid getting abused, it wouldn’t be fine then I suppose
Objection: "This is not a realistic looking-courtroom". This is incorrect. What you are seeing is the _only_ courtroom available in a tiny rural county in the South. I have been in multiple courtrooms that looked just like this, and the older the courtroom is (and commensurately the less income the county has), the more likely it is to look this way. Your statements about why it's a bad courtroom are 100% accurate - it's difficult to hear, the crowd noise is terrible, and one judge demanded that the shackles on the inmates be covered in pipe foam so that the chains didn't rattle against the hardwood floor to create additional noise distractions. The audience and the jury have difficulty understanding what is being said, and all in all it's a terrible place to try a case, much less a capital murder case. And yet, in at least 5 courtrooms in AL, 2 in TN, 1 in GA, and 1 in MS that I have observed, they do it anyway.
Same in VA.
Sustained. The court room in my small Texas town is of similar layout and was built in the 60s. I was in there for jury selection two years ago. The plaster is literally falling from the ceiling.
Ah the south, home of all those "law and order" politicians that like to spend more on commercials about them executing people than fixing up courtrooms.
It always fascinates me how the politicians “tough on crime” seldom put that energy towards funding the criminal justice system, and really just give cops more leeway.
Yeah, pretty sure the lawyer probably is a more reliable source on this topic.
In the book, the “now picture her as white” speech was given in the jury room by one of the jurors during deliberations
And that quote gets to the heart of the case. If Carl Lee Hailey had been white and the rapists black, that same jury would have found him "not guilty."
Just one of the many reasons the book is better. Still a great movie though.
Sheila Rough what! This was my dads favorite movie. Mine too. How’d you find that? Id like to know more!!! Super interested. Thought this was a fictional story until last week
emily Mcymme it is fictional it’s the first novel by John Grisham Read it many years ago its one of his best
@@theLatestkraze Most of it is fictional though. Grisham did see a young black girl talk to a jury about getting raped and beaten, the fiction starts with her father killing the assailants.
Objection: the omission of Miranda warning is not the only issue with the pre-arrest conversation. That shoe has been improperly handled & contaminated as evidence. A defense attorney could argue it was never in the truck, and any physical evidence was obtained during this interaction.
I was looking to see if anyone posted this. That shoe should have been photographed, handled with gloves, bagged and turned in as evidence. You're right, handling it like that would have ruined it's usefulness as evidence.
I thought the omission of miranda rights wasn't grounds for mistrial anymore.
I was thinking the exact same thing. He had no gloves and the chain if custody is a disaster.
@@genxer1 Amen
That shoe had probably never been in the truck; was just a red herring for the sheriff to assess the men's reaction to it. It worked.
Objection: Matthew McConaughey's character, Jake Briggance, didn't say "imagine she's white" in his closing argument the book. It was actually a juror during their deliberations
Such an underrated part of the story. I liked the movie but that deliberation between the jurors in the book is just incredible!
This is a very weak adaptation of the book. I like the book as much as I dislike this movie.
@@ikhtiarsobhanYou're absolutely right. They really didn't do a good job at the screenwriting
I was on jury duty a couple years ago. They asked me what I did for a living. I told them I make gaming videos on KZhead. I got struck right away. We all kind of laughed about it as I walked out and waved. I would have liked to see the case, but I was happy to go home too!
thanks I will remember that next time I get called.
Personally I would have kept you on the jury - on the basis that you're technically self-employed so you appreciate an unbiased view of evidence :D
NintendoCapriSun another case of anti gamer bigotry
what was the case about? If you know that is...
Who are you?
Objection! Kevin Spacey sounds like he learned his Southern accent by studying old Foghorn Leghorn cartoons. That's gotta be a violation of something.
Totally agree, how did they think it was a passable accent?
@@CatrionaCharles To be honest, after living in GA for a while... I'd rather listen to that than some of the actual borderline self-parodying accents I've come across.
@@CatrionaCharles Objection! Kevin Spacey is very likely a terrible person he is a fantastic actor. He is not doing a southen accent but an accent that fits his characters motivations and personality.
lach10211 Like the classic villain character?
It sounds like a southern accent that got bastardized by time in a different area that caused his weird hybrid speech. Maybe law school in different part of the country
My grandfather was a lawyer from the deep south. He lived in a relatively small, secluded and, isolated community that basically acted just like this. Like the judges were way too personable with the local lawyers and run the town to their personal liking. It was vwey corrupt. He said the attorney that was prosecutoring you and your defense lawyer would literally go to each others bbqs on the weekend. And he was there in the 60s and 70s so the racism was hard-core. After we watched this movie once he told me what would have happened back in the day in reality, was the judge and cops would have been part of the kkk and so they would disclose to the members what time the guy would be transfered or moved to the courthouse to let them just kill him.
Thats sounds pretty nightmarish; facts too it wasn't uncommon especially back then for local authority figures to be Klansmen. Like the 1964 Mississippi Burning murders, the perpetrators were the local police who had ties with that branch of the Klan, killed those three Civil Rights activists.
Very well said! 👊👊✊✊👏👏👏
Objection: We have seen time and time again that the use of force rules do not apply to police officers all that often. A second objection: The reason he made conversation is that rural police officers often know their community very well and that leads to a more relaxed atmosphere when interacting. Despite what proper procedure may be, I have personally witnessed rural police hold a conversation leading up to arrest.
Also, conversation can be used to either deescalate a situation *or* escalate it depending on the wants and needs of the officers involved
Patrick McGoohan as the judge. A far cry from being the Prisoner.
"Kevin Spacey's hands dirty everything they touch, apparently." Oof.
I came to the comments to say just this. lmao
When does he say this?
@@AgentPedestrian, he didn't say it. Check 15:21. It's a written comment regarding Spacey's character mishandling evidence.
Objection!! The prosecutor was caught doing little boys. Does that mean every case he tried and got a conviction could possibly be overturned?
@swiperthefox777, not that I'm justifying his actions, but let's get a few things straight. 1) The story told by Rapp was basically that he attended a party (cast party?) at Spacey's when he was 14, went to Spacey's bedroom to watch TV because he just wasn't feeling the party, and a drunk Spacey basically came in after the party was over and collapsed on Rapp (who was sitting on Spacey's bed). Screwed up, but hardly grounds to say he was doing little boys. 2) The other minor said that when he was 17 and Spacey was in his 20's, and while he was dating his own cousin who was Spacey's age, he decided to pursue Spacey. He also reconfirmed when he retold the story that it was 100% consensual, with a full acknowledgement of the issues surrounding consent as a minor. That situation is all kinds of screwed up, but again, not sure I'd say it's grounds to say Spacey does little boys... 3) Every other man involved was of age. There were many allegations against him, confirming Spacey to be predatory, and Spacey using the allegations against him to come out was despicable, but we can do without the pedophile commentary, because it's not exactly accurate. Again, most of the men were of age, and the 2 who weren't, well, those stories don't exactly scream pedophile. They are all kinds of messed up though.
Objection! Seeing as the book was published in 1988, the story is set in the early 80's and Batson v. Kentucky was decided in 1986, it's very likely that the practice of using peremptory strikes to dismiss all black people from a jury was still upheld at that time (probably leading to Batson).
Terrence Koeman I concur with this objection
I withdrew my objection
And at least *mention* that this is still a situation that is extremely likely to occur today, and aside from the dramatic additions of telling the audience what they're doing? There is very, very little chance that this will result in any problems for the prosecutor.
Just checked, and the Grisham novel this movie is based on was set in 1984, so for sure Batson v. Kentucky wouldn't apply here.
Sustained!
Objection: Some of the cases you use to argue Spaceys legal strategy sets him up for possible appeal seems to have come from years AFTER this story takes place, as the case it was based upon took place in 1984. Therefore, those rulings were not in effect, and his racist prosecution strategies were not uncommon in the south at the time.
Prosecution still remove people from the jury pool based on race even after Dobbs, they just use different language now, e.g. "they live in the same general area", "they work in similar fields of work", "they come from the same socioeconomic background" etc. The New York times legal podcast (can't recall the name) did a whole show about how Dobbs is effectively meaningless and that nothing has changed since then. I wished that he would've have brought this up during the video.
@@malin9314Did mean Batson and not Dobbs? Dobbs was the recent abortion SCOTUS decision.
Racist prosecution is still a MAJOR problem in this country, and I sadly don't see it getting any better. Prosecutors are still pushing for stiffer sentences based on how much more melanin a defendant has to his/her skin.
Your perspective on these videos really does change after having actually served on a jury cause you get first hand experience of what court really is like. Was a juror for a nasty criminal case with tenuous evidence which made me appreciate the fact that in these legal movies there’s almost always a slam dunk. A clear piece of evidence or confession that makes everything clear when in reality a lot of criminal cases are rarely cut and dry. It’s your job as the jury to make what you believe is the best decision with what you’ve been given, even if you wish you had more to work with.
There is also an issue with people who desperately need to return to work and may be inclined to vote for whichever verdict gets them out of there the fastest. They may not say it out loud, but you can tell that some jurors are not all that invested in the case and just wanna get out of there.
Objection! Your honor, the prosecution stated that there are now "100% more lamps." However, this implies that there were, in the past, lamps, and that that number has doubled (increased by 100%). However, there were never any lamps previously, and therefore the percentage increase in lamps is undefined.
I object to your objection on the grounds of math because, you know, math.
To expand on this notion, since there were exactly 0 lamps before and there is exactly 1 lamp now, the percentage increase (and indeed the multiplicative increase) is larger than any real number (and thus undefined in the context of the real numbers). In some number systems with a a single well-defined infinity (such as stereographic projections of ℝ²), the percentage increase could be considered exactly infinite, while in many other number systems where infinities are rigorously defined (such as the hyperreal numbers), it would still be undefined.
Wow! This convo tho!!
Further on the motion, percentages being a representation of multiplication (I.e 100% = x2) means that no matter how many times you multiply it, 0 lamps doubled, tripled and so on, is still 0 lamps. The statement that should have been made is, “now with 1 additional lamp” if one was attempting to make a true statement. Addition being the mathematical formula used to explain the phenomena where a variable can increase by a single integer and give relevance to a multiplicative measurement hence forth.
Come on... Give him a break, he is a lawyer and lawyers don't know math... That is why they are lawyers. However! And potentially giving him the benefit of the doybt: what if (and only if) there is another lamp in the front, he mentioned being in the same room, just another wall, there are potentially another 2 walls that we haven't seen, therefore there might be another lamp and this one being a new lamp makes it an accurate statement... Because if there was 1 lamp and now he has this one that we can see... Wouldn't 2 lamps be 100% more lamps than the prev single lamp?
"The police can't use this level of overwhelming force" This aged well
BladedFish Yes, it did age well, actually. LEGALLY they aren’t supposed to, you twit. I’m really getting annoyed with all the dramatic and edgy comments of this nature. The man was speaking purely from a law standpoint, which I guarantee he knows better than any dumbass talking about or mocking it in the comments. For that matter, I most likely do too. Stop with the theatrics. You’re not clever or profound. Damned obtuse people these days…😑
@@Armaldo468 but the fact they do (and have been getting away with it so far) means that they *can* "use this level of overwhelming force".
@@Armaldo468 We're saying that "legally they can't do that" is the stupidest reaction to PEOPLE WHO OBVIOUSLY DID THAT. Go on. There's a robber coming into your home. Stand up and say "BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!!!!!!!" Did you alter the fabric of reality? Did they stop robbing your house because you reminded them that it was illegal?
@@Armaldo468 No - he portrayed it as somehow unrealistic because they could theoretically get in trouble, when it is par for the course. He left that part out. In many videos he has pointed out things as realistic even though legally wrong or questionable - not here.
@@Armaldo468 "LEGALLY they aren’t supposed to, you twit." I mean Legally you're not meant to destroy someone's house. Yet the law protects those actions. The difference of Written law, and practiced law.
Speaking as a lawyer who practices in the south, the courtroom is very similar to many found in small town courthouses
Objection: I’ve actually tried criminal cases (jury trials) in a similar courtroom, minus the balcony seating. It’s the oldest courtroom in the courthouse (was with the courthouse when originally built). Sound is terrible but they do have loudspeakers. The judge in this particular courtroom was hard of hearing, which made things complicated 😅.
Objection: A TIme to Kill is set in 1980, 6 years before Batson V. Kentucky so the Racial Strikes Kevin Spacey's character makes would, for the time, hold water.
Overruled: they mention that the mental patient had been in a mental institution for over ten years from a case from 1985 at bare minimum it’s 1995 in the movie
@@Missing_Nin The book and movie are actually set in 1984
Objection: you should sell "The bailiff will tackle you" merch.
I’m very confused so is it set in 1980, 1995-ish, or 1984?
Yeah that’s the point. He is pointing out how movies stack up to realism based on the law. That means the law *today* not the law in the 1900s.Obviously he couldn’t do that. He is pointing out both the fiction/non fiction differences and the time differences in the law.
Objection! "The police can't use this level of force..." Oh you mean legally.
With Qualified Immunity, also legally. Cops have been getting away with literal murder under that statute, in court!
What?
Marcel de Jong Qualified immunity is only in reference to civil issues.
Objection sustained. I'll allow it. You may continue
Objection! In light of recent events those police actually showed immense restraint.
There were a lot of liberties that were taken from book to movie. In the movie, Jake used that line in his closing argument. In the book, written by a lawyer, it was a juror who used the line as they were discussing the case amongst themselves. So you have to consider the script for the movie was written by screen writers while the book was written by a lawyer
Just want to say that there are some lawyers who retire and then serve as veteran legal counsel, essentially giving veterans like me who have $0 (or less, a lot less) pro bono legal aide, nearly unlimited help, just because they like to do it, and want to help thank you
Objection: Your honor, that is actually infinite percent more lamp.
Clearly he didn't study mathematics.
My hero.
Objection to the objection: your honour due to mathematical inverses the previous statement is incorrect
Don’t check my math on this but I think infinite percent more lamp would mean all of existence is now lamp.
@@ultru3525 multiplicative
Objection: The John Grisham novel, in which the screenplay was based, has the story set in 1984 (still set in Mississippi). At the time he was writing the novel, John Grisham was a bar-certified, actively practicing lawyer (which is loosely based on an actual case he himself watched). At the time the novel was set, Batson v Kentucky had not been decided by SCOTUS, and thus does not apply to the novel. With that said, Akiva Goldsman, the man who wrote the screenplay based on the novel, may have set the story of the screenplay post 1986, but because he's not a lawyer, he should not be held to the same legal standard as Grisham nor should he be expected to shepardize Grisham's novel for adaptation, so Batson should not be used as a mark against the story. There's a historical precedence for members of the jury to be all one race, specifically white, in the South, and the story reflects that reality, pre Batson.
The Sheriffs vehicle is a 1996 GMC 1500.
@@captcaboose9940 because the film was made in '96, but still set in the 80s. That's the set dresser/production team's decision on the vehicle. It doesn't negate the fact that the movie is based from the book and set in the 80s.
And often post-Baston, being honest.
@@kristenyoung3289 The film wasn't set in the 80s though, as they reference Dan Baker being tried in 1985 and being in a mental institution for 10 years
@@timmcgrath8030 That's why the OP addressed that and gave Goldsman a pass for not going back to research every single legal technicality in the original text to update it for the 1996 and post-1996 audiences.
This movie describes actual points pertaining to the timeline of a particular era. The way that small towns handled evidence was different from todays time.
"I think I was a little young when this came out" suddenly I feel every one of my years
Objection: you said ‘he can’t just tell the media he’s Carl’s attorney, that’s up to Carl’ - you skipped over the scene where Carl asks him to defend him
He went over the initial assault, but didn't even mention the double killing. As someone who hasnt seen the movie, that was pretty confusing.
@@purts2 yeah.... i was very confused too ://
@@purts2 yeah it took me a minute to catch up since I have never seen the movie for a good couple minutes I didn't realize the trial was about Samuel l Jacksons character killing the 2 guys that raped his daughter
Yeah, if you hadn't seen the movie you'd be wondering who's on trial here and why.
It's OK. I told him he could tell the media that he's my attorney.
Objection! 15:18 - "Kevin Spacey's hands dirty everything they touch, apparently." Murder in the court.
One thing about this that Legal Eagle apparently missed is that the prop used is what is called in some circles a "rubber duck" IE a prop used to look like a loaded weapon. It is a very good point that for a real trial the magazine would be removed and the bolt locked to the rear, but since the prop's firing chamber is cast from black rubber it does not have a removable magazine. At a distance it's easy to mistake for the real thing since some parts are actually metal. For an M-16A1, the easiest way to notice is actually to look at the magazine. A real magazine has more detail to it than what you see on a rubber duck. Another is to look at the bolt chamber, though that's only visible from this side. The dustcover of most rubber ducks is cast rubber, and thus can't match the shape of the real thing perfectly. Also since the bolt assembly is cast as part of the upper receiver there's no gap between the bolt and upper receiver. The details of the shape of the bolt are also slightly different. Hehe, I've handled the real thing more than once in the military.
@@marhawkman303 what you have said is accurate, but we have to consider it in context for the reality of this film. That is to say that in real life, the film makers used a prop for the gun, but when the prosecutor played by Kevin Spacey presents the gun to the witness, he does so asking if it is the gun that was used to commit the crime. This suggests that, in the reality of the film, it IS the real weapon and everything about how it is handled is done incorrectly in that reality. The film makers should have just gotten a better prop, or just used photographs as suggested. A better prop or real gun might have been too expensive or to hard or difficult to transport to where the movie was being filmed. Photographs of a real gun might have been a better choice for many reasons.
@@jeremiahgriffin9521 Oh I'm not disputing that a photograph would have been a good idea. I'm simply explaining why the prop appears to be a loaded weapon. :) In the fictional universe it's probably NOT loaded, but that's not how it got filmed in real life.
@@marhawkman303 a prop for the movie, yes but I wonder if an unscrupulous DA would bring a prop gun into the court as a kind of theatre to show off how dangerous a loaded, ready to kill weapon looks to the jury without the sanitized plastic cover and evidence tags
@@misterjoshua5720 scare tactics are old tricks and old tricks as they say are often the best.
Objection you should have played the whole closing argument it is one of the greatest cinematic monologs off all time
Yup.
Overruled, it’s probably too long for him to do so without getting this auto-flagged for copyright. 😅
In the book that emotional closing argument wasn't said by Jake Brigance but one if the Jurors. John Grisham who wrote the novel was an actual lawyer before becoming a bestselling novelist just like how Michael Crichton who created the TV series ER was a medical doctor before becoming a writer.
Yup. R.I.P. Michael Crichton.
It seems like "the bailiff will tackle you" is this channel's version of doctor Mike's "chest compressions, chest compressions, chest compressions", which is to say, a likeable catchphrase we would never want to be left without.
Actually the novel points out that the judge is intimidated by the KKK, which the movie does not mention.
In the book as well in the final hearing, one of the defense lawyers allies arranges for a mass protest of black protestors which grisham himself indicates in the writing was a way in order to scare the white jurors into worrying that if they convict Robert lee, there will be a race riot.
A friend of mine was called for jury duty a few years ago, he was dismissed quickly having stated that he does not trust police officers and has no faith that they would be honest in a court of law
Objection: Have you ever practiced law in the Deep South?? My guess is that, while you're right legally, this movie is slightly more realistic politically than it seems.
You're right. It's actually was based on a case John Grisham watched as a law student.
Yeah this seems like it could be handwaved as set in a particularly backwards area.
This type of “politicking” goes on all over the country. Prosecutors get chummy with judges and cops all the time.
This guy is a ignorant as a child, oblivious to the harsh realities of corruption. Get a clue my man
This movie isn't set in 1932.
LegalEagle: "This is completely improper! Borderline illegal!" Everyone: "Well yeah, that's kinda the point of the picture."
@@MissKitae The funny thing is the book did not have a lot of these court errors that I remember. Might have to reread it to make sure. I remember I kinda was upset about all the changes Hollywood made to the book.
@@stephm5871 The book was written by a criminall attorney with a decade of practice In the state were the action takes place. I doubt that any courtroom error appeared, unles it was intentional.
@@mancubwwa damn if only they could've kept that accuracy for the movie
@@kinjalkadakia6933 It's difficult to do that in the movie, for example when the prosecution's psychiatrist was on the stand, the prosecution did spend an hour discussing his credentials and it was a point that he was preachy kind of prosecutors who likes to repeat everything 3-4 times but it's hard to do that in a movie
and the point of his channel is to point those things out, even if those things are done intentionally.
Your faith in the fairness of the Mississippi legal system of the 1990s is touching :)
I came to say this..... He is coming from today's viewpoints and laws. I think the entire point of the movie was how corrupt the system was in this trial.
Yah when he said it's supposed to be colorblind..I laughed. It still isn't today. Wish I was this hopeful/naive
@@antonyslaughter I guess just based on when this movie was supposed to represent. Not saying it's like that as much now, just in that time in that time and area it's a bit naive to think people are reputable and honest.
@@antonyslaughter ok I get what you're saying
Are you Trey Parker or Matt Stone?
Objection, Not mentioning the father killed the rapists as it was the core of the story was a bit confusing.
"I think I was a little young when this came out" A Time to Kill came out when I was exactly 10 months old, to the day. I saw it when I was probably 10-12. I am currently 25. There's no excuse!
Watching R rated movies at ten years old?? 🤔 I was a senior in high school when this movie came out. I certainly would not have been allowed to watch this fantastic but disturbing movie at ten yrs old.
@@Lookn4Gsus - That's entirely dependent on the parents and the content they allow their children to watch. You state that you personally wouldn't have been allowed to watch a movie like this but that doesn't mean that's the case for everyone else. Also (as I'm sure you know), kids find ways to watch R rated or "adult content" all the time without their parents knowledge. I vividly remember sneak watching the movie Pretty Woman when I was 11 years old back in '91 while my parents were away at work, not to mention the countless other R rated movies I watched as a kid when my parents weren't around or when I was with friends and their parents weren't around. Then there's all the times my friends and I snuck into R rated movies as pre-teens and teenagers back in the 90s. Good times. lol
No excuse for what, exactly? Is it some crazy sin to have never seen this movie? I'm approximately the same age as Legal Eagle and I saw this movie when I was in my late twenties. Are you going to poop your pants if I admit that I still haven't seen Jurassic Park? NO EXCUSE!!!!
"Kevin Spaceys hand's dirty everything they touch apparently." Oh my godddddddddd
Kevin Spacey is lowlife. Let it go..
Noah Hickey ikr! Sick burn!
@F Hey if you don't get it, what rock have you been living under? Go google Kevin Spacey and see what happens..
@@thecaptain2281 Are you being intentionally dense or do you legitimately not understand everyone in this thread agrees that Spacey is trash?
@@UltimateKyuubiFox That depends on how you read the statement by the OP.
Objection: With respect to entering the rifle into evidence, you're not addressing the bigger elephant in the room: the authentication of that firearm. All the Sheriff did was say "it was the weapon found at the scene." This was not enough to authenticate it as chain of custody wasn't proven. As a former prosecutor, I've handled many cases involving firearms and to get a firearm into evidence, you need to prove that the weapon being entered is in fact the same weapon found. We heard nothing about the weapon's serial number or that the weapon passed from place to place without being tampered with before it became non-fungible. As such, the foundation was not laid and the rifle shouldn't have been admitted without more foundation as to its authentication. Additionally, the actual weapon could be offered into evidence for many reasons depending on the jurisdiction. In particular it might be an element of the charged offense to prove the use of a firearm,. It may also be entered to prove an aggravating factor for purposes of the penalty phase. Just entering a picture of the weapon would be insufficient to establish those as the trier of fact would actually need to determine that a firearm was used. Moreover, the Sheriff's testimony about the fingerprints was inadmissible hearsay. He wouldn't be able to testify to the fingerprint evidence and wouldn't be able to state the result of the comparative analysis since he is not a qualified latent prints expert. In real life, a latent prints technician would dust the prints off the weapon, then roll the defendant's fingerprints, conduct a comparative analysis and then render an opinion. As such, the person who would testify to that opinion would be the technician after being qualified as an expert in the field of latent print analysis. Just my two cents.
I was thinking about that. When LegalEagle mentioned fingerprints on the weapon my first thought was "shouldn't they have already dusted every inch of it?"
objection: no good laywer costs two cents. The rest is pretty good however
2 cents? more like a couple of ten dollar bills
Fanie Frikkie - Thanks for raising my billable lol
@@andrewdressler7076 It's a pleasure man! I know the pain of regret from undercharging hahaha
When the courtroom was first shown, my immediate thought was "to kill a mockingbird".
"You would probably not want ton bring an M16 into the actual courtroom ..." As the Rittenhouse trial has shown the proper thing to do is to bring the rifle into the courtroom and then point it at the jury.
For one thing it's almost certainly an AR-15, not an M16, unless it was stolen from the local National Guard armory.
@@Caseytify according to the book that is a M16A1 that was smuggled back from Vietnam by Friend that was in the army. To add to that both colt and armalit made full auto AR-15 platform rifles for direct sale to civilians in the 60's and 70's when the NFA machine gun registration was open. Those rifles where marketed and stamped as M16 rifles.
Should have just made it a shotgun for the movie. Everyone in the south has a shotgun. A few buckshot manage to catch the deputy’s leg, still works.
@@OhYeaMista that's what I thought too, even a hunting rifle would have been more appropriate.
Objection: You missed the fact he mishandled evidence by handling the shoe without gloves and laying it on the bar. Should have been bagged and tagged.
and it was placed between the suspects, their DNA during the scuffle would have tainted the evidence.
They unfortunately can get DNA off the little girl 💔💔😠😠
Also, it seems like a bad idea to show the evidence at the outset, which gives them a hint of the case against them before they have had a chance to speak about the matter.
@@grapatin thats not how it works. They're not the defense. They're making a claim of fraud. They have to produce evidence of that claim. They can't simple make a claim and then say "well we'll provide evidence down the road at some point". Tgats not how the law works. They have to provide evidence to show the case isn't frivolous and should go forward.
@@russellward4624 Generally, evidence is not presented to the defendants at the moment of arrest. It's unhelpful to show your hand that early in an investigation. Evidence is gathered before trial and best shared through the formal process of discovery, not handed to the defendants before they've even been arrested, let alone hired counsel.
THANK YOU for pointing out how Kevin Spacey handled evidence WITHOUT gloves or protective wear. It's always a annoyance when I see it.
You know, watching back over this now, I couldn’t help but think that the prosecutor in the Kenosha shooting trial took Kevin Spacey’s character in this movie as his role model ☠️
But he missed the arrest scene in the bar where the officer was handling the shoe without gloves or it being in an evidence bag
yeah.... that is certainly one of the worst things Kevin Spacey's ever done.
Objection: You should read the book. The movie is great but the book is wonderful. I think it's one of Grisham's absolute best. (It's also based on a case Grisham watched the trial of as a law student.)
Loved your review, but you forget, this movie happens in 1984. I can tell you from person experience about how openly racist this country was in the 80s. In the the late 80s, my Marine rifle company was sent to Minnesota to train reservists in tactics. Once we settle in the base, we had a briefing about the area. We were told that it was not recommended for black Marines to go into the local town alone. I love your videos, please keep up the great work.
"Was" openly racist?
You do realize that the case Grisham based this on was completely race reversed, right? That the kids were white and the perpetrator was black?🙄
Dude, trying to explain to folks up north that sundown towns STILL exist (and that they aren’t all in the South!) is a pain. I make especially sure to stress that reality to black friends heading down the east coast, get them a map, etc. Obviously they experience racism anywhere, but the deadly kind that’s trenched into every person of influence in said towns, not so much. This ain’t ancient history, not by a long shot.
@@averyhughes2478 I've heard some stories from truck drives about "sundown towns" all over. There are even problematic areas in Northern California.
Objection: you always say you will answer to Objections and you never do! you should be held in contempt and lying under oath! (lol)
Well, he's a lawyer, so..lol.
Objection!! The prosecutor was caught doing little boys. Does that mean every case he tried and got a conviction could possibly be overturned?
@@swiperthefox777 no
swiperthefox777 Objection! Irrelevant to the matter at hand.
@HKZ P no they dont
You keep saying "the bailiff will tackle you" so I gotta ask...did the bailiff tackle you?
It needs to be on a t-shirt
It's worse when they kiss you.
You crack me up @@pbradics3670
It does make you wonder if he's speaking from personal experience.
I love your stuff. The first one I watched was on A Few Good Men and then I got hooked. The scenes about the DA knowing people, a biased judge, and the jury deliberating at dinner were about establishing the hurdles that Brigance had to overcome to establish how great his closing argument was. That argument was actually given by a juror in the book. This was in Mississippi. People in Mississippi don't use gun safes. One mistake that movie and TV writers make is that they apply the laws from where they're from to places that don't have those laws. Most states don't require any sort of registration for guns of any kind, for instance, yet they write stories as though they do.
Objection: You're the reason I just watched this movie. I'm happy I watched the movie before your video. I appreciate how you handled this subject. Also, Peel was the PM, secretary's name was Drummond
"There's no reason to have a conversation." Obviously you have never lived in the small town world of The South. There is a conversation for every occasion, no matter whats about to happen
This is a legit statement you made.
Yes sir you go to the store you hear the stories of three customers before you with the clerk before you get out of there
I think he's talking about the arrest part, in which case he's right. The police won't explain a thing. They should have their guns drawn yelling at them the to get on the floor.
Recently watched 'Just Mercy,' and they showed the same thing in that. The sheriff has a chat with Jamie Foxx's character for a few minutes before arresting him. I think Marten explains it best in the 4th panel here: questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=327
I've heard that.
Peremptory Strikes - "which give you the ability to strike a juror for any reason whatsoever" ...When taken out of context, that sounds quite funny, in a slapstick sort of way.
"both of you are allowed to smack a juror upside the head 15 times throughout the case"
Lol
I've watched a lot of police interrogations, and I always chuckle at the suspects who pretend to be crazy when they're brought in for questioning, because they have no idea what misery they're actually pining for by feigning insanity. They think they'll be sent back home under supervision, or to a group home or something.
Regular criminal stabs you for looking at them wrong, insane criminal stabs you because a voice in their head told them to. I'll stick with just not making eye contact in a regular prison.
Ok. Been binge watching your channel. Love the explanations. Grew up on Perry Mason, Matlock, Law & Order etc.
I don't know why "The bailiff will tackle you" is my new favorite thing, but it is.
I want a “the bailiff will tackle you” shirt with a cheesy stick figure drawing
In the future, you might want to use a gavel sound effect or something fun like that for censoring, as the KZhead algorithm looks for that censor bleep as much as it does for profanity. Love your videos, by the way, they're an awesome thing to binge when I'm around the house. Your commentary is excellent.
Or a bailiff tackling sound?
Great idea
I was lucky to see a special showing of this movie, before it was released in theaters. The movie was so awesome that I can't even remember the name of the movie I was there to see at the time. I believe that this story takes place in the late 70's or early 80's.
I love that you think judges don't have friends called and drinks sent to them like in the movie. It happens more then you think.
I have noticed when he breaks down these videos he says this is not supposed to happen or "shouldn't" happen. If you listen closely he never says it does not happen just that the verdict could be overturned if it is researched. But I do not think a lawyer is going to say this happens often in most cases. He may be worried about backlash for saying such a thing.
That said yes people do try bribed in many walks of life military and even construction. One gentleman I met, whose job it was to review contracts for the military was offered several bribes but he would always turn them down.
"Most US courts replaced the M'Naughten rule in the in the 1950s..." It's still the '50s in much of Mississippi.
And Grisham would now, it's where he studied and practiced law before he became a full-time writer.
And I bet during the 50s it felt like 1920s there.
Speak that truth bro!
Yeah, no. No it isn't.
It's nice to see stereotypes & bigotry in action.
Objection. I actually work as a bailiff and I can guarantee that if I tackled the DA for my county, I'd be fired. Granted no lawyer I've worked with slowly approached a witness while raising his voice in a badgering way like that.
So what do you think was he justified in killing the to guys who rape his daughter
How many people have you tackled?
Objection!! The prosecutor was caught doing little boys. Does that mean every case he tried and got a conviction could possibly be overturned?
What does the Bailiff do if the DA approaches the witness in an augmentative manner?
OBJECTION! Of course you’d be fired if you tackled the DA if they’ve never slowly approached the witness raising his voice and badgering the witness because that statement tells me that the DA’s you’ve been in court with have behaved well. Perhaps if you could share any experience where any of the DA’s in the cases you were the bailiff whom approached the witness and made themselves that close in proximity to the defendant without the judge ordering the DA to back away or to have yourself remove/tackle the DA?
Please continued to review all legal films regards of subject matter. I believe it will be a great uses of your platform.. I felt you could have dived deeper into this movie as the jury etc. but thank you for reviewing a time to kill!
Good video! One objection: Miranda does apply unless there is custody. Guys in the bar weren’t yet in custody and we’re free to answer or not answer questions. Miranda warns wouldn’t be read until after the arrest was completed.
I think he was stating that the entire conversation/confrontation was pointless and that it would have been more advisable to simply place both men in custody immediately before Mirandizing them instead of engaging in theatrics and questioning them about the shoe (where any answers would be inadmissible) and thereafter provoking an altercation with some... Constitutionally questionable use-of-force.
I'd really like to see your take on "The people vs OJ Simpson".
Honestly, he could just overview the actual case, rather than the television drama series based on it.
Yes, I would really like to see this.
I believe he said in an Always Sunny episode legal review that he "Wasn't touching that one."
@@Marshall_Thompson The actual case was a farce in that the judge clearly lost control of the case.
Objection: you should have mentioned that the girls father kills the two men who assaulted his daughter as they are exiting court. That's kind of the setup for the whole movie.
I was just thinking about that. The flow of the video was confusing to me, as a person who hadn't seen or heard of the movie before, and thus doesn't know the story. I saw the murderers being arrested, and then the next thing I knew, and without indication that something new or important *did* happen, which it did. The next segment features Matthew McConaughey and Kevin Spacey, portraying lawyers who are to be on either side of the trial. It made me *very* confused to see Kevin Spacey, identified as the Prosecutor for the case in question, trying to strike black potential jurors. My reaction was, "Wait, what? He's representing the State for Prosecution, so shouldn't he *want* black jurors?" Since I was under the impression that the case in question was the crime that had opened the movie, for that reason, and also because it was the only crime showed in the video. So, it seemed that such individuals might be more sensetive to a case like that: the two Defendants raping and murdering a little black girl. I only found out that Sam L. Jackson's character allegedly murdered the two men, and was the *Defendant* of a *new* case, when the video showed him in the courtroom.
@@pallyboy6005 I think that was his attempt of 1. Not spoiling certain aspects of the movie (namely the final verdict) and 2. Possibly wanting to keep the video within a certain time frame. For the record, I was also confused and didn't like having the ending omitted.
@@pallyboy6005 Copyright issues, and he probably wants people to see the movie first, then this video. He honestly doesn't need to show the full thing, and its kinda absurd that you think he would, especially with how popular this movie kinda is.
@@appleglassjuice11 no one said they expected him to play the whole movie 😂 just that some crucial points were missing and it was a bit confusing to follow
I'm new to this movie...agreed
Legal Eagle: The defendant should have stopped yelling. Samuel L. Jackson: NO I CAN’T STOP YELLING! HAVEN’T YOU SEEN ANY OF MOVIES!
Great movie. After seeing it yesterday I checked if you had a video on it. Happy you did, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Funny story: My first call for jury duty, I wasn't sure what to wear. So, I dressed up like I was going to an interview. Black suit, black tie, shined up my shoes real nice. I didn't last 10 minutes. One of the lawyers took one look at me and I was free to go. I was in the waiting room longer than the court room. *Sad trombone*
We were just about to watch a little instruction video for jurors when somebody came in telling us that they settled.
I told them I worked nights and I'd just sleep through the trial. The judge dismissed me.
Degree in psych. I was out. :)
The lawyers probably thought you looked a little too eager to sit on a jury. That can make either side nervous for a lot of reasons.
Also to add: insanity pleadings I’ve seen are quite difficult to obtain. You can’t just plead insanity either, whenever during trial etc…
We watched this in school when I took introduction to Canadian law in grade 12 (yes I'm from Canada) and debated the case back and forth afterwards. One of my greatest memories from high school. FYI, I had considered pursuing a law degree but after I did my first year (and bombed) I decided it wasn't for me. I still enjoy analyzing and debating such things.
Objection. It's not 100% more. There was no lamp to begin with so you can't quantify the percentages of which more lamp there is.
There are infinitely more lamps.
@@kirche5 well, yes and no, mostly no. The number of percentages that there is more of lamps heads towards infinity if we look at what the limit is, however, in the most literal sense of looking at it, it 'is' not infinity.
True enough though could have been expressed the other way and it would have worked the old set had 100% fewer lamps.
I just assumed he used to have 1/2 a lamp in the shot, thus, with a full lamp, he now has 100% more lamp.
@@Kevin-mj6th I believe that something like a basic mathematical fact is generally the sort of thing that you can simply stipulate provided that the other party doesn't object. The problem of course would be if this was a court he has just asked the court to stipulate that 0*(100/100)=1 this of course is demonstrably and incontrovertibly false as any $1 calculator will confirm. Generally it's the conclusions and interpretations drawn from the raw data and numbers that are a matter of subjective opinion not the numbers and mathematics themselves as math is defined to be non-ambiguous. I could be wrong on this but pretty sure that this is usually how this works mostly because there is little point in wasting the courts time arguing whether 2+2 is in fact equal to 4 as basic arithmetic is not exactly controversial.
I like the new corner. Warmer atmosphere.
Same, it's a REALLY nice corner and I hope to see more of it in future! #Lamp4TheBar
Go lamps!
It's fine I guess, I like plants and natural lighting so I preferred the window. But this isn't bad.
@@spitt3640 In this case it feels a bit more confined compared to the previous, but on it's own it's no bad.
It's actually undefined percent more lamps, but he's not a mathematician :)
Objection: you can not admit someone for being “insane” that is a legal definition. You have to have a medical diagnosis.
I almost choked when u said that attempting to get an all white jury would lead to constitutional challenges...u im sure more than most are aware that prosecutor's...particularly in the south. Have been pulling that shit off for years and some still do
Wait…are you seriously telling me sometimes lawyers use dirty tricks?
*29:00** "Now imagine she was white...."* Samuel Jackson's characters face be like _"You said What Now??"_ XD
For what I recall, the lawyer got the Idea from a conversation with his client in which he raised kiiiinda the same thing, so it was not a shocked or offended face but more of a "so you DID listen, huh?"
So it Goes it was like ‘HE WENT THERE!’. And yes he did say ‘if you were on the jury what would it take for you to set me free?’.
It's a clever move on an emotional appeal, if an unethical one. It's also problematic in that it assumes racial prejudice of the jury in them not being able to empathize with someone with a different skin color.
TealWolf26 at the time and place most of those people hell most white jurors today cannot and do not empathize with brown people. That’s just how it is
@@brokenquill9277 Yep sorry, I forgot I was talking about humans for a second.
Objection: System is "supposed" to be colorblind, but history has shown us it is anything BUT colorblind
Besides from not colour blind you’re also shit out of luck if the other party has more money or when you yourself don’t even have enough money to go to court.
You're absolutely correct....believing that laws outweigh race in this country is naive.
@@kimberlydavis7322
@@peaknonsense2041 you know it's actually extremely rare that the police officers get severly punished? Correct?
@@notomnithegodking Sure. Because unlike some, I understand that most cops don't go around murdering people so they don't get prosecuted for it.
15:22 I was recently watching the Sally McNeil trial and the prosecutor brought in the shotgun the defendant used to shoot her husband. I guess stuff like that does happen.
Objection: I'm waiting to see where you've made a ruling on an Objection!!!!
Objection "100% more lamps" is a lie. Before you had no lamps, 100% more of 0 is still 0. You have an infinite% more lamps
Sustained. It's a universally known fact that law school is for people who stink at math.
Great exchange. The Jury approves
Before there was light, so a lamp could rationally be postulated, however none were visible. Now, all of one lamp is visible, an increase of of one over none means 100% of a lamp is added to the set.
@@tysonwalch8985 I should have gone to law school I sucked at math adn failed as a scientist :P
Probably too late to submit into evidence. 0 + (0 * 1) = 0
Me, 14 minutes in: So...My Cousin Vinny is more legally realistic than A Time To Kill?
It actually is
No its not. You have to remember this was written about the deep south over 40 years ago. This is very realistic as procedures were not held to such a high standard as they are now. *corrected the time*
@@mikeycarrero6501 A Time to Kill takes place in the late 80s/early 90s.
Mikey Carrero literally only 35 years ago, and might as well be 20, if not more recently.
It is
The exterior shots of the town were filmed in Canton, MS, about 12 miles north of Jackson. Accross the interstate they built a soundstage for many interior scenes. The NG troops in the movie were actual troops from the MS Army NG 112th Military Police Battalion hired as extras to be themselves basically. Got to testify as an expert witness in Federal Court in New Orleans. After 20 minutes of the prosecution establishing my credentials the Defense actually conceded my expert status and didn’t question me themselves.
"Rules that apply to everyone." Important words Eagle.
"Kevin Spacey's hands dirty everything they touch, apparently." Damn, that's a sick burn!
Objection!! The prosecutor was caught doing little boys. Does that mean every case he tried and got a conviction could possibly be overturned?
I think we need some “The Bailiff WILL tackle you” merch,
I second this.
-andise.
All in favor say "aye." Aye.
Aye
Have you done "The people VS Larry Flint please and thank you
Damn! You learn something new everyday. I swear you hear (this better be good) in almost every court case you watch! TV, movies, sitcoms! And that's not even a good reason to overrule an objection??? Wow!!! 😂😂😂
This is like law class. I really loved your job
"I think I was a little young when this came out" - Jesus. That line made me feel old. It came out the year after I graduated high school.
I was in college, I think. So, hello Old Person. I'm ancient. 🙂
Based off having spent a total of about two weeks in a couple different psych wards of local hospitals, being found "not guilty by reason of insanity" and sent to an asylum would truly be punishment.
Been in similar situations (Actually around the time period of ths comment too) and agreed. After the fourth or 5th day it really becomes a nightamre.
The reason the prosecution might not want the confession entering into evidence is that they're afraid of jury nullification, if even one member of that jury thought the two men should have been given the death penalty for what they did they might nullify and vote to acquit.
Bull will be a perfect series to react to regarding how juries are strikes and kept, etc.
Objection, in a previous scene, he was talking to Samuel L Jackson and Samuel Jackson asked him to be his lawyer.
Yeah, if I recall correctly his announcement was meant to exposit for the audience that he has agreed to represent Carl Lee.
Objection! There isn't 100% more lamps! Since the base amount was 0, there is infinity percent more, since percent increase is based off of the original amount!
lol
Objection to your objection! Infinity is not a number therefore you cannot have infinity percent. Even if you could, lim x->inf 0*.01x is still 0.
@@infinitelyexplosive4131 #Objection! to the objection of the objection! 1/0 is not calculable as it is infinite.
Beat me to it.
@@trischas.2809 Objection! + or - infinity is more accurate because zero has neither a positive nor negative value!
“The police can’t use this kind of overwhelming force”? Objection - Maybe change “can’t” to “shouldn’t”, they can do it and some do, but generally are protected by saying they can use force when necessary and all force is necessary, and by qualified immunity doctrine. We have this play out IRL time after time.
One question from someone outside the US. If there is no chance for a fair trial in the whole state, because of the jury. Is it possible that the trial will be held in an other state?
OBJECTION! The system may be colorblind, but I think it's pretty safe to say the Jury in this case isn't.
I don't Like how when Kevin Spacey want's white people it's sooo horrible, but when Matthew wants a specific jury it's called Voir Dire and completely OK... I think Jury should be random as long as they qualify to be on a Jury, but why is either side ever involved in saying they like or don't like someone... Shouldn't that be conflict of Interest?
@@kraven4444 the jury is supposed to represent the community at large. If you remove all of the white people or black people from the jury depending on how it would help your case, and say its 50-50 (or in the case of fictional Clanton, MS, 70% white and 30% black) that is doing a disservice to the community. You missed the point, of what he was saying about the legal aspects.
Kraven the issue wasn’t explained well by the video, so I’ll give it a shot. Essentially, when a jury is called it is called as a larger pool called a “panel.” So, for example, in Dallas County for a murder they may call 120 people to be part of the jury panel. It’s from that point that the attorneys operate Voir Dire, which is subject to independent court rules. So, the prosecution and defense each get a number of strikes they get to use - a specific number of strikes for any reason (beyond a reason for race via Batson) and a specific number of strikes for cause, where they have to justify it based on questions asked. There are two important things to know. 1st, Voir Dire in a lot of cases in Texas lasts less than 30 minutes, so any plan to stack a jury in your favor is really hard to do. Secondly, each side gets the same number of strikes to keep it fair - theoretically set up to where each attorney picks half of the 12 jurors. As far as what Kevin Spacey did vs Matthew, it’s just precedent. The Supreme Court has stated that you can’t remove someone based on race alone because this practice was common and getting all white jury’s for black defendants. The jury’s would deliberate for a couple hours or even minutes and come back with guilty verdicts, in many cases when the defendant was later exonerated. The implicit prejudice or bias that may be present due to race is likely not present for the reasons that Matthew was presenting - people with families, etc. Wanting a sympathetic jury because of their circumstances vs striking someone because they are of a specific race is a different thing. However, the Batson test really isn’t that tough. If there were 3 black men in the jury panel, the prosecutor could strike all three without having to show cause. If the defense raised a Batson challenge, then a separate hearing would take place where the defense would make their claim that the men were struck due to race. HOWEVER, the prosecutor can respond with literally anything else. “I didn’t like how juror 1 looked at me; I didn’t like how juror 2 smirked; I didn’t like how juror 3 answered the question.” Therefore, Batson is a pretty weak standard. Anyway, I’m sure that was way too much info. That’s what a couple years of law school will do for ya. 👌🏻
@@kraven4444 true randomisation would have had a greater possiblity of near/all white jury, and an imbalance of gender s well.
@@andrewdg95ify Have any of your law professors explained that the plural of "jury" is "juries?" You wrote "jury's" instead. I don't think that means what you think it means.