Real Lawyer Reacts to The Good Wife
⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
People love The Good Wife. They tell me it's one of the most accurate legal dramas on TV. Well, we'll find out! This week i’m deconstructing the first episode of The Good Wife starring Julianna Margulies. Stay until the end for my Legal Accuracy Grade.
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/42fKce
★ 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 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!
Props to Dr. Mike's Real Doctor Reacts (goo.gl/qF6Hza) and Wired's Technique Critique (goo.gl/C8dz2U) for the inspiration.
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 1:16-cv-03081-KBF (SDNY 2017).
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.
========================================================
★ Got law school questions? Ask in the comments!
★ Say hi on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Tweet at us on Twitter @LegalEagleDJ
"I haven't heard of that happening but it is theoretically possible" must be the very highest praise a legal drama could receive.
Yeah, did a thing that is original, but not hard for even a professional to believe.
It's also the most lawyer sentence ever
Proud to be the 1337'th like.
@@lkjhg992 😂😂
You sure you reviewed this honestly? Not because you wanted to bone the cast?
"the highest requested series by my mom" now that's just adorable
Well, if you don't keep Mama happy, you're gonna have a bad day.
^So true...
I actually thought the same thing
Hear hear, good sir ^_^
Earned my sub purely because hes sweet to his mama
My favourite judge in this series is the one who loved to remind the lawyer and the prosecutor to say "in my opinion" in every prosecution and defense they told the judge.
Lol I actually think of that, randomly, surprisingly frequently
That was hilarious!! The actress is a famous comedian who has done a lot of work on Saturday Night Live too.
The best part of that was when a new lawyer showed up, and all the other lawyers were in on the situation. Like when Michael J. Fox's character was before her and made an argument, then Alicia piped up with, "In your opinion?"
I like the male judge who always reminds them hes the youngest judge
I just finished this series and SAME
"The Good Wife" actually had a team of legal consultants. Yes, the writers took creative liberties to make the screenplay more suspenseful, exciting and accessible to the viewers, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a more engaging and intelligent legal drama.
Are you sure? I think you better call saul...
Mom be like "I wanted my son to get a good wife, not review The Good Wife. Where are my grandchildren!"
D. A. He seems married!
lol
He's wearing a wedding ring!
Lol
Watch his left hand closely :) that's a wedding band
She has to be innocent, there's sad piano music when she was talking about how her husband was murdered.
Any good lawyer should submit that kind of irrefutable evidence.
An expert witness speaks.
Agreed
Not as ridiculous as you might sound. I'm a musician and scores often give us clues to character arcs. Sometimes they're also just racist and stereotypical. lol like when a Mexican is about to come on and you start hearing cabasas. Or playing gangster trap music for black people. Lol
Non diegetic evidence is not admissible ;)
Probably my most favorite scene in the show is when the show’s version of Google is showing the judge a cartoonish presentation about how a search engine works. The judge, an old man with a hearing aid, looks confused. The audience is meant to think the concept of "this newfangled thing” baffles the old man. Then he turns to the Chumhum lawyer and asks if this presentation is a demonstration on a pattern-based search algorithm. The lawyer is taken aback but says yes. The judge then tells them to stop the presentation, since there’s no jury and he understands the concept pretty well. His confusion was because of the cartoonish way it was all being presented. There’s a lesson for everyone: just because someone is old doesn’t mean they don’t keep up do date with new developments. And the judge may have a background in computer science.
I loved that scene, too 😂
That Judge is one of my favourite Judges! In general, each of the judges has a distinct personality, something unique compared to other shows!
@@shivjeetparthasarathy4377 I also love that they used the same judges several times, unlike other shows where they always have a different judge
I get that all the time! My hair is all white so when i go into Best Buy or similar places, I start getting spoken to as if I’m 3 years old. I worked in the computer tech office in a NASA research center for 30 years! It’s not always funny but occasionally I can control myself to see the humor in it!
Cat of the Castle Star Trek: Enterprise did a similar scene when a bunch of pilgrims dressed in robes are being given a tour of the ship. Trip (the chief engineer) is talking to them like they’re kids when they’re in the engine room, until one of them starts asking questions that make him doubt that conclusion. When asked what he does for a living, the pilgrim replies that he’s a warp field theorist and starts asking complex questions. Trip sighs with relief and gets down to business
I love that Diane named her dog “Justice”.
It fit perfectly with the dialogue 😂
@@saketnaik1 yes!!! Absolutely
Haven't watched the video yet, but is it because "justice is a bitch"
@@saketnaik1 that was absolutely perfect. I love that this show isn’t afraid to go into that kind of humor.
A relation, also an attorney, named their dog, “Miranda”
OBJECTION! Council is wearing a great looking suit! Distracting.
The suit is so so! The shirt is okay. The tie is decent, but who uses tie clips anymore? The pocket square and its fold is the nicest thing he is wearing!
@@MrSterlingAce wow
@@heatherhaze3680 Am I wrong?
@@MrSterlingAce hhmm...no one's opinion is wrong when it comes to their own personal taste i suppose, but in MY humble opinion the blue suit is very sharp looking. l like the fabric a lot, the color is not too bright as many blue suits can be, it looks quite pricey. Not saying that price equals good taste, aka most Gucci items these days have me perplexed and annoyed to be honest!! lol The shirt is great, as far as wite button downs go, personally i dont like the tie colors worn with this particular suit, but it would look just fine with a diff color pallet; the pocket square is a nice touch for sure, very understated and classy and as for the tie pin?? Im not sure if its in or out, im out of the loop on that one. Altho i think it looks fine and l have seen other young 'snappy' dressers wearing it. For example, Doctor Mike, the equivalent of this channel only medical, has worn one in some of his videos...so maybe its a 'young professionals' kind of thing. Am i alone in my opinion of the state of Gucci's selection these days..not the suites but the more trendy youth oriented crap? To me its just plain weird, just for the sake of being weird. Almost like they are making fun of ppl and seeing just how much they can get away with while still having ppl with too much money waste it on their ugly ass clothes! lol
Objection! "Council" is the incorrect word. A lawyer would be referred to as "Counsel," not "Council."
"... teaching YOU how to think like a lawyer." Yeah but when are you going to teach us how to DRESS like one?
After you make your first million. xD He's wearing at least $1,000.
In the pinned comment in the Suits reaction video he said he gets all his suits from BlackLapel if you're still interested ;)
Just watch Marvel's Agent Carter, and work to dress like Edwin Jarvis.
@@KaDaJxClonE Swear that guy's suit is worth more than my kidney.
He is teaching by example
I've talked to a couple of people who served on juries. In one case a juror refused to convict a drunk driver because "it's fine to drive after a few beers, done it myself plenty of times" and "I have his back on this". Nothing anybody said about the law or the evidence affected him in the slightest, he wouldn't listen to it or even discuss it - he just said a flat "no" to anything anybody said to him On the other side, on guy said several of his fellow jurors voted guilty purely because "the police wouldn't have arrested him if he wasn't guilty."
Those people should be banned from jury duty.
As a juror can you go to the judge with that? Is it grounds for a type of mistrial or something?
@@stoontechguy I don't think so.
Jury nullification. It's an implied part of any legal system that relies on a jury, and it can do great good or great harm depending on the person. A lot of lawyers don't really like to allow people to sit in the jury if they hold beliefs that will make them a nullifier. kzhead.info/sun/qNWBj71pi6emook/bejne.html
“The police wouldn’t have arrested him if he wasn’t guilty” yikes, that doesn’t make me feel good about how our legal system treats POC
Objection: I've left objections on a previous video and never got an sustained or overuled. I hold thee in contempt of KZhead.
I don’t think you want to put him in the hands of KZhead...
isn't everyone in contempt of youtube?
He’s said in other videos he only responds the first hour after he uploads it
@velorenModus You have a point...
sustained
It should be noted that at that time Alicia had not worked as a lawyer for 15 years, that's why she has problems formulating her questions or arguing with the prosecution over objections.
Well 13 years, she worked at that one law firm for 2 years. She graduated 15 years ago.
true. she was arguing like a mother to her children and it took her time to switch to a more professionnal line of question
I served on two juries, and they were the most terrifying experiences I've had in my life. I sincerely hope I never, ever, ever have to rely on a jury for my fate.
😲
Are you allowed to talk about it?
I know 2 people who have served on juries and both said it was incredibly stressful. Also have a friend who has been called and is very nervous. I'm lucky in a way because I have a criminal history and here in the UK I won't have my record wiped until 10 years after I started my prison term. Will be at least a few more years until I could even be asked
@@generichuman2044 well it should be stressful. It's an important thing.
Scary
Always thought Kalinda, by extension all the investigators, was the real MVP of the show. She was the eyes that let the lawyers see how to lay the foundations for their cases. Without her, they were flying blind and destined to crash.
I never realized how important private investigators were until I watched this show
Without Kalinda the show was not the same.
@@valeriazenoni6478 Yeah. it was better.
Most of the main characters would be incarcerated if it wasn't for Elsbeth.
Kalinda was ok, but Kalinda storylines were the worst.
That part where an actual lawyer says “ oh snap you got lawyered son!” Complete gold!
“Oh, snap! You got LAWYERED, son!” Definitely worth the watch of the video alone! 😂
That was literally the saddest and weakest statement he made.
Jim Carrey literally emulates a turkey in court, gets a B+ for Liar, Liar. The Good Wife does her due diligence, only gets a B.
OBJECTION: SOMEBODY STOP ME XD
I think the idea is that Liar, Liar was primarily a comedy, so certain leeway was given for the truly absurd outbursts, but the law-specific details were fairly accurate. The Good Wife is a drama, and the legal details they got wrong weren't necessary to the drama, i.e. weren't excusable because there was no other good way to tell the story in the existing format. On the other hand, strict legal realism isn't critical to the drama either, which is why it's still a great show, but Legal Eagle is evaluating legal realism, not overall quality.
Liar Liar had a more complex judicial narrative and lots more interesting and properly applied legal jargon than this particular episode of The Good Wife.
The fits of characters aren't relevant, just the representation of the law.
@@UltromanTheTacoman Yep, and I think you’re alluding too a really important point here when you mention “this episode” of the Good Wife. This is a review of just a single episode of a show that is presumably at least a season long, likely more. It’s possible the rest of the show is more legally accurate than this show and that the aggregate ranking of all the episodes would be higher than a B
You need to review elsbeth tascioni. She is, hands down, the best TV lawyer I’ve ever seen. I used to practice law in Chicago, and I actually - successfully - used some of her tactics.
I think she is on the spectrum, a savant. Yes, she is a treat to watch.
@@lauranydb7979 she’s definitely some combination of ADHD and Autistic
oh yes, she was shown as eccentric but the fact that she won or helped alicia, peter and will so smartly and with loopholes was amazing
She's getting her own show on CBS!
You absolutely must do *how to get away with murder*
@Nymeria73 going on season 5! I loved it honestly. Although unrealistic, I found it so entertaining.
Yeah, that's just going to be a loop of "What? No. What? No, that's not how that works? What?"
Yes, please!
Objection! you must do how to get away with murder :p
+odd flacko its only till season 3 on Netflix where is everyone watching 4 and 5?
are you filling up your pro bono hours by claiming you're working on online law education?
That'd be awesome lol
Are *you* completing your biannual CLE training by commenting on his videos?
He's writing this off tax rightoff
you sound bitter.
@@joshuaosiris are you saying no way this sounded like a joke?
I’m a juror in a criminal case right now. It’s amazing how both prosecutors and lawyers tries to charm their way into getting jurors to sympathize. The more they try the more I get reminded not to look too much at them. Listening to all parties and look at the evidence instead is generally a better idea when you are in real life control of other peoples lives. It’s a humble task and is to be taken seriously to the bones.
Objection: Though it may be different in your state or America. In Canada, law students are not allowed to sit on a jury because the court fears the rest of the jurors will defer to the person with legal knowledge.
Wait, really?!
Happens in the US, too. And they don't want doctors as jurors on medical malpractice cases, either. Sad, but true.
@rprastein it makes sense there more likely to be bias. They chould be more likely to side with the doctor. Like if you experienced a robbery you couldn't sit a trial of a robbery
Objection! Speculation. The Judges in Cook County, Illinois are definitely that terse and crotchety... They really, really are... And they really aren’t timid about calling out bs and personal crap about the lawyers! I have personally witnessed two different judges in Cook County literally yell at attorneys. While highly unprofessional (rather disconcerting), and not exactly common, Cook County is informally referred to as “the Circus Court of Cook County”. (Love your videos, by the way!)
Are you talking about Judge Nicholas Ford by chance?
The Circus Court -- like in the movie Chicago? Razzle Dazzle em ha ha!
There are videos on KZhead of that sort of thing unfortunately
Imbonnie, nope. Sorry... And I refuse to name the Judges because they scare me... 😬 And yes, Circus Court like in the movie. The movie/musical incorporated a commonly used term for the circuit court as a launching point for some shenanigans. Just try really really hard to stay out of Chicago Court... It’s Russian Roulette on whether you get Scary Judge or Normal Judge... and you have no idea how many chambers are loaded (sometimes literally. My da used to regularly practice in Cook Co. and sometimes a judge was drunk. Everyone decided to agree on a new court date when that happened).
saw a judge call a lawyer an idiot in a chicago courtroom.
Objection! On what grounds? I couldn’t think of anything else to say. Sustained. Why? I couldn’t think of anything else to say either.
Objection: criminal defense lawyer here. Prosecutors sometimes (more than they should) get tunnel vision and ignore exculpatory evidence if they believe the person is guilty.
Have you ever seen the show, “Drop Dead Diva”? Vapid model dies, comes back to life in the body of a lawyer, and has to practice law. The last two seasons are nonsense, but before that it seems to me (a layperson) that the legal stuff is based more in law than most lawyer movies.
I miss that show 😩😩.
It's free on Amazon Prime
The funny thing about that show are some of the guest actors then went on to be in Scandal
AH you used the term "layperson" nice
I would love to see you watching Better Call Saul.
SERIOUSLY...
We've been requesting it for months xD
Yes, me too!
Wow, I came to the comments just to say this. I’d love to see you take a crack at the seedier side of lawyering
oh PLEASE do!!!
Being a lawyer myself, I watch The Good Wife for the fashion :D
Yes! I love all of Alicia's red special occasion dresses. Everyone looks so posh.
I know right it's great.
aangita Diane got me into "accessorized" my outfit lol
Diane especially
You have to do the first episode of season 2 (of The Good Wife). She completely stands up to a Judge and puts him in his place. And it's just my favourite scene from the whole show. Would love to hear what you think of that in terms of behaviour in court (on both the lawyer and the Judge's side).
I loved all the different quirky judges in this show that would reappear every season, in my opinion ;)
Most of the judges are highly respected comedic actors!
Yes I have to agree, while more were stern, and kept to how a judge would behave in real world instances, they had comical judges too, in my opinion 😉
I would love you to dissect the highlights of a high profile trial like the OJ trial. It was crazy from beginning to the end.
I'm never going to law school, but I keep watching, I like the law. The format on this video is engaging and a good pace. Editing, and info nuggets are great, keep up the good work! Look forward to your next video.
The Good Wife is honestly my favorite tv show of all time. Super excited to watch this.
I always found The Good Wife to be the most accurate legal drama (total opposite to that BS Suits) especially when it comes to portraing the dynamics in the law firms (when it comes to career, hierarchy and becoming a partner) and new developments of the law (they had many cases that were discussing very new and very relevant cases). Really glad you made this reaction video, I thoroughly enjoyed it!
It presents a wider view of being a lawyer but the court senses are all absurd.
I actually like suits
@@yeslol9303 my condolences
You take that back. Suits is AWESOME!
I want to see you react to reality court shows. I know they’re suppose to be more like arbitrators than actual small claims court judge and have more leniency on how to apply the law (i.e. a judge can rule based on how he or she thinks the law should be). But it would be interesting to see how different reality tv courts and judges are from actual courts and judges.
Yeah, he should check out judge Judy
Court shows are just arbitrations, and often their cases were already settled in real arbitrations and shortly after that they re-enact them on TV.
OBJECTION. Attorney in this example has a conflict of interest due to the fact his mother loves the show and has been requesting and anticipating such an episode. Any grade, positive or negative, should be null and void due to the presented conflict of interest!
Yes, Judge Judy!
you always wear the spiciest suits
I have to agree. That suit is fresh af.
Isn’t that Phoenix Wright’s suit?
The tie bar not being all the way over and square with the right edge of his tie screamed at me the entire video. In such a well put together outfit, something that small really stands out.
Robert Morgan The tie bar actually shouldn't be as wide as, or wider than the tie you're wearing. Usually, a little over half (this guy's looks like 2/3's, but some also do 3/4's or 3/5's) is the norm.
Robert what are you talking about, it's perfect the way it is.
Seeing the prosecutor repeatedly saying "objection" every other word during the Main Character's examination of the witness made me wonder; has there ever been a case where a defense attorney or prosecution just keeps saying "objection" to try to stall the trial or get the examiner to give up in asking further questions? Would a Judge even allow such a thing?
I would assume that if the objections were baseless, the judge would sniff it out pretty quickly, and not indulge such a waste of their time. Would be interested in a lawyer's answer, though.
The judge is in control of their court room, so they would be expected to rein it in and reprimand the attorney if the objections are baseless. It’s not a good strategy to piss off the judge; they can make your job difficult.
I loved this show and binge watched it. It was very creative because, since it was network TV, it was restricted from use of the same kind of language, etc., a show like The Sopranos was able to use, so the writers and directors had to get clever. As far as its realism, I’m a retired attorney and judge. It was more accurate than most TV lawyer shows. It accurately captured a lot of the office politics that goes on in large A-rated prestigious law firms. However, the snarkiness of a lot of the judges was a bit too much and not befitting appropriate demeanor on the Bench.. But the big problem was there were a lot of conflicts of interest that wouldn’t be allowed or encouraged in real life. But The Good Wife was an entertaining and dramatic show, so it actually doesn’t matter to me.
LegalEagle needs to take a shot each time someone unlawfully enters the well. :P
It's how I get through these courtroom dramas...
I saw you burst a vain at 23:57 :p
😂😂😂
Now that's what I call ordering a well drink
Well played. Well.
8+ years later and I still wonder what happened to Justice.
Maybe she's also getting her own spinoff =)
There was an episode or 2 early in the series where Diane feels the need to get a gun, as we see her have some type of fright in her apartment. Justice was there in her bedroom with her. It seems like they kind of replaced her dog with Kurt McVeigh lol
The lady was so confident when she called "objection" but phrased "hearsay" like a question, like she was just called on by her maths teacher and wasn't paying attention. I hope lawyers don't actually do that in court oh God that'd be awful
The context is, that Alicia has just returned to the job after years of being a stay at home mother. This first episode is mainly set up to portray her struggle to find her way back into the job. I think it's not too far fetched that a person would maybe struggle a bit in this situation and I'd guess that this also happens in real live. Of course it's a little exaggerated here, to make it clear to the viewer what's happening. But laywers are people like everyone else and will propably get insecure in certain moments, just like everybody else. Actually I followed the Jonny Depp trial and there were quiet a few moments where lawyers got a little worked up in a situation and had trouble to phrase their objections or questions in the right way.
I desperately hope you've actually said "oh snap, you got lawyered, son" at some point in your career
i laughed loudly
I read this in capt. Holt's voice lmaoooo
Yes I love The Good Wife! You should do the spin-off, The Good Fight, especially the first episode which talks a lot about how politics in firms works
The Good Fight is a more gritty show then Good Wife.
my question is what crime show has the most accurate criminal lawyer show in tv
Dexter
Ace Attorney :D
@@P9rkour90 My favorite tv show of all time, widely inaccurate though. You always see him use the trajectory strings for cast off which doesn't make sense, it only goes in one direction.
Better call Saul
Matlock. Not really I just liked the show
"The Good Wife" Series 4 Episode 3. They have a hearing that is NOT a jury trial. I'd love to see your comments on the court procedures and points in THAT show.
"oh snap you got lawyered sonn!" best line ever
Any scene from Better Call Saul, in particular Chuck's hearing, would be great so would The Punisher's trial from Daredevil. More unorthodox would be Rumpole of the Bailey, an old law show by the BBC. It's British law rather than American so it would be interesting to see how what differences and similarities arise.
Henry Chitham ooohhh the bbc show sounds interesting! I looooveeeee a great British show! (Midsommer murders, anyone?!)
Rumpole is one of my favorite shows!! (If I can "Um, Actually..." you here though, it was an ITV show. The proto-pilot episode was on BBC's Play for a Day series, but the true series went to ITV via Thames Television.)
I'd love to see the Eagle's take on UK court dress traditions. This Canadian really fails to see the point of it beyond dogged tradition.
when you say "legal tv show" it kinda sounds like there are ilegal ones
Breaking bad?
@@arlaratman862 it might be about illegal things but the show is not illegal, thats what i meant
Boisq I know, I was just trying to make a pun
@@arlaratman862You were making a joke, but not a pun ;) pun /pʌn/ noun -a joke exploiting the different possible meanings of a word or the fact that there are words which sound alike but have different meanings. verb -make a joke exploiting the different possible meanings of a word.
Illegal Persian spongebob dub
I enjoyed your review. Keep in mind that in order to write a compelling TV show they have to take liberties; for example, if they took as long as a normal trial the TV audience would change the channel. Same with recalling witnesses: they just have to, in order to bring the story to its conclusion in 48 minutes. I also notice in other episodes the lawyers asking leading questions of their own witnesses, as well as "testifying" (like Alicia did in this one by introducing the videotapes). Again, needed in order to get the story told in 48 minutes. That said, I've watched all seven seasons and it is THE BEST legal drama ever.
"You don't want to come off as a crotchety, old person" I don't know, man. I know a judge that is just like that. He loves to watch lawyers quake.
Me too!
The way you explain the legal system is actually very motivating! I kind of want to be a lawyer now.
LegalEagle, I can see this channel doing well by doing this detailed critiquing of single episode law shows/movies. My suggestion: at the end when you impart your grade, also list the criteria in how you came to that grade and how the show stacked up against each criteria. I believe this context would add a lot of value. Thanks for another video, I enjoyed it!
See supra, prior commentary.
I agree that you have given enough reasoning to support the given grade throughout your prior commentary. To be clear, I was suggesting a short statement emphasizing or summarizing the episodes general legal accuracy. You could call it "Closing Arguments". Anyway, just a thought and I appreciate the reply!
I was recently selected to report for a Grand jury interview. I angered the judge because, When answering a prosecutor's question, I stated that judges were all biased in favor Law enforcement, (this was about a situation where an officer was accused of violating someone's civil rights), I was asked about "bias" in the courtroom and when the prosecutor took my answer to imply that juries were biased, I corrected him and said "Judges are biased, and can overrule the prosecutor's objections and sustain the defense atty's objections, thus making it harder for the prosecutor to indict an officer". Of course, later during the screening, I noticed that prosecutor handing the judge his "Picks" for his grand jury, and when the juror numbers were called out, many of those jurors were all those whose answers indicated a favoritism towards law enforcement. I took notes and wrote down the juror numbers of those I felt were favorable to the police, and all those that I noted were picked. So, i'm more than a little sure that, when the grand jury was conducted, they "No-billed" the officer's charges. But the judge spoke to me, about my answer to that question, he said he would take note if I ever appear on another jury panel.
Man, I’d really love him to revisit the show. I obviously don’t know for sure, but I’ve always gotten the sense that it only gets more accurate to real law as time goes by. I’d love to see him do an episode from later in the show. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it, so I can’t think of any particular ones, but still.
You should do Better Call Saul specifically about Jimmy's solo practice at the beginning of the series, the law firm in the show Hamlin Hamlin McGill and episode 305 "Chicanery" which features a BAR hearing.
Objection at 17:10 and move to strike the witness’ answer as non responsive to the extent it goes beyond the scope of counsel’s original question.
Sustained.
LegalEagle bam! *wanders into the well and smacks bench in approval*
Meta.
Please do Law and Order. Any of them would do, except maybe Special Victims Unit which was really like an old fashioned detective show.
"It would be highly unusual for a firm to hire two associates and have them fight to the death." There is no part to this observation to which I cannot concur.
Wow. Love your reaction videos. I truly appreciate you breaking down the technical terms into layman, less complicated and very sensible ways. Also thank you for sharing your insights about the different scenes. I'm a simple housewife, so when I watch The Good wife, all I see is whether the innocent would get their due justice and how far their lawyers can help them and how smart their arguments are made. But your reaction videos makes it clear which are facts from fiction. Thank you Mr. Stone, this is very captivating and educational at the same time. Warm regards, from Hong Kong
Anyone else distracted by what a perfect a mixture of Ryan Reynolds and Luke Wilson Mr. Stone here is? Uncanny O.o
ragnaice yes. Perfect 😍
I don’t know how this would work, but I wanna see him and Doctor Mike collab. Maybe they could react to a Doctor Legal Show... like with Doctor stuff and Court stuff. Like I said, idk now but that would be cool
I would definitely love that! I love both of these channels and individuals, they both seem to be passionate about their careers and have a way of communicating their professional knowledge to the public in a captivating way
Wow.. It's almost like they heard your wish! :)) the video is up on Dr. Mike's channel.
They did one on law school vs Med school. Check it
They also have done one on Grey’s where Callie got sued
Good Wife is one of my favorite legal shows. You should do some more reactions from the later seasons of the show, when Alicia is more seasoned. Or from the spin off series “The Good Fight.”
I agree. But I think the best episodes were in the earlier seasons when they were based on actual events (Kids for Cash Scandal, Ronald Cotton, etc.). The later episodes focused way too much on office politics.
I really love your content. You're an incredibly gifted attorney and even better educator. I feel very involved in your videos and you do not speak to us like we are dumb. You deserve more subscribers than your currently have and I wish you the best.
You should totally react to scenes from Better Call Saul and Daredevil.
I agree, Daredevil is a great show, and looks like it's pretty accurate when it comes to law, so that'd be amazing to see! 😃
it's unhealthy how i continue to run through season 1 to season 7 then start over again
I just watched TGW for the second time. I miss so much this show... Alicia, Eli Gold, Cary, Will, Kalinda. All of them... 😑 The best cast i have ever seen. They were all wonderful and perfect.
the episode where innocent man was charged with murder in convieneince store really got to me . The real killer acted as an eye witness and put the blame on a guy who looked like someone who bought a lottery ticket before he robbed and killed the owner. Where were cameras ? Didnt make sense
Objection! You know damn well that jurors dont strike information like that from their minds. That's a common trick because people cant unlearn information, regardless of how much they might want to.
But the point was that there was a clear procedural path to having all of that information submitted as evidence, avoiding the need to use that tactic at all.
@@JustinHixson I get what you are saying, but you are just plain wrong. I'll give you an example... A guy charged with spousal battery might have a few things unrelated to violence in his past that it is not allowed to be brought up in court. He might have a few theft charges or drug charges, maybe even a stint in rehab. The prosecutor cannot use those things, since they are unrelated to the case at hand. The prosecutor might say "Did the defendant ever tell his wife about his 3 theft charges and his time in rehab?", at which point the defense objects and the judge sustains it, telling the jurors that they cant use that information in their decision. The jurors now know that the guy who allegedly beat his wife ALSO did time in rehab for an addiction. That colors their opinion of the evidence, defendant, and crime. The only real way to counter that strategy is to use a mitigating factor in the objection, like "Objection, that is unrelated to this case BECAUSE it was over 30 years ago and he sought the help he needed on his own." It also works the other way around. "Isnt it true that you donated over 50% of your income to battered women shelters last year?" Objection, unrelated to the case. The jury now knows that you give to charity, even though they "cant use it" in their decision making. If you dont have concrete evidence, but you suspect that your neighbor stole your dog, and I tell you that he used to kick puppies in high school, does that make you more or less likely to believe he stole it? What if I told you that he rescued 10 puppies from a burning building? Information cannot be unlearned, and it is human nature to apply information to your thoughts. Dont think about a purple elephant. You just did. This tactic is so common, you can see it almost every single congressional vote. A bill up for a debate that is about water safety will have shit shoehorned in that has nothing to do with it. "Water safety is an important topic, but so is Trump's disdain for the media...(Rant about Trump for 29.9 more minutes)... I vote yes, on water safety." And if you think people can forget information, ask someone to tell you all the steps to making a PBJ sandwich assuming you speak English, but dont know anything beyond the definition of words. "First, you grab the jar of peanut butter, then you grab a knife and put some peanut butter on the knife." Ok, where did the jar come from? How did you open the jar? How did the peanut butter get from jar to knife? You cant act as if you dont know something without extreme practice. Now for the real kicker, in order to remind people not to use the unrelated information, you have to REMIND THEM ABOUT THE UNRELATED INFORMATION. "Jurors, begin deliberation, but dont forget that you cant use any of the defendant's times in rehab in your decision." "Do you have a result yet? You didnt use the time the defendant spent in rehab as a basis for your decision, did you?" The real world is not the law and the law doesnt cover everything. Granted, you could only get away with this trick a few times per jury before you get told to stop, but it's still a tactic that is used, and it's still legal to use in practice, if not in theory.
Wow, that was a lot of words that didn't really have anything to do with what I said. Yes, I agree that *is* a tactic. But in the specific case that was talked about in this video, that tactic is completely unnecessary, as the things she was trying to say are completely admissible as long as she goes through the correct channels to get them admitted. There is no need to say unmissable things when they would have been admissible if you had just filed them correctly. At no point in this essay did you talk about why this tactic needed to be used *in this example* , rather than just getting the exculpatory evidence properly submitted. I repeat, this is evidence that completely exculpates the defendant, why not file it away properly instead of use some kind of backhanded tactic to suggest that *maybe* there is exculpatory evidence. Just file the freaking exculpatory evidence.
They appoint a foreman within said jury, whose job will be to enforce the judges instructions to them.
@@JustinHixson you can't know why people choose what path they want to choose, you can't make people think the way you do but try to understand but just expect the unexpected and plan your defence with the same attention to detail.
Please react to the Law and Order episode of Community "Basic Lupine Urology"! I think you'll really get a kick out of it.
Brilliant idea, I bow to you!
I'm glad I remembered this video. I got through my Law and Order backlog (as much of it as I wanted to watch over three series) and got started on this. The rapid objections without explanation threw me for a loop so I'm grateful for the explanations. I'm too used to having them spelled out for me in other shows.
22:45 Objection! While it's true they don't happen often at all, they do happen. When I first started working security, I was placed on a site that suddenly had quite a few openings because an entire shift had been removed. We had these electronic wands and little circles at different areas on site to tag with the wand. The wand would send the date, time, and circle tagged back to the computer. One shift had collected a copy of the tags and one person at the desk would tag them off while the rest of the shift just hung out. It took a field supervisor deciding to randomly check on them to figure it out, and security cameras verified. It's even easier when there's one person on a night shift. I worked at one site that had all sorts of issues with the night shift. The site sup finally talked the contract manager into talking the client into having two employees on night shift for the next contract negotiation, and only then did issues stop. It was pretty crazy.
I wonder if you'll tear your hair out or die laughing if you ever do a review of *Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney*
You'll find out in a couple of weeks...
I'm curious to know how close Phoenix Wright's law is to the Japanese system it's satirizing (not that this is your expertise).
That reply just made me subscribe ♥
LegalEagle FUCK YES, YOU JUST WON A SUBSCRIBER hoo boy, there's a *lot* to analyze there, you'd better be thorough! we ace attorney fans are SERIOUS
That is going to be awesome.
My only objection is you chose to review the first episode of the first season. You may not watch the show anymore, I don't know, but trust me when I say it gets incredibly better! Season 5 is intense. You must watch more and give more reviews. I enjoyed this by the way thank you.
Second'd. It developed from an otherwise good show into my very favorite drama. Season 5 is bonkers. :D
Hey if you want to convince anyone to watch the show for longer maybe don't use the fifth season as the example for when it's actually any good because that's a big commitment just to get to the good stuff lol
@@ridizzle189 "When it's actually any good" The first 4 seasons are also exceptional. I'd say that by the end of season 1 the tone, the characters, the story is all set, and when season 2 starts, from then on it's at its best (with a few side plots here and there that don't land occasionally) all the way through to season 5 -- where you see everything that's happened along the way used in a meaningful way to give the story a climax of sorts. The reason it is such a profoundly great season is specifically because of all the things you see the characters go through in earlier seasons, to see where they were, and who they were, and who they are by that time. I understand it really is a big commitment to watch that much, but I'd say personally it's worth it. The characters alone are fantastic but on top of that the cases get to be so off the wall, and more thoughtful than just a "murder mystery" case that you'd expect on Law & Order. The implication of my comment (and what I'd expect the original commenter said) was that it only gets better and better as you watch. Which, in my opinion (that's a reference btw) is a good thing for a show, instead of just having a good intro season and then not going anywhere.
Regardless of how accurate it is , as someone already said, beginning with season 2 this is a highly entertaining show up to season 5. I am in the first portion of season 6 and it's not as great any more. Gonna finish it at some point. The first season is good, but not yet must-see tv and I think this premiere episode is fairly poor with this deus ex machina resolution.
@EVOlution Production Studios Yeah, but the pilot is pretty weak in all aspects, including accuracy. And season 5 is intense partially because of "lawyering". I'm sure that's what the OP meant.
I am seriously happy you made this video! One of my favourite series.
Hi! Two of my favourite "Bones" episodes are courtroom centered: "The Verdict in the story" , episode 13 of season 3, and "The Boy with the answer", season 5 episode 21. I would love it if you could react on the veracity of one or both of these trial proceedings from the show.
You could totally be a voice actor
damn man watching you explaining all this details is more entertaining then those shows ... keep up good work
Love your channel "LegalEagle"! How brilliant! I also enjoyed watching The Good Wife. - Greetings from Mexico
When you're a lawyer and then your mom recommends a law television series "Mom, why would I want to finish a case just to come home and watch somebody else do my job for 'entertainment' purposes?"
You really should do better call saul
I second third and fourth that he should review the nursing home trial he'd have to dedicate a few episodes to it but I guarantee BCS is the most realistic
Yesssss
Am i the only one that thinks that the show is so boring?
You should make a video on differences between a secretary and a paralegal
Thanks for sharing. Your courage in face of this difficult time is inspiring.
10:29 Is this a reference to "12 Angry Men"? I believe it was Juror #9 who initially voted "not guilty", and eventually swayed the others to not guilty as well.
"She didn't convince us, she exhausted us." Jokes aside I wonder how often this happens in juries
He was Juror #8
I think the judge was slightly belligerent towards the prosecution at the end due to how the prosecution was yelling at the judge at the beginning of the trail in judges quarters it goes to what you said about don't piss off your judge lol.
Don't piss off the judge. (TM)
You should review Daredevil
Problem there is Matt spends more time fighting crime than he does arguing actual cases, it's one of the reasons why his practice was in jeopardy, he literally left foggy holding the bag more than half the time. I think I recall him actually showing up to court hearings like 3 times in 2 seasons?
He should review the comic, which has many more court scenes. White Tiger's murder trial, Milla Donovan's competency hearing, that time Daredevil was sued, that stuff in the Supreme Court about allowing superheroes to witness anonymously with info they gathered using supersenses… how to impeach the Mayor of New York… probably a bunch of stuff with Karen Page…
i wonder if lawyers play a drinking game whenever the judge says ill allow it hah
my favourite legal drama! it would be nice if you did another episode, one from a later season, like the final and explain the progression of legal matters
I love how passionate you are about the defense of a made up client, love this series!
Objection: Prosecution submitted evidence with what the judge referred to as "pages missing" at 18:21, and gives the excuse that the previous prosecutor was a convicted felon and he should be blamed instead. Judge rules that they can take a few days to alter the evidence they submitted so that it fits. Wouldn't this be the time for the judge to move for a mistrial, given that the prosecution's evidence is, at the least, missing vital information? Likewise for the witness who appears to have committed perjury: no move for a mistrial, no steps taken beyond letting the witness lose credibility. Did the prosecution know about the evidence tampering? Did they suborn perjury? Apparently the judge doesn't care enough to look into this. Previous prosecutor committing a crime doesn't give current prosecutor permission to duplicate the offense.
I'll allow it! Mistrial is the nuclear option. If something can be cured, it should be. Remember this is also the second trial. The defense attorneys made their points and still had time to cross examine witnesses about the new evidence. Judge is a jerk, but did the right thing.
@@LegalEagle David Paymer was the actor playing the judge with the prickly personality. :-) I've seen him in several different roles over his acting career. He's a good actor. That said, he just tends to have a combative, prickly personality, at least regarding many of the acting roles he's chosen.
@@LegalEagle you have not done a review of "the good fight" got to especially do judge Wagner
Objection!: I'm still dying to listen to you talk about Night Court... *crosses fingers* and thanks for your work (hoping you get your billable hours... because: "whispers": *indochino*)
OBJECTION. Attorney in this example has a conflict of interest due to the fact his mother loves the show and has been requesting and anticipating such an episode. Any grade, positive or negative, should be null and void due to the presented conflict of interest!
The people sustain the defenses' objection.
That was a well throughtout, lucid, objection. Overruled
Sustained!
In your opinion?
Lol
So glad I found your channel. Thank you for your hard work
I know nothing of law in a more technical sense, so your channel is very enlightening. Also deeply amusing.
That trial, especially the first trial scene, brought back some bad memories. I had a mock trial like that, once, though I was the defense attorney and I was the one objecting every 10 seconds. Practically every question the prosecution asked was leading or argumentative. I lost track of how many objections i made that were sustained, though I remember only one was overruled. Because of that, the prosecution had a really hard time making a coherent case, and despite the evidence all pointing to the defendant's guilt, I got an acquittal. It was really frustrating, because all I was doing was trying to get due process for an obviously-guilty defendant, but the prosecution fumbled so badly that my mock client got off scot-free. The saddest part was that the prosecution had two mock lawyers, while I was alone, and they BOTH did the same thing.
So if your lawyer pisses of the judge, it's possible someone might go to jail out of spite? That's scary. Also, I love that you're doing this for your mom. :D
Hey, that’s my favorite show! Thanks for reviewing it!!
So glad you did this show! Have you ever considered discussing your opinions on the Steven Avery case (as shown in the Netflix series, "Making a Murderer")? That would be an interesting watch!
I always wondered how well JAG held up, and I haven't seen anybody ask you to give that a look, so I guess I will. Could you please at some point give a look to JAG? (think it stands for Judge Advocate General, so it's fairly lawyery)
Bara Robber Baron he could do a collaboration with someone who has more background in military law, which would be cool
I'd love to see a JAG episode, and Andrew Farrell, I second the military lawyer collab!! All in favor?
First, nobody goes from an F14 pilot to an attorney, stationed at the main JAG office in DC. If you are grounded, you stay in the 'air community' and do other jobs. Second, to be a pilot, then (presumably) go to law school, then join the JAG office, and still be a LT, I think is unreasonable. Third, to be out of the pilot seat, but then to be allowed to take an F14 'out for a spin' is really unheard of. Many more items of inaccuracy throughout the show. Producers did a better job with NCIS. But you do NOT go from Navy yard to Norfolk piers, then return for lunch! Been there done that...
@@wmiller8715 True. That was caused by the original premise of the show, i.e. "Top Gun meets A Few Good Men", however JAG had very different format in first seasons than later. At first it was rather an action procedural drama similar to usual cop TV shows (it looked more like something MPs would do, not JAGC), later on it spent more and more time in courtroom and became more realistic. It still had troublesome moments, though (one of the most striking ones was Rabb fieing MP5 in courtroom, Rabb going to Russia or the entire season about him being a pilot again).
Well yeah, there are quite large inconsistencies in the large lines, but I'm curious about the court aspect of it. Both the finding and presenting of evidence and then the courtcase. And I like the moral dilemma of having to put up the strongest defense even if you might not like the defendant. They played with that reasonably well.
Just saw this video yesterday; and because of that you have me binge watching this show on amazon. How did I miss this show after all these years?
I always saw it scrolling through stations, but the title is so bland, and boring I never turned it on. I honestly thought it was one of those housewives shows or, some type of cheesy sitcom. You'd never expect a show called "The Good Wife" to be a well produced, fairly accurate, courtroom drama. People judge a book by it's cover when there's thousands of options.
The movie "The Judge" would be excellent to see you do. As well as the legal aspects at the beginning of law abiding citizen