The fact that Jimmy's chicanery made a real-life lawyer so torn on whether or not what he did was right, is SO PERFECTLY in-line with Jimmy's character it's insane
@@dorothygale1104 I don't understand this mentality. When grading something you don't do it with the expectation of something better coming along. There aren't professors and teachers giving B- to papers where everything is technically right just because a more well-written paper might come around next semester on the same subject. You grade something on it's own merits and not the merits of others, unless there's some sort of curve system at play.
@@ItDoesntMatterReally I beg to differ. As one who has taught before, your assertion that a paper (the example you used) is judged on its own merit is incorrct. A paper, report, story, etc is judged against what is believed to be perfect. Technical perfection is only one aspect of grading a paper, which by itself is a subjective undertaking. Correct grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc does not mean the paper is by any means perfect. In fact, a paper can have no spelling, punctuation, grammar errors an still be a poorly written pape if the content is bad. Actually, the technical aspects of a pap are the least important aspects of a paper, far behind content, insight & composition. Saying a paper is an “A” means that no other paper on the subject could be written. It is effectively saying a paper is perfect and can never be improved upon. It is no different than various sports that are judged, like gymnastics or diving. A score of 10 means that the performance was perfect and could never be improved upon by anybody. Now an objective test for example is graded upon a completely different basis. If you answer all the questions correctly your score would be 100%, which translates to an “A” because you have achieved perfection in answering all the questions correctly. A better performance in that regard cannot be attained.
I think Chuck and Jimmy are the perfect examples of "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons" and "doing the wrong thing for the right reasons" respectively
The problem is that Chuck has mistreated Jimmy for years. You can't constantly and systematically destroy a person's esteem and wellbeing and then say "Look, I was right all along" when they screw up as a result.
Yeah but legally would that still disregard the fact that this dude broke in and destroyed evidence and admitted to guilt? I guess we will see when I watch the next episode
@@switchunboxing 1. The only proof was the tape. 2. Jimmy's entire defense was that the tape was not valid because of his brothers mental state. "He was so imbalanced that Jimmy would have said anything to calm him down" is the argument. 3. They spent the entire case trying to argue that Chuck's "electromagnetic hypersensitivity disorder" wasn't real, merely indicative of a much deep mental instability, which culminated in Chuck's outburst. 4. This casted serious doubt on the validity of the tape, and also did much to excuse Jimmy's other crimes, like the BnE. "Jimmy had been caring for Chuck for a long time, and snapped when Chuck tried to use his "fake" confession against him".
@@switchunboxing he already did time for the BnE, the bar hearing was to decide if he should also lose his license over the action. Since they more or less established that the tape was created under iffy conditions due to Chuck's shaky mental state, they let him off easy.
At the end of this episode, there was a dedication to Jane Marzelli Smith, Esq. She was the mother of one of the writers for BCS and she is a lawyer herself. She's been a source of looking into the accuracy and inner workings of the lawyer world in the show and it's poetic that one of the best episodes ever of a lawyer show is dedicated to her.
Gordon Smith’s mother. He has written some of the best episodes on this show and his mother and sister have helped him a lot with writing law related scenes accurately.
The best thing about this is that Bob Odenkirk and Michael Mckean are two comedic actors, yet again in this series delivering some of the best dramatic performances on television
It's an interesting twist, reminds me of how Leslie Nielsen originally did dramatic acting but knocked it out of the park with his Deadpan comedy within the Naked Gun Movies
This shows how you can make a compelling, realistic legal scene without flashy cuts or hack writing; you just need four seasons of well-crafted, slow-burning tension and conflict between the main characters. Easy.
All this set-up by Kim and Jimmy, but ironically Chuck's breaking point came when the prosecutor used the words "Even if Chuck was schizophrenic..." Beautiful writing.
Yup. Personal pride is Chuck's hot button. For someone who loved to pay lip service to ethics and morality, Chuck had no problem sabotaging Jimmy's career out of petty insecurity. But the moment someone calls into question his own judgment, intellect, or personal ability, it's guns out.
@@livecarsonreaction I mean... * Chuck believes (not unreasonably, but possibly falsely) that Jimmy was embezzling from their father's store * Jimmy scammed small business owners out of their money with his slippin' scam. Those aren't small payouts, and those guys don't have deep pockets. Chuck knew the Slippin' nickname, so he probably knew where it came from. * Jimmy ran a variety of other scams, not all of which have been detailed. * Jimmy shat on the occupants of a car out of a personal grudge. I don't think the secrecy was the right way to handle it, but Chuck had every right and reason to not hire Jimmy. And not hiring someone isn't the same as sabotaging their career.
It always hurts my heart how Chuck still tells Jimmy that he defecated through a sunroof letting know that no matter what Jimmy does now, his brother is not gonna see him as worthy of what he does
He's never let Jimmy success and even not telling that their mother's last word was "Jimmy" and it makes him hate him more. Even he manipulated Howard to not let Jimmy works at HHM.
Ironically, in the very first episode of the series, when in court Jimmy exclaims "If I were held accountable for everything I did when I was 19... oh boy" or something like that. And that's exactly what Chuck does. Very nice little detail.
You didn’t comment on my favorite argument that Jimmy made: if Charles can exaggerate and lie about his illness to garner Jimmy’s sympathy to induce a confession on a hidden tape, Jimmy can give a false confession just to lift Charles’ spirits.
But a battery not powering anything won't radiate any energy. They could have argued that planted battery won't be felt by the guy! I guess the guy didn't know his electronics well...
That wasn't the point of the battery, that's why the writers even went through the trouble of having Jimmy ask Chuck if he could feel the lights in the court room despite them being turned off, to which Chuck replied "If the current's not flowing, no." Even still, though you could argue that hypothetically he wouldn't be able to feel a battery that wasn't powering anything if the illness was real, his reaction to finding it in his pocket proves that at least he believes he should, which is all the matters (See around 16:00 for the "Egg shell skull" doctrine. This reaction was enough to call in to question Chuck's mental health, causing the Prosecutor to say "Even if he was schizophrenic-", which in turn caused Chuck to fall into his chicanery speech, making him seem mentally unwell and revealing his deep resentment of Jimmy. This would make it more believable that Chuck could have made the simple mistake of confusing 1261 and 1216 in his state of mind, and makes it more believable that he would pin it on Jimmy, not because Jimmy had anything to do with it, but rather because Chuck hated him.
22:41 A fully charged battery wouldn't actually have any current flowing through it unless it was hooked up a circuit (something that the electricity could flow through, perhaps something that uses electricity). But clearly, Chuck doesn't know this (and neither does Jimmy). And since the condition is entirely psychological, Chuck believes he felt something here anyway.
Exactly what I was about to say, but checked comments to be sure. The simplest circuit would be a battery, a wire and a resistor--both so that it doesn't get too hot and make it last longer.
I was noticing this, I am rather surprised that Chuck didn't know this, in earlier episodes he references doing a lot of research, and it seems he would know such a relatively simple fact. Especially since he referenced current specifically earlier with the exit sign.
@@carterplasek498 He repeatedly shows ignorance to the subject in spite of claiming to know so much about it. For instance, he acts like his house blocks everything out, but those walls wouldn't do anything to "protect" him from the transformer he's always scared of. And that's just one example.
Context: a doctor suspected that the hypersensitivity wasn’t real. She confirmed her suspicion by turning on a medical device without telling Chuck and Chuck had no reaction. Jimmy was there when it happened. Worst case he could get that doctor to testify that Chuck's condition was entirely in his head. EDIT: fixed typos
The doctor would not be able to testify. HIPPA would prevent that. Unless Chuck agreed to have the doctor disclose that information she wouldnt be able to.
His excitement is palpable. He's like a kid in a candy store. RUclipsrs tend to project high energy, but you don't often see this level of unbridled joy.
@@dothething2892 It can be a crime and a tort at the same time. Crime is when the state takes legal action for committing an offense against civil society. A tort is when the victim takes legal action for damages. It's a little more complex than that obviously, but that's the gist. Maybe you're from a country with civil law instead of common law. Is it different there?
@@dothething2892 Battery is def a tort, can't speak for your jurisdiction but I can for mine. Assault is a crime, but assault is also seperatley a tort. The tort of assault is threatening someone (so the crime of uttering threats), and the crime of assault is the same as the tort of battery. Absolute mess.
That’s how you know he’s truly mentally ill. He couldn’t even pretend to be okay with something that by his own definition of his illness earlier in the scene shouldn’t bother him.
Actually (and Mr. Stone/LegalEagle partially brings this up in the vid, calling it "laying the foundation"), Jimmy would counter that by going back to the question he asked moments earlier. JIMMY: "Got it, got it. So if I had a small battery, say, from a watch or something, and I got it close to you -- close to your skin, you'd know?" CHUCK: "I would feel it, yes."
@@NoirTheSable As a registered electrical engineer I was just thinking this, he should have had the battery left in with the phone itself. If Chuck was smart enough to know the inverse square law, he should have been smart enough to know this. Either way, this scene is still brilliant!
@@_Davepocalypse Since I work primarily with A/C current I am not as familiar with DC current in a battery, but to my knowledge, you still need current flow to produce a significant amount of internal resistance. Otherwise the internal resistance we are talking about would be quite minimal.
It took me a while to realize that CURRENT DOESNT EVEN FLOW THROUGH A DISCONNECTED BATTERY! If anything, this really does play into the idea that Chuck's illness was psychological, he thinks that the battery should hurt, so it does, even though it doesn't even follow the rules that he lays out in this episode! (he says that he only feels pain if current is flowing, but current does not flow through disconnected phone batteries, it would only do so after completing the circuit inside the phone when connected.) Bravo Vince!
Which could mean that the Battery charge that Legaleagle talked about is less substantial since it could be argued that the person had no reason to think a battery that has no current flow would hurt him. Yeah, kind of perfect.
That…and that current always exists in AC circuits that are connected to a source; turning off a light bulb does not change the fact that electricity is flowing in every line connected to the main at 60Hz …or that the overwhelmingly largest source of electromagnetic radiation is the sun… for all the good legal research, they clearly did not consult a physics advisor 😅
@@thefourshowflip That's the point. It's not supposed to be a real condition. It's when he THINKS he's being exposed to electromagnetism and he's no physicist.
About Jimmy's potential battery assault, in an earlier episode of Chuck's first hospitalization, when the Doctor turned on a device, Chuck didn't have any reaction. This means that Jimmy knows for a fact that Chuck doesn't really experience 'pain' when he isn't aware of the presence of an electromagnetic device. Is it still a battery then?
@@dreuvasdevil9395 You are completely missing his point. Jimmy is trying to prove Chuck's illness isn't real to defend himself. The argument is wether Jimmy commited battery when he let Hule plant the battery in his pocket. If he tried to prove it without actually knowing his disease is real or not he would in theory have commited battery (as it might harm him). However, in an earlier episode a doctor already proved to Jimmy that Chuck's illness isn't real (which he ignored back then) meaning what he did is questionable at best but not illegal. (Since he knew chuck would'nt be harmed, and that doctor could verify that claim)
@@wilexheyndrickx8316 Jimmy is a lifelong criminal who hurts everyone around him. Chuck felt a responsibility to protect the world from Jimmy, or at least not abet Jimmy’s efforts. Jimmy conned innocent people out of money through a number of schemes, whether Slippin’ Jimmy or the fake Rolex scam in Cicero or stealing from his own parents. As a lawyer, he immediately did dishonest and unethical things: The billboard scam. The TV ad spot he tricked his firm into buying. Getting himself fired from Davis and Main. He also destroyed Chuck just to get Kim the Mesa Verde account - then broke into Chuck’s house to get the tape of his confession and threatened to burn the place down. Jimmy humiliated Chuck on the stand - going so far as to bring in Chuck’s ex-wife to emotionally discombobulate him and ignite a breakdown - even though it was 100% irrelevant to the case, which was supposed to be focused on Jimmy’s criminal behavior. And then Jimmy got Chuck’s malpractice insurance cancelled so Chuck couldn’t practice anymore, leading to his suicide. Jimmy was a garbage human being who needed to be stopped. And what dastardly sin did Chuck commit? He worked behind the scenes to keep this lifelong criminal from behind hired at Chuck’s own firm. Chuck didn’t stop Jimmy from opening his own practice. He just didn’t want him at HHM, and he didn’t want Jimmy to know it was him. That’s it. Oh, and after all that went down, he was mean to Jimmy by saying he didn’t care about him. Can you blame him? Chuck absolutely did the right thing: Jimmy was a monster. Chuck just failed.
@@wilexheyndrickx8316 I do not know what the exact definition of battery is, but I feel maybe he could still argue that Jimmy paid a man to physically bump onto Chuck and plant an item in his pocket without his consent or knowledge. Again, if the definition is vague enough.
Having Rebecca there so Chuck would lose his job AND his chance with his ex was a masterstroke. Chuck was as good as dead when this unfolded in Rebecca's presence.
Crazy thing is he lost his chance with Rebecca not directly because of his illness, but more because he was too stubborn to admit the possibility that it could be psychological. Remember when he slaps the cellphone off her hand? Then after this episode, she turned out to be quite supportive about him having a loose screw, even went to see him. He wouldn't open the door.
@@ekathe85 Indeed, but that was what the character Jimmy was like. He was very proud of his mental abilities. Man it made him partner of his own big law company.. He was just way too proud to admit even to himself he might have a screw lose. Rebecca wouldn't have mined. Opening up to her could have even saved their marriage. Also one thing, he likely didn't get his mental condition due to the breakup as suggested by Jimmy here. It may have gotten for him treating his brother badly (and as shown they were once much closer to each other than normally brothers are). He didn't want to employ him as a lawyer in his company, but didn't have the balls to tell him to the face and sent Victor as bad front face to take the blame for his decisions. Overall this is all just great writing. The character of Chuck makes so much sense and also the dilemma he was forced in, also beside that Chuck being actually a mean person, he was in fact right about Jimmy. Everything he claims is actually true.
@@georgelionon9050 I think what's even more interesting is the fact that while Chuck turned out to be right about Jimmy, it was kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy with the way Chuck treated him. Now I'm not saying that there is no blame to put on Jimmy; he is an adult after all, who can make his own decisions. But having an older brother who constantly put you down, even after trying to change for the better, definitely helped push him to be what his brother wanted him to be. This show is so fantastic, and I was skeptical about it when it was first announced after the amazing Breaking Bad, as I thought there was no way they would be able to match that quality. But they somehow managed it.
@@nephjd88 I'm not sure I follow, take the billboard thing for example, this was Jimmy just being Slippy Jimmy again, not in any way created by Chuck. (It was in fact an important issue, as Jimmy wanted to hide it from him, and he went out to get the newspaper just to get his suspicion confirmed that Jimmy got back to his old ways). I don't think Chuck = bad, Jimmy = good, is as easy here. Chuck may have had very good reasons not to trust Jimmy, he should have told him into the face tough.
@@georgelionon9050 Chuck explicitly prevented Jimmy from getting a job at HHM and he forced Howard to take the blame for that instead. If he hadn't done that Jimmy would have become a legit lawyer, instead he was forced to rely on his schemes to succeed. Chuck hated Jimmy cause he was more likeable (see the flashbacks where their mom dies, or where Jimmy gets Rebecca to laugh at his jokes). That doesn't excuse Jimmy's actions, but Chuck was the one who finally pushed him into becoming Saul.
He's not "our lawyer." He's an entertainer here who also is a lawyer, outside of this. Note the disclaimer, this is not legal advice and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.
Saul's plan wasn't to prove himself innocent it was to entirely discredit his brother who was well respected lawyer in New Mexico (which is why so many special precautions and certain amount of leeway was granted.)
That's the right analysis. He kept pushing evidence and ridiculing him and his sickness infront of court until Chuck snapped and started screaming and ranting nonsense. That was the point where all credibility of Chuck and his prestigious position as the best lawyer went down the drain. Chuck's evidence and testimony was therefore considered unreasonable since Jimmy proved that Chuck is an unreliable witness with mental health problems.
Better Call Saul is one of the most slow burning, wonderful show I've ever seen. It took me awhile to get into it, but it's just genius. I actually enjoy it more than Breaking Bad. ( and I loved that show! )
I love BrBa but BCS is on another level. I personally think it's kind of a happy side effect of doing a prequel to a HIGHLY successful program - they cut their teeth and honed this particular "BrBa Style" over 6ish years on the original and then just got to then expand on an already tight, perfectly written story. It's like they took all the amazing lessons they learned over five seasons on BrBa and then just turned it up to eleven for BCS. The photography, the composition (the directors for this show have some of the most stunning single shots in some of the most mundane places, it's crazy), the writing and GOD. The acting! *chef's kiss* How has Rhea Seehorn not won an emmy? Seriously. Season 5 made me want to rip my hair out and I am absolutely dying for season 6.
It’s called a Chicago Sunroof. It’s a real thing. Jimmy didn’t make it up and he wasn’t the first to do it. But hey, the guy wanted some soft serve and Jimmy gave him some soft serve.
Now that it’s all done, I think my favorite twist of BCS is that Chuck was unhinged and hated his brother, while Howard was actually a very decent man. What a tragedy
@@CoolGobyFish the twist I’m referring to is mainly Chuck being the one who tried to sandbag Jimmy’s career, and Howard actually not being a villain. And although it was clear from the start that something was wrong with Chuck, it was not telegraphed that he despised Jimmy.
The best part is that Jimmy characteristically breaks the rules and that's also the context for this hearing. That mix of grey, immoral and even outright illegal conduct is all part of the story, and the way this chicanery blurs the boundary just adds to this show's excellence.
Would he have to say in court how the battery got there? It was there. Wouldn't it be better to Not say anything? Let them speculate, but don't confess.
@@zaphodbreeblebrox9542 how would he have known the battery was there if he didn't put it there? Does Jimmy have x-ray vision? Would that x-ray vision cause Chuck's disease to flare up?
The professionalism of the legal environment makes this common rivalry between brothers feel so smothered and focused. It’s such a great way to portray familial drama.
Just listened to the BCS Insider Podcast yesterday where they talked about how much research went into all of the "legal" details of the show. They have a whole team that examines the script for each episode, determines which legal documents might possibly be shown, even if just for a fraction of a second, and then does all of the necessary due diligence to craft an accurate fake, sometimes going several pages deep on the off chance that the actor makes a choice in a take to flip through it, making multiple pages visible to the camera. The lengths that Gilligan, Gould, et al., go to just to make this show immersive and realistic are so underrated.
Actually just Peter Gloud. If I’m remembering right Gilligan had little to do with bcs s1-5. He only did minor work here and there but it’s mainly all Gloud.
@@_M41KU_ you gotta listen to the podcast. Both Gould and Gilligan are on the podcast and while Vince might not be as hands-on as he was in BrBa, he is still highly involved.
I think Howard must've known or at least suspected that Chuck's condition was psychogenic. He tried to talk him out of testifying because he was worried Jimmy would arrange a demonstration exactly like he did. Chuck on the other hand was absolutely convinced his condition was real, that he was completely right in everything, and that there was nothing Jimmy could do to undermine his credibility in court. Obviously we saw how that went.
Right I mean honestly they didn't need his testimony even if you didn't have the liability of the electricity. Just his hostile relationship with Jimmy alone could be reason enough to just rely on the tape alone and the other witnesses. But obviously Chuck was never going to accept that. But I have very little doubt that Howard presumably recognized that this ailment was not caused by electric currents, but by some kind of mental health or trauma or whatever.
He should have done the entire series. Every episode had moments to dissect. Add in Vince Gilligan's character creation skills, plot development, and attention to detail and there is no shortage of well crafted drama and easter eggs to comment on.
The interesting thing- and part of the point of Jimmy's character- is that he *isn't* supposed to be doing stuff like this in court. He's basically bringing Perry Mason like tactics into a court of law to get the result that he wants. And a good chunk of the series is revealing how that clashes with actual, real lawyers who follow the rules.
What makes you say Jimmy isn't a real lawyer? His degree and his bar acceptance are legit - he's a lawyer. Your last sentence sounds like something that would've been written for Chuck, hah.
@@michellelies that's just sementics, of course he's a real lawyer but in the context of his comment you can understand that he's using ''real lawyer'' as in an average lawyer or the image we have of a lawyer.
@@xavmarz755 It's not "just semantics" though, the point is about the disconnect between "the image we have of a lawyer" and "the infinite set of people who can literally be a lawyer". Jimmy is constantly frustrated by people who look down on him -- who attribute a high social status to "real lawyers" but do not give him that same respect -- because he doesn't fit the average person's idea of what a lawyer ought be. He doesn't clash with "actual, real lawyers", he clashes with snobs who refuse to acknowledge him as an equal.
@@esthersmith3056 Most of those he clashes with are actually quite reasonable besides Chuck. He is not inherently a bad guy but he toes the line into dangerous legal waters all the time in order for him to come out on top.
I think it's particularly fantastic because of the fact that it does push the boundaries of legality because Jimmy himself is known for that. The whole point is that what he does might not be legal, but it's gray enough that he gets away with it. And the fact that he's doing this in a disciplinary hearing, not a trial, gives them an easy excuse for bending the rules. The writers clearly knew what they were doing.
Until the end where they SOMEHOW make Saul responsible to all of crimes HIS CLIENTS MADE, and even accuse him of killing cops and he decides to confess to stuff he didn't do to impress an ex and cringy cellmates.
@@KasumiRINA he was actively apart of walts criminal empire not just a simple lawyer. He laundered his money, utilised his goons (bill burr and huell) to intimidate multiple people and inadvertently paralyse Ted, actively helped establish his post-gus lab, got him into contact with gus, assisted in the attempted assassination of jessie and suggested multiple times to murder to people who were getting in the way (badger and hank) as well as the poisoning of a child. He was also privy to the murder of dozens of people (the people in prison walt murdered, the kid todd shot, hank, gomez, mike and Gus). I am no legal expert but he would certainly be charged with a lot more than just the dishonest legal practice. To add he literally negotiated his way into being considered a unwilling participant and being viewed as a victim first and associate second. He then decided to admit it all because he 1. still loved kim (it is more than obvious he loved her still when they broke up, the divorce papers scene and gene scenes) 2. Saul was as much a persona as Gene, he was living his life for nearly a decade as a fake person he couldnt take it anymore and just wanted to be himself and he couldnt do that by lying 3. he felt remorse and guilt for going above and beyond to be walts goon and 4. he also was taking a semi-pride in it simultaneously because he was integral to the whole walter cartel, he actively saved their ass and kept the money and machine turning and just like walt couldnt help but brag about his empire as much as possible jimmy or better yet saul certainly felt pride in telling the truth that he was the lynch pin. He was the last man standing and the only one the cops caught, Walt was dead and jessie disappeared of course they threw everything they could at him and he actively chose to take it all to free himself from his mental prison by accepting a physical one because at least then he could be Jimmy McGill and didnt have to betray the last person he truely cared about Kim.
The point of the battery via battery wasn't so much to prove Chuck's ailment wasn't real as to goad him into revealing how much hostility and animosity he harbored towards Jimmy, puncturing his whole "I love my brother, but my duty to the law compels me to act" line. I guess the purpose was not to prevent Jimmy from being punished but to show that there were mitigating circumstances (Chuck is a mean and vindictive SOB) to hopefully lessen his punishment. Which worked, since he was only suspended instead of disbarred.
@@seanA416 you can give someone whatever you want, also a battery doesn't have electricity, it only has the ability to create electricity when plugged in. so it would never have hurt the guy anyway
11:50 They weren't actually law partners. They each had independent practices and shared an office space. I don't know if their relationship is still too close for her representation to be proper, but Kim refused to go into practice with Jimmy because of his propensity to bend, break, and re-write rules.
The grayness of how James did all this was beautiful, it makes it so that when the ambiguous happens he can steer the morality of it to his favor use to the results against his brother.
Arguably he won, Chuck wanted to get him disbarred forever, and he only got a year of suspension with the ability to apeal after that... only a slap on the wrist for someone like him
The bias and special treatment chuck got from the panel made me gag. The panel members went into that hearing with a preconceived opinion of chuck, and probably an extremely high held opinion. Chuck claimed the law was too important to be tampered with but he didn’t seem to have any problem with the law being stretched in his favor.
Agreed, and the idea that the law applies to everyone equally is delusional. Banks, billionaires, politicians, people like Chuck lol etc will always be above the law.
Except the courts have already established Chuck as the victim and Jimmy as the culprit by the time this happens. Of course they're going to defer to him.
@@heyitsmushu7393 no, that’s not what I’m talking about. This is a disciplinary hearing, and Jimmy already plead guilty to the felony charges. They’re completely justified in treating him as guilty, because he himself agreed to the label in the court system.
@@threenumbnuts that doesnt matter. I dont know if you have ever been the defendant, but I have. They are not ALLOWED to show deference until just evidence is given and the verdict is absolute.
ikr, i like a lot of legaleagle videos, but the fact that he's a lawyer and therefore kinda, "believes in" the law definitely puts a damper on things for me. that said, definitely pretty daft of me to watch a legal enthusiast's youtube channel and get upset that he's, yeah, a legal enthusiast.
@@esthersmith3056 Well LE is an enthusiast of the law as it is supposed to be enforced... and gets upset when people are not treated fairly... He is aware of the inequities of law... he has spoken on them before.
@@angrynoodletwentyfive6463 Nah, my criticism of law goes beyond its flawed enforcement, and even beyond the fact that the law can only ever exist in its unequal form -- can only ever serve as a tool of power for unaccountable lawmaker, who remain unaccountable entirely because they are lawmakers. Specifically regarding Chuck's mini-speech in the episode that LegalEagle singled out, when he says "He has a way of doing the worst things for reasons that seem almost noble" -- he's rejecting the idea that Jimmy's lawbreaking can be noble, he's presenting a legalistic view of morality; to Chuck, breaking the law is de facto ignoble. Obviously, he's not presenting a rigorous argument here, we kinda have to guess at his reasons for statements, read between the lines a little; when he says "no matter who you are, your actions have consequences", I assume that those "consequences" are "consequences for actions which society ought want punished" -- that he is again, essentially talking about the law as a conduit for morality. I don't really believe in this sort of legalistic morality, I don't think a rigid code that attempts to declare when things are "okay" or "not okay" can ever work. Any rule you can come up with will sometimes unjustly convict people. So yeah, to me, even if the law could somehow exist in an idealized, just, equal form (and again, it cannot, because lawmakers will inevitably abuse their power), it still wouldn't actually work.
@@esthersmith3056 People are making wayyy too much of his reaction to that statement. All you have to do is watch any of his protest and Trump-related videos to see that he very much understands the real-world law vs. the ideal of the law, but you do HAVE to believe in the ideal to be a good lawyer, in my opinion. Utopian ideals are something good and valid to strive for, even if they aren't reachable and you know they aren't reachable.
Does a unconnected battery do anything to anyone like that though? (ignoring the question if the condition even exists) It doesn't have a magnetic field without the electricity flowing around
@@tardvandecluntproductions1278 No, an isolated battery is nothing but a voltage source; no current is flowing anywhere because the circuit is not closed, therefore no pathway for the current to travel along. The exception would be in the case where the voltage source is robust enough (can generate sufficient voltage) to essentially short the terminals of the battery. For our atmosphere, breakdown voltage of air is on the order of several kilovolts per centimeter, and we just don’t have batteries that are small enough to fit in a coat pocket without being noticed and also capable of supplying tens of kilovolts of potential. I’m not sure what the mechanism behind the alleged condition is (does he have an effect by being in the presence of magnetic fields due to a current? Is he likewise affected by permanent magnets? Is it the electric field? If so, then the batter would still generate an electric field since there exists a charge separation within batteries, and therefore an electric field likewise exists).
@@thefourshowflip and thus, the debate over whether the battery should have done anything was started (when the episode came out) Though again, the disease is psychological so it doesn't matter
the attention to detail and accuracy in Better Call Saul is incredible, and it still doesn't make the watching experience boring, hell, it makes watching the series that much better
The reveal was amazing. But yeah, it could set a dangerous precedent for how lawyers can treat a witness. Could you imagine a lawyer doubted a witness has a peanut allergy and so tricked them into trying something made with peanut oil?
Not really, since 1) it’s his brother & 2) it was a mental Illness so he knew the plan would work. It was risky but it did it’s purpose. Would be much more risky if those variables weren’t there
The difference is revealed in I believe Season 1, where a doctor flips on the switch in chucks bed while hes in the hospital, and its proven that unless he knows it is there it doesnt affect him: proving its not a real medical condition. Jimmy already knows full well.
@@heyitsmushu7393 I get that, but he did not establish that with the panel. So the fact that they are judging to see if Jimmy had behaved in an unethical manner. And this has the appearance of unethical behaviour when not informed of the totality of the evidence.
the difference is that jimmy knew and the witness still gets a physical reaction from peanut butter regardless of them knowing or not which makes it direr than chucks sitatution. like can you imagine someone saying they had a peanut allergy then you feed it to them and they don't react AT ALL and then they start freaking out hours after you tell them? it looks a lot more like a crazy person faking an allergy than anything. not saying you don't have a point but i think jimmy was trying to distract others with this "my brother is a crazy person who makes up a fake diseases" shtick and it worked
I think whats more important is what happends when Jimmy inserts the battery into his cellphone. Because as stated earlier. Current needs to flow for the electromagnetic field and said "allergy" to work. However a charged battery is inert. Only when you insert it into and turn the cellphone on current will flow. So as soon as Jimmy turns on his cellphone , Chuck should show signs of a reaction. Yeah so the implication is that Chuck is crazy and only suffers his disease in reaction to his brother and their relation.
Yes, but the flowing current isn't a piece of Jimmy's argument, it's just the leadup. He has Chuck state two things which he immediately disproves. That he thinks the nearest flowing current is in Jimmy's pocket and that he would feel a battery if it were anywhere near him. He obviously can't feel the current in Jimmy's pocket because it doesn't have a battery in it and he doesn't realize a battery has been in his pocket for the entire time he was testifying. The current not flowing is immaterial to the argument Jimmy makes.
@@himothaniel You say it's immaterial, but that's only because Chuck failed to recognise that the bare battery would emit no electric field. What if when Jimmy asked him if he'd notice a fully charged battery in his pocket, he replied "no, because no current would be flowing". It would have sunk his whole spiel. So either he got lucky, or more likely, the writers don't understand electricity all that well.
@@trevorlambert4226 You are reading too much into the real aspects of "what it would be like if it were possible to have the condition" thus the current needing to flow to generate a magnetic field to have said influence. The writers did understand electricity....but wrote this character with this fictitious disease and this is the way they show it is fictitious or at best psychological and definitely not physiological...that is the distinction and the intent and also the whole basis of the argument in the court.
@@trevorlambert4226 You're stating arguments that the "prosecution" (or whatever the people trying to get him disbarred are called) should hopefully bring up, but they don't actually change the effect that the testimony has on the case. Being able to catch Chuck in a misstep or having to backtrack his statements has a negative effect on his testimony. Not only that, but we're completely ignoring that the testimony continues to be degraded as he becomes more unhinged and spouts more (seeming) absurdities.
I'll always remember the first introduction of Jimmy in Breaking bad: you don't need a criminal lawyer. You need a criminal, "dramatic pause", lawyer :)
i love how in nearly all copypastas of the rant you will ever see, this sentence is left untouched regardless of what it is parodying or is it's topic about
Yes a new Better Call Saul episode! I have been waiting so long. With many episodes I thought about LegalEagle. Glad it is here, there are so many lawyering gems!
Honestly, I'm still not convinced that Jimmy even really intended to get that evidence admitted. I think he just wanted to provoke a response from Chuck that would essentially prove his case.
Even better it was rechargeable type of battery. Most rechargable batteries from the time era that the show was in could contain lithium hexafluorophosphate, which if you aren't chemistry inclined is ... A Salt. Brilliant show, brilliant episode.
Unfortunately a battery doesn’t produce electromagnetic radiation and he wasn’t claiming to be susceptible to electric fields or potential differences (if he was static would be way more of a problem than a battery) Is it stills battery if it is just something you think will discomfort them?
@@glenecollins Yeah I believe that was LegalEagle's point here. Think of the butterfly example. You may be convinced that placing a butterfly on someone isn't 'actually' hurting them in any real way, but you can still be guilty of battery for knowingly causing deep psychological distress if you did it with the knowledge that your 'victim' is deathly afraid of butterflies. So what matters is your knowledge, as well as the victim's subjective belief in his condition, regardless of how medically accurate it is. Like is the case with Chuck here. No magnetic field was present, yet he felt the discomfort as soon as he learned of the fact that there was a battery in his close vicinity - purely psychological, yet authentic, from Chuck's point of view. At least that's my understanding
@@holysecret2 I was thinking more along the lines of IRL most electrosensitives wouldn’t be worried by a battery because they actually do research into what makes electromagnetic fields (they do find a heap of things that don’t really but I haven’t seen batteries in there). A battery only has a very weak electric field around the anode and only produces an electromagnetic field if it is in a circuit. So the EMsensitives would likely know that and be unconcerned by a battery where as a lawyer may think it would bother them because it contains “electricity”. Would that be attempted battery with a battery if the person was unconcerned by the battery because they know it doesn’t produce a field (wether or not they can detect one) but the laser thought it would discomfort them. Why is there no cross eyes emoji? I am starting to confuse myself 🤪
I have been waiting SOOOO long for this episode. What an amazing episode of “Chicanery!” I enjoyed talking with you about Breaking Bad when you spoke Tagalog for my video in California.
I wonder if the fact that Jimmy is his brothers medical proxy (As seen in many previous episodes) would have any impact on the Battery argument. Jimmy had been told repeatedly that his brother did not have a medical condition, so would a doctor telling him that outweigh his brothers belief that he does?
@@Steamdragon13 No, the other way around. To prove he has EHS he would need to get a report from a doctor confirming said diagnosis. In fact I'm surprised LE didn't call that one out at the beginning. I don't know US law but I don't think they'd allow anyone to claim a medical condition that effects the trial without a diagnosis. Sure the restaurant doesn't need proof of your being allergic to peanuts but the tribunal would require such evidence right? The claimed condition literally effects the outcome of this trial. It'd be like someone claiming they have glaucoma and requiring courtroom to be altered to fit their condition except they didn't present any proof of said medical diagnosis.
The state bar lawyer does object to introducing a Temporary Emergency Guardianship or T.E.G as evidence because the matter isn't about Chuck's mental state , its about Jimmy breaking his brother's door down and destroying potential evidence. But then Chuck's chicanery rant proves that it is in fact his mental state which is at subject because he seems to only want to bring his brother down.
LE is saying that specifically for the crime of battery, just knowing Chuck would be distressed is enough. Chuck legitimately believes his condition is real. The ripped out wires, putting up tin foil, cooking on a camp stove all indicate Chuck truly believes this. Even Jimmy isn't arguing that point. The issue here is that in the process of planting the battery, Jimmy's employee made physical contact with Chuck. If Jimmy just waved a cell phone battery in front of Chuck that would be rude but it couldn't be the crime of battery (which according to LE requires physical contact).
Notice Huell looks back at Chuck after planting the battery. I always imagine Jimmy asked him to watch to see if Chuck showed any sign of feeling the electricity he is supposedly so allergic to.
Two questions: 1) Did the Doctor who initially proved to Jimmy that the disease was in Chuck's head by turning on a light under his bed commit battery by turning on that light? 2) We know the ailment is in his head, but does battery not extend to mental trauma? Waited a long time for this video :D Great content
No. You can't commit a battery with electrical field, so no touching occurred. Chuck is crazy, and delusions don't count. I wrote a short story about a woman with delusions. If she electrocuted him, yes. Good question. Certainly there would be harm. Battery requires harm or offensive touching. You should write hypotheticals for law school exams.
@@scottslotterbeck3796 Who me? o.o I was just curious about the scenario of battery because of the video, and if it could potentially come up in the show because of how petty Chuck was. I think he'd try to sue if he found out the doctor had done that to him.
Can only speak for UK law but grevious bodily harm (GBH) and actual bodily harm (ABH) can be psychological, there're have been various convictions for that caused by for example stalking. Low level assaults aren't though (common assault & battery).
First question: No, there is no way he commited battery because chuck never knew about the doctor flipping the switch and it didnt cause him bodily harm because his disease is just in his head. If he had told chuck afterwards, it might have been battery for the reason stated in the video, because then it would have caused him great psychological harm. Second question: It does. Did you not watch the video? this is exactly what he explains at 24 minutes. If you put a butterfly on someone who is deathly afraid of butterflies and you know this, you might not actually hurt them physically, but you might cause a mental breakdown, and that would indeed be battery.
The whole point wasn't to argue against the battery charge (get it?), they already had a written confession for it. But if he could argue that Chuck was mentally ill and that Jimmy only confessed to the felony charge because he was worried about his brother's emotional state, then maybe he wouldn't get his license revoked, and it worked, he only gets a suspension.
Jimmy made chuck get in the witness box when he scared him with the lines "you will get sick and no one will be there to help you" Chuck really wanted to keep the relationship with Jimmy solid as he feared that Jimmy might be telling the truth
This is in my top 5 shows I've ever seen. The accuracy was a huge part of that, as well as the character depth. The dynamic between law and personal experiences gives the show a grounded feeling.
Haven't finished breaking bad, (I think I am done season 2) but I love this show. I think I have one season left but there's something so real about it, great characters. I hate chuck, so big props to the actor for nailing that.
Fun fact: I was in a Mock Trial class in my freshman year of high school and we competed in the official courthouses in downtown abq, so there's a high chance I- or one of my classmates- competed in a courtroom near the one they filmed in for this episode :)
I don't think I've ever seen a video where he's more excited than this before. It'd be awesome if you could give us some insights from "The Night of" the mini series that was on HBO, It was SOOO GOOD!!!
'Defending Jacob' was another OK show, on Apple TV+. I don't know about legal realism, but it more or less held my attention, which is all I ask for. As or 'Night of', I liked it, but I thought it was weird how the kid completely changed personality into some kind of badarse criminal after spending a bit of time in prison. I get what they were trying to say: that the criminal justice system and in particular the prison system did not reform him but rather made him into a worse person -- i.e., his time suffering the brutal conditions of the supposedly 'reformative' prison probably made him _more_ (not less) likely to commit crimes in the future. Fair enough. It just seemed kind of unrealistic to me -- like he just totally changed personality after a relatively short amount of time (too over-the-top). I thought that the promising setup for the series was better than the actual conclusion to the show, like it failed a bit to live up to the potential shown in the early episodes.
@@robertjenkins6132 I felt the self way about The Night Of. I think the story needed more episodes to make clear just how much time passed. At least, that's how it felt.
id like to think that the reason chuck was given so much leeway to rant away was because he's such a legend to the world of law. The people on the bar probably have insane respect for him and likely give him quite a bit of benefit of the doubt (although they shouldn't).
Jimmy knew (from the episode where he took Charles to the emergency room) that the disease was a mental illness, so hiding a battery on him would have no effect, and as you pointed out, the victim has to take offense... but Charles apologized to Huell (and arguably ran into him)! He didn't know anything "offensive" had taken place for, well, an hour and forty-three minutes, at which point, HE knew that his disease was a mental illness, so what justification would he have to take offense at anything other than being exposed both for being mentally ill and engaging in an elaborate, years-long vendetta against his own brother, of which this bar hearing was just the latest episode? I agree with your overall appreciation of the legal reality, up to the point where everyone involved isn't permanently disbarred and referred both for criminal prosecution and psychological evaluation.
@@markregev1651 It doesn't matter how batteries work (but even so they often have circuits in them so they could have "current flowing" even if they're not being used). He even mentioned it as a something that would set off his electrical sensitivity disorder. Jimmy suggested "like a watch battery" as an example and Chuck said yes.
Even if it was a real disease he said he feels current. A plain battery that isn't powering anything generates no current. it's the only part of this show that really grinds my gears. Because it's so simple to fix, they could have dropped a watch a small phone or anything else that actually has current.
@@carlangelo653 He had already claimed he could feel batteries when Jimmy asks the leading question, and has a visible reaction to the battery itself once he discovers it. It would be a weak argument given the previous two situations. It's clear that Chuck himself doesn't see the distinction and probably doesn't even really understand how electricity works, so the fact he can't make this argument makes a lot of sense
"Who doesn't love a Perry Mason moment?" Growing up my only exposure to the legal system was watching Perry Mason and Matlock with my grandfather. Then when I was in high school I was in a class that had a mock trial assignment, and I was assigned the defense attorney role. I actually got a Parry Mason court room confession out of one of the "witnesses".
@@jdprettynails Perry Mason was a TV series in the 50s and 60s about a criminal defense lawyer by the same name. Every episode would climax with him getting the real killer to confess while on the witness stand, thus proving that his client was innocent.
A problem with Jimmy's planting the battery is that a battery's current is negligable. Unless there is a closed circuit, there is virtually no current. It's the equivalent of proving a lightbulb is broken by screwing it when the switch is on the off position.
When an attorney (I'm in the UK, so I think 'barrister' I think is our equivalent) says something that the other side object to and have struck from the testimony, the jury can't, even with the best will in the world, just forget what's been said, so even though it's been struck from the record, and even though the jury may be directed to discount it, they won't always really do that, will they, because they're human. So on that basis, is this still a valid, albeit dubious, tactic some attorney's/barristers will use?
That type of thing can get a mistrial, and doing it often I’d imagine could get your bar license removed. I’m sure some people do it as an occasional shady tactic, but definitely not regularly. Now, witnesses using that on the other hand…
i'm literally feeling second-hand giddiness because of how EXCITED he is !!! knowing that this video is 50 MINUTES LONG on nebula is also the Most Tempting curiosity stream / nebula promo i've ever heard tbh
I have a nebula subscription. I couldn't find any 50 minute video. The video on nebula has additional 2 minutes of content. Basically from 27:00, it has additional 1 minute 57 seconds, which actually makes it shorter than this video by 2 seconds.
👮♂️ What show should I do next?
🚀 LIMITED: Get CuriosityStream AND Nebula for 26% OFF! legaleagle.link/curiositystream
This show is so good. This was really fun.
If you ever decide to go pilgrimage to the brother's law firm, it's the former healthcare building next to the actual State Bar building lol
Please do apple v epic games
SNL Donald Glovers defense of Jurassic Park.
More bcs!!
The fact that Jimmy's chicanery made a real-life lawyer so torn on whether or not what he did was right, is SO PERFECTLY in-line with Jimmy's character it's insane
and thats a feeling you got throughout the entirety of better call saul, you keep trying to justify jimmy's bad actions
@@yikes216 all the way up to Howard. And then at the end of the episode he jumps forward to Saul.
I've never watched this show, but I kind of want to now.
@@RECTALBURRITOwatch it. it's good
@@RECTALBURRITO you should absolutely give it a watch, really good show
The fact that he committed battery with a battery is some arrested development level writing
TRUE! lmao
WATCH OUT FOR LOOSE EEL
Uh oh I blue myself
@@MrAdeelAH better get red-y
Can't tell if that's a good or a bad thing
"This is one of the best instances of TV lawyering of all time. I'm giving it an A-."
Sounds like a law school professor to me.
LOL
He can’t give it an A because that would leave no grading room if a better instance of TV lawyering was produced.
lmaooo
@@dorothygale1104 I don't understand this mentality. When grading something you don't do it with the expectation of something better coming along. There aren't professors and teachers giving B- to papers where everything is technically right just because a more well-written paper might come around next semester on the same subject. You grade something on it's own merits and not the merits of others, unless there's some sort of curve system at play.
@@ItDoesntMatterReally I beg to differ. As one who has taught before, your assertion that a paper (the example you used) is judged on its own merit is incorrct. A paper, report, story, etc is judged against what is believed to be perfect. Technical perfection is only one aspect of grading a paper, which by itself is a subjective undertaking. Correct grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc does not mean the paper is by any means perfect. In fact, a paper can have no spelling, punctuation, grammar errors an still be a poorly written pape if the content is bad. Actually, the technical aspects of a pap are the least important aspects of a paper, far behind content, insight & composition. Saying a paper is an “A” means that no other paper on the subject could be written. It is effectively saying a paper is perfect and can never be improved upon.
It is no different than various sports that are judged, like gymnastics or diving. A score of 10 means that the performance was perfect and could never be improved upon by anybody.
Now an objective test for example is graded upon a completely different basis. If you answer all the questions correctly your score would be 100%, which translates to an “A” because you have achieved perfection in answering all the questions correctly. A better performance in that regard cannot be attained.
Nice ! Can't wait to see "Real drug dealer reacts to Breaking Bad" next !
😂
Lolllll
I can do one if you want
Isn’t there a channel that does that? Like I remember watching a video where a real convicted drug smuggler reacted to scenes from Narcos etc
@@BigPurp9 I saw a dude on shorts that sold drugs and made a channel, so i wouldnt be suprised if he has made a video
I think Chuck and Jimmy are the perfect examples of "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons" and "doing the wrong thing for the right reasons" respectively
ahhh the foils are perfect
Well, to an extent with Jimmy. Especially when he starts his career as Saul.
Chuck was the kid in school who reminded the teacher about the homework assignment from the previous day.
The problem is that Chuck has mistreated Jimmy for years.
You can't constantly and systematically destroy a person's esteem and wellbeing and then say "Look, I was right all along" when they screw up as a result.
Love this analysis of the show, fits perfectly. Great show, great story of two brothers and I haven't finished it so no spoilers.
It was so satisfying to see the reaction of the three judges when they realized this was a personal matter rather than a professional one.
Yeah but legally would that still disregard the fact that this dude broke in and destroyed evidence and admitted to guilt? I guess we will see when I watch the next episode
@@switchunboxing sameee
@@switchunboxing 1. The only proof was the tape.
2. Jimmy's entire defense was that the tape was not valid because of his brothers mental state. "He was so imbalanced that Jimmy would have said anything to calm him down" is the argument.
3. They spent the entire case trying to argue that Chuck's "electromagnetic hypersensitivity disorder" wasn't real, merely indicative of a much deep mental instability, which culminated in Chuck's outburst.
4. This casted serious doubt on the validity of the tape, and also did much to excuse Jimmy's other crimes, like the BnE. "Jimmy had been caring for Chuck for a long time, and snapped when Chuck tried to use his "fake" confession against him".
@@MrMichealHouse 5. He avoided being disbarred, but was suspended for a year.
@@switchunboxing he already did time for the BnE, the bar hearing was to decide if he should also lose his license over the action. Since they more or less established that the tape was created under iffy conditions due to Chuck's shaky mental state, they let him off easy.
At the end of this episode, there was a dedication to Jane Marzelli Smith, Esq. She was the mother of one of the writers for BCS and she is a lawyer herself. She's been a source of looking into the accuracy and inner workings of the lawyer world in the show and it's poetic that one of the best episodes ever of a lawyer show is dedicated to her.
Excellent bit of trivia here, thank you.
@@TonyGonzales excellent indeed.
I’m glad you caught that, Davidci. Very observant. The sacred and the propane.
Gordon Smith’s mother. He has written some of the best episodes on this show and his mother and sister have helped him a lot with writing law related scenes accurately.
Obviously a lawyer had to be involved. 'thin-skulled plaintiff' is something you'll never hear outside of law school or the legal profession.
The best thing about this is that Bob Odenkirk and Michael Mckean are two comedic actors, yet again in this series delivering some of the best dramatic performances on television
Can't wait to see what Vince does with Jim Carrey
@@yaqubebased1961 You saw the Huell’s Rules leaks too?
It's an interesting twist, reminds me of how Leslie Nielsen originally did dramatic acting but knocked it out of the park with his Deadpan comedy within the Naked Gun Movies
wasn't bryan cranston a primarily comedy actor too?
Vince believed that if you can play comedy you can play drama
There's a bit of a joke. The Witness guy was a victim of battery, because he was given a battery.
I was waiting for him to realize that but alas XD
If it was a lithium or alkali battery, that would "a salt" as well.
Explains why it was appealed to the circuit court.
Yeah it would mean “you committed battery, with a battery”
Oh no!😂😂
This shows how you can make a compelling, realistic legal scene without flashy cuts or hack writing; you just need four seasons of well-crafted, slow-burning tension and conflict between the main characters. Easy.
Not easy but, I get your point
@@azhari7968 that’s the joke.
@@azhari7968
*say something extremely complicated and difficult* “easy”
One of the oldest jokes in the book.
@@azhari7968 yes it is
@@azhari7968 yes it is, don't be salty because you didn't get it
All this set-up by Kim and Jimmy, but ironically Chuck's breaking point came when the prosecutor used the words "Even if Chuck was schizophrenic..." Beautiful writing.
Yup. Personal pride is Chuck's hot button. For someone who loved to pay lip service to ethics and morality, Chuck had no problem sabotaging Jimmy's career out of petty insecurity. But the moment someone calls into question his own judgment, intellect, or personal ability, it's guns out.
@@livecarsonreaction I mean...
* Chuck believes (not unreasonably, but possibly falsely) that Jimmy was embezzling from their father's store
* Jimmy scammed small business owners out of their money with his slippin' scam. Those aren't small payouts, and those guys don't have deep pockets. Chuck knew the Slippin' nickname, so he probably knew where it came from.
* Jimmy ran a variety of other scams, not all of which have been detailed.
* Jimmy shat on the occupants of a car out of a personal grudge.
I don't think the secrecy was the right way to handle it, but Chuck had every right and reason to not hire Jimmy. And not hiring someone isn't the same as sabotaging their career.
Bravo, Vince!
pravo Beter
vrabo nivce
It always hurts my heart how Chuck still tells Jimmy that he defecated through a sunroof letting know that no matter what Jimmy does now, his brother is not gonna see him as worthy of what he does
Yea because Jimmy is one bad brother and he is not worthy of an attorney
Yeah because he could not allow Jimmy to go straight
He's never let Jimmy success and even not telling that their mother's last word was "Jimmy" and it makes him hate him more. Even he manipulated Howard to not let Jimmy works at HHM.
If Chuck knew what Jimmy was doing now for drug cartel he was disowned disowned his brother
Ironically, in the very first episode of the series, when in court Jimmy exclaims "If I were held accountable for everything I did when I was 19... oh boy" or something like that. And that's exactly what Chuck does. Very nice little detail.
You didn’t comment on my favorite argument that Jimmy made: if Charles can exaggerate and lie about his illness to garner Jimmy’s sympathy to induce a confession on a hidden tape, Jimmy can give a false confession just to lift Charles’ spirits.
I guess that part is on Nebula.
@@coreyredmon5611 It actually isn’t!
damn, that's a cool argument
Exactly what I was looking for in this video! That exact interchange!
Yes that’s the whole reason I’m watching this.... now I Kinda don’t wanna finish lol
Objection: you did not criticize Howard for wearing a contrast collar.
What do you have against Hamlingo blue?
@@Delightfully_Witchy hamlindigo? Sheesh
@@Delightfully_Witchy *hamlindingo blue? more like.. hamlindingo blow me* >_
Who's Howard?
@@sonicgalaxy9368 he's not that bland and forgettable.
Objection: Kim and Jimmy weren’t technically law partners. They just shared a law office.
Ye, Kim EXPLICITLY said they would not be law partners when moving into the same office. With the ripping of the mock business card demonstration.
Amazing fans I love you
Sustaineddd
True but the point still stands. Kind of splitting hairs.
The fact that Jimmy said he did this for Kim makes Kim representing him a conflict of interest regardless of their relationship/shared practice
But a battery not powering anything won't radiate any energy. They could have argued that planted battery won't be felt by the guy! I guess the guy didn't know his electronics well...
Yoooo it's electroBOOM!
i thought the same thing
But he put the battery back in the phone and turned it on
That wasn't the point of the battery, that's why the writers even went through the trouble of having Jimmy ask Chuck if he could feel the lights in the court room despite them being turned off, to which Chuck replied "If the current's not flowing, no."
Even still, though you could argue that hypothetically he wouldn't be able to feel a battery that wasn't powering anything if the illness was real, his reaction to finding it in his pocket proves that at least he believes he should, which is all the matters (See around 16:00 for the "Egg shell skull" doctrine. This reaction was enough to call in to question Chuck's mental health, causing the Prosecutor to say "Even if he was schizophrenic-", which in turn caused Chuck to fall into his chicanery speech, making him seem mentally unwell and revealing his deep resentment of Jimmy. This would make it more believable that Chuck could have made the simple mistake of confusing 1261 and 1216 in his state of mind, and makes it more believable that he would pin it on Jimmy, not because Jimmy had anything to do with it, but rather because Chuck hated him.
Objection, battery does leak energy when exposed to the atmosphere.
22:41 A fully charged battery wouldn't actually have any current flowing through it unless it was hooked up a circuit (something that the electricity could flow through, perhaps something that uses electricity).
But clearly, Chuck doesn't know this (and neither does Jimmy). And since the condition is entirely psychological, Chuck believes he felt something here anyway.
Thank you! Lawyers don't understand Physics
Exactly what I was about to say, but checked comments to be sure.
The simplest circuit would be a battery, a wire and a resistor--both so that it doesn't get too hot and make it last longer.
I was noticing this, I am rather surprised that Chuck didn't know this, in earlier episodes he references doing a lot of research, and it seems he would know such a relatively simple fact. Especially since he referenced current specifically earlier with the exit sign.
@@carterplasek498 He was under duress and probably didn't realize from the reveal
@@carterplasek498 He repeatedly shows ignorance to the subject in spite of claiming to know so much about it. For instance, he acts like his house blocks everything out, but those walls wouldn't do anything to "protect" him from the transformer he's always scared of. And that's just one example.
Context: a doctor suspected that the hypersensitivity wasn’t real. She confirmed her suspicion by turning on a medical device without telling Chuck and Chuck had no reaction. Jimmy was there when it happened. Worst case he could get that doctor to testify that Chuck's condition was entirely in his head.
EDIT: fixed typos
The doctor would not be able to testify. HIPPA would prevent that. Unless Chuck agreed to have the doctor disclose that information she wouldnt be able to.
@@andrewmckee6580 jimmy was there. Can they ask the doctor if she flipped the switch?
Excatly but wouldn't the doctor be taking the offense instead of Jimmy?
Also not to mention that the doctor, jimmy and wexler witnessed it
Nonetheless, his psychological reaction is a real, predictable harm.
@@StarAZ probably runs afoul of HIPAA, plus in a hospital with tons of patients, she might not remember him.
His excitement is palpable. He's like a kid in a candy store. RUclipsrs tend to project high energy, but you don't often see this level of unbridled joy.
That’s why I’m so glad he reviewed more Saul. The genuine joy is infectious.
He's like a 7 year old talking about dinosaurs, it's just an adorable level of excitement.
He‘s an attorney. He is a master of deception
id rather see a genuine reaction than an ingenuine reaction lol
@@FunBoysGaming ye
I love how eager he was to start talking after every clip. You can really tell he's wanted to talk about this episode for a LONG time.
I still can’t believe Michael McKean didn’t receive an Emmy nomination for this episode.
I didn't know that. Neither can I.
Better Call Saul should win an the Emmies!
What a sick joke!
@@johnjones4426 "As much as I like cruel sick jokes, I'm afraid this is serious."
He was brilliant throughout the whole series
I love that Huel could have been charged with battery for dropping a charged battery. It’s poetic
You can't be charged for a tort
@@brilliant13675 battery isn’t tortious
Nvm American laws are weird? Some criminal offences are actually torts in America
@@dothething2892 It can be a crime and a tort at the same time. Crime is when the state takes legal action for committing an offense against civil society. A tort is when the victim takes legal action for damages. It's a little more complex than that obviously, but that's the gist. Maybe you're from a country with civil law instead of common law. Is it different there?
Charged with battery with a charged battery.
@@dothething2892 Battery is def a tort, can't speak for your jurisdiction but I can for mine. Assault is a crime, but assault is also seperatley a tort.
The tort of assault is threatening someone (so the crime of uttering threats), and the crime of assault is the same as the tort of battery.
Absolute mess.
From an electrical perspective: Chuck should have argued that he didn't feel the battery since the current wouldn't flow unless connected to a load.
That’s how you know he’s truly mentally ill. He couldn’t even pretend to be okay with something that by his own definition of his illness earlier in the scene shouldn’t bother him.
Actually (and Mr. Stone/LegalEagle partially brings this up in the vid, calling it "laying the foundation"), Jimmy would counter that by going back to the question he asked moments earlier.
JIMMY: "Got it, got it. So if I had a small battery, say, from a watch or something, and I got it close to you -- close to your skin, you'd know?"
CHUCK: "I would feel it, yes."
@@NoirTheSable As a registered electrical engineer I was just thinking this, he should have had the battery left in with the phone itself. If Chuck was smart enough to know the inverse square law, he should have been smart enough to know this. Either way, this scene is still brilliant!
Internal resistance though, no? Batteries do by themselves discharge over time.
@@_Davepocalypse Since I work primarily with A/C current I am not as familiar with DC current in a battery, but to my knowledge, you still need current flow to produce a significant amount of internal resistance. Otherwise the internal resistance we are talking about would be quite minimal.
It took me a while to realize that CURRENT DOESNT EVEN FLOW THROUGH A DISCONNECTED BATTERY! If anything, this really does play into the idea that Chuck's illness was psychological, he thinks that the battery should hurt, so it does, even though it doesn't even follow the rules that he lays out in this episode! (he says that he only feels pain if current is flowing, but current does not flow through disconnected phone batteries, it would only do so after completing the circuit inside the phone when connected.) Bravo Vince!
Which could mean that the Battery charge that Legaleagle talked about is less substantial since it could be argued that the person had no reason to think a battery that has no current flow would hurt him. Yeah, kind of perfect.
hes literally the placebo effect lmao
@@grey.themusiccat nocebo actually.
That…and that current always exists in AC circuits that are connected to a source; turning off a light bulb does not change the fact that electricity is flowing in every line connected to the main at 60Hz …or that the overwhelmingly largest source of electromagnetic radiation is the sun… for all the good legal research, they clearly did not consult a physics advisor 😅
@@thefourshowflip That's the point. It's not supposed to be a real condition. It's when he THINKS he's being exposed to electromagnetism and he's no physicist.
About Jimmy's potential battery assault, in an earlier episode of Chuck's first hospitalization, when the Doctor turned on a device, Chuck didn't have any reaction. This means that Jimmy knows for a fact that Chuck doesn't really experience 'pain' when he isn't aware of the presence of an electromagnetic device.
Is it still a battery then?
what? he wouldn't have planted it if he knew that it would hurt him.
@@dreuvasdevil9395 You are completely missing his point.
Jimmy is trying to prove Chuck's illness isn't real to defend himself. The argument is wether Jimmy commited battery when he let Hule plant the battery in his pocket. If he tried to prove it without actually knowing his disease is real or not he would in theory have commited battery (as it might harm him). However, in an earlier episode a doctor already proved to Jimmy that Chuck's illness isn't real (which he ignored back then) meaning what he did is questionable at best but not illegal. (Since he knew chuck would'nt be harmed, and that doctor could verify that claim)
@@wilexheyndrickx8316 Jimmy is a lifelong criminal who hurts everyone around him. Chuck felt a responsibility to protect the world from Jimmy, or at least not abet Jimmy’s efforts. Jimmy conned innocent people out of money through a number of schemes, whether Slippin’ Jimmy or the fake Rolex scam in Cicero or stealing from his own parents. As a lawyer, he immediately did dishonest and unethical things: The billboard scam. The TV ad spot he tricked his firm into buying. Getting himself fired from Davis and Main. He also destroyed Chuck just to get Kim the Mesa Verde account - then broke into Chuck’s house to get the tape of his confession and threatened to burn the place down. Jimmy humiliated Chuck on the stand - going so far as to bring in Chuck’s ex-wife to emotionally discombobulate him and ignite a breakdown - even though it was 100% irrelevant to the case, which was supposed to be focused on Jimmy’s criminal behavior. And then Jimmy got Chuck’s malpractice insurance cancelled so Chuck couldn’t practice anymore, leading to his suicide. Jimmy was a garbage human being who needed to be stopped.
And what dastardly sin did Chuck commit? He worked behind the scenes to keep this lifelong criminal from behind hired at Chuck’s own firm. Chuck didn’t stop Jimmy from opening his own practice. He just didn’t want him at HHM, and he didn’t want Jimmy to know it was him. That’s it. Oh, and after all that went down, he was mean to Jimmy by saying he didn’t care about him. Can you blame him?
Chuck absolutely did the right thing: Jimmy was a monster. Chuck just failed.
@@wilexheyndrickx8316 I do not know what the exact definition of battery is, but I feel maybe he could still argue that Jimmy paid a man to physically bump onto Chuck and plant an item in his pocket without his consent or knowledge. Again, if the definition is vague enough.
@@wilexheyndrickx8316 if the doctor admitted what she did won't she be charged with battery
Having Rebecca there so Chuck would lose his job AND his chance with his ex was a masterstroke. Chuck was as good as dead when this unfolded in Rebecca's presence.
Crazy thing is he lost his chance with Rebecca not directly because of his illness, but more because he was too stubborn to admit the possibility that it could be psychological. Remember when he slaps the cellphone off her hand? Then after this episode, she turned out to be quite supportive about him having a loose screw, even went to see him. He wouldn't open the door.
@@ekathe85 Indeed, but that was what the character Jimmy was like. He was very proud of his mental abilities. Man it made him partner of his own big law company.. He was just way too proud to admit even to himself he might have a screw lose. Rebecca wouldn't have mined. Opening up to her could have even saved their marriage.
Also one thing, he likely didn't get his mental condition due to the breakup as suggested by Jimmy here. It may have gotten for him treating his brother badly (and as shown they were once much closer to each other than normally brothers are). He didn't want to employ him as a lawyer in his company, but didn't have the balls to tell him to the face and sent Victor as bad front face to take the blame for his decisions.
Overall this is all just great writing. The character of Chuck makes so much sense and also the dilemma he was forced in, also beside that Chuck being actually a mean person, he was in fact right about Jimmy. Everything he claims is actually true.
@@georgelionon9050 I think what's even more interesting is the fact that while Chuck turned out to be right about Jimmy, it was kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy with the way Chuck treated him. Now I'm not saying that there is no blame to put on Jimmy; he is an adult after all, who can make his own decisions. But having an older brother who constantly put you down, even after trying to change for the better, definitely helped push him to be what his brother wanted him to be.
This show is so fantastic, and I was skeptical about it when it was first announced after the amazing Breaking Bad, as I thought there was no way they would be able to match that quality. But they somehow managed it.
@@nephjd88 I'm not sure I follow, take the billboard thing for example, this was Jimmy just being Slippy Jimmy again, not in any way created by Chuck. (It was in fact an important issue, as Jimmy wanted to hide it from him, and he went out to get the newspaper just to get his suspicion confirmed that Jimmy got back to his old ways).
I don't think Chuck = bad, Jimmy = good, is as easy here. Chuck may have had very good reasons not to trust Jimmy, he should have told him into the face tough.
@@georgelionon9050 Chuck explicitly prevented Jimmy from getting a job at HHM and he forced Howard to take the blame for that instead. If he hadn't done that Jimmy would have become a legit lawyer, instead he was forced to rely on his schemes to succeed. Chuck hated Jimmy cause he was more likeable (see the flashbacks where their mom dies, or where Jimmy gets Rebecca to laugh at his jokes). That doesn't excuse Jimmy's actions, but Chuck was the one who finally pushed him into becoming Saul.
I love watching our lawyer get all giddy and flappy hands about something. It's great to see him excited
He's not "our lawyer." He's an entertainer here who also is a lawyer, outside of this. Note the disclaimer, this is not legal advice and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.
@@tealmer3528 I think they get that, fam
I get flappy hands about stuff but never heard/read it described before.
@@tealmer3528 mate, it was late and I couldn't place his name. Ease off, yeah?
The fact that Huel planting a battery on Chuck could be considered a battery is perfect.
I was looking for this, I appreciate you.
LE: "I have a confession to make"
Me: "Wait, no, seek counsel before doing that"
LE: Overruled. I'm acting as my own counsel
Not Abraham Lincoln: A man who represents himself, has a fool for a client.
It’s counsel.
Sure, fixed.
@@ziggystardog Gomez Addams: As GOD is my witness, I AM THAT FOOL!!!
Saul's plan wasn't to prove himself innocent it was to entirely discredit his brother who was well respected lawyer in New Mexico (which is why so many special precautions and certain amount of leeway was granted.)
That's the right analysis.
He kept pushing evidence and ridiculing him and his sickness infront of court until Chuck snapped and started screaming and ranting nonsense.
That was the point where all credibility of Chuck and his prestigious position as the best lawyer went down the drain.
Chuck's evidence and testimony was therefore considered unreasonable since Jimmy proved that Chuck is an unreliable witness with mental health problems.
Yup. ???
If I were at this hearing, Chuck would be already be sus from his claim of being allergic to electricity.
@@melissas4874 Why would he be suspended? It's not like he would endanger anyone present or anything.
@@Oll1000 I think they meant suspicious
I don't care if the episode is accurate or not, it's still one of the most brilliantly written episodes in TV history.
Preach. Good writing can save most things since even if you notice the flaws, you don't care.
Meh. It was ok writing
And it’s pretty damn accurate too
agreed!
Facts 🔥 as well Breaking Bad and
They had a New Mexican Lawyer on staff of the show to fact check and guide the show. There was an episode dedicated to that lawyer as she passed.
@yayito1582it is not. the episode chicanery is dedicated to the mother of the writer
As opposed to an Old Mexican Lawyer? You don't want your Mexico Attorneys to get aged.
@@VictorRochaFerreira6they’re actually the same person is my understanding. You’re both right
@@codyschwarz5155 oh, alright. Good to know
Better Call Saul is one of the most slow burning, wonderful show I've ever seen. It took me awhile to get into it, but it's just genius. I actually enjoy it more than Breaking Bad. ( and I loved that show! )
Probably my favorite show, season 6 gonna go crazy 😳
I love BrBa but BCS is on another level. I personally think it's kind of a happy side effect of doing a prequel to a HIGHLY successful program - they cut their teeth and honed this particular "BrBa Style" over 6ish years on the original and then just got to then expand on an already tight, perfectly written story. It's like they took all the amazing lessons they learned over five seasons on BrBa and then just turned it up to eleven for BCS. The photography, the composition (the directors for this show have some of the most stunning single shots in some of the most mundane places, it's crazy), the writing and GOD. The acting! *chef's kiss* How has Rhea Seehorn not won an emmy? Seriously. Season 5 made me want to rip my hair out and I am absolutely dying for season 6.
@@michellelies Rhea Seehorn hasn't even been nominated. As Chuck would say, "what a sick joke."
Great show you breaking bad is still better
@@kevingreene6624 doesn't really change what I said
It’s called a Chicago Sunroof. It’s a real thing. Jimmy didn’t make it up and he wasn’t the first to do it. But hey, the guy wanted some soft serve and Jimmy gave him some soft serve.
Jesus the last line made me laugh so hard when he rambles to seniors about it bahaha
At least it wasn't a Squat Cobbler...
I just wanna add that, yes, the guy deserved some soft serve, but his kids didn't. Ooofff
@@ericwalstrand3512 - On the other hand, there's no fecal matter involved in Squat Cobbler.
Now that it’s all done, I think my favorite twist of BCS is that Chuck was unhinged and hated his brother, while Howard was actually a very decent man.
What a tragedy
how is this a twist. it clear from the start that Chuck was crazy and bitter.
@@CoolGobyFish considering that decision wasn’t made for chucks character until episode 6 that seems unlikely
@@Msjj502 what? did you really think his "condition" was real? he was set up as a crazy person from the start
@@CoolGobyFish the twist I’m referring to is mainly Chuck being the one who tried to sandbag Jimmy’s career, and Howard actually not being a villain. And although it was clear from the start that something was wrong with Chuck, it was not telegraphed that he despised Jimmy.
@@micahclawrence oh that. yes. but I feel they dragged Chuck story line for way way too long.
The best part is that Jimmy characteristically breaks the rules and that's also the context for this hearing. That mix of grey, immoral and even outright illegal conduct is all part of the story, and the way this chicanery blurs the boundary just adds to this show's excellence.
It may not have been assault but it definitely was battery.
It was indeed a battery he planted!
A battery battery
A battery doesn't draw current anyways. It should bother him as much as a brick would whether his disease is real or not.
It was a li-ion battery, so it was actually also 'a salt'
@@Psianth yay, science jokes!
The fact that Jimmy made a whole charade with planting evidence during a trial makes the whole document thing look more plausable
lol stuff you only realize when you get home. Wait a minute 😂
Would he have to say in court how the battery got there? It was there. Wouldn't it be better to Not say anything? Let them speculate, but don't confess.
@@zaphodbreeblebrox9542 how would he have known the battery was there if he didn't put it there? Does Jimmy have x-ray vision? Would that x-ray vision cause Chuck's disease to flare up?
Hitchcock called those "cold chicken" moments: when you're pawing about in the fridge after a show and...waitaminute!
yea but kim said that they aren't denying jimmys wrongdoing
The professionalism of the legal environment makes this common rivalry between brothers feel so smothered and focused. It’s such a great way to portray familial drama.
12:35 - Everybody back in Coushatta, Louisiana loves Huell. I wrote a letter to the court telling them what a great man Huell is.
Huell would never hurt a cop I'm glad they let him go
“He was deceived by a lie, we all were.”
-Anyone who watched the apology video
I'll allow it...
The evidence is Palpatine.
Palpable*
Objection overruled!
@@michaelacton3287 Friendpatine.
All I can say is protect Huell, we didn't deserve a character like him
Can't wait until AMC makes the prequel series be cool huell
Will be called Better Not Forget Huell
Better Fuel Huell
Kuby & Huell
@@ronniejdio9411 unfortunately the actor for huell passed away
Just listened to the BCS Insider Podcast yesterday where they talked about how much research went into all of the "legal" details of the show. They have a whole team that examines the script for each episode, determines which legal documents might possibly be shown, even if just for a fraction of a second, and then does all of the necessary due diligence to craft an accurate fake, sometimes going several pages deep on the off chance that the actor makes a choice in a take to flip through it, making multiple pages visible to the camera. The lengths that Gilligan, Gould, et al., go to just to make this show immersive and realistic are so underrated.
One of the writers was also a former lawyer, it makes so much sense how accurate they can get
Somehow it has the understated ring of authenticity. Well, perhaps ‘understated’ is not the right word, but you know what I mean!
Actually just Peter Gloud. If I’m remembering right Gilligan had little to do with bcs s1-5. He only did minor work here and there but it’s mainly all Gloud.
@@_M41KU_ you gotta listen to the podcast. Both Gould and Gilligan are on the podcast and while Vince might not be as hands-on as he was in BrBa, he is still highly involved.
A most educational (and free!!) lesson on why sweating the details matters
I think Howard must've known or at least suspected that Chuck's condition was psychogenic. He tried to talk him out of testifying because he was worried Jimmy would arrange a demonstration exactly like he did. Chuck on the other hand was absolutely convinced his condition was real, that he was completely right in everything, and that there was nothing Jimmy could do to undermine his credibility in court. Obviously we saw how that went.
Right I mean honestly they didn't need his testimony even if you didn't have the liability of the electricity. Just his hostile relationship with Jimmy alone could be reason enough to just rely on the tape alone and the other witnesses. But obviously Chuck was never going to accept that. But I have very little doubt that Howard presumably recognized that this ailment was not caused by electric currents, but by some kind of mental health or trauma or whatever.
finally more better call saul gets lawyered!
Yeah I was waiting for this
He should have done the entire series. Every episode had moments to dissect. Add in Vince Gilligan's character creation skills, plot development, and attention to detail and there is no shortage of well crafted drama and easter eggs to comment on.
fr been waiting for too long
Only took how many years? XD
I was just about to say that.
The interesting thing- and part of the point of Jimmy's character- is that he *isn't* supposed to be doing stuff like this in court. He's basically bringing Perry Mason like tactics into a court of law to get the result that he wants. And a good chunk of the series is revealing how that clashes with actual, real lawyers who follow the rules.
Because let's be honest how interesting could a show really be where real normal lawyers do real normal lawyer stuff in a real normal court
What makes you say Jimmy isn't a real lawyer? His degree and his bar acceptance are legit - he's a lawyer. Your last sentence sounds like something that would've been written for Chuck, hah.
@@michellelies that's just sementics, of course he's a real lawyer but in the context of his comment you can understand that he's using ''real lawyer'' as in an average lawyer or the image we have of a lawyer.
@@xavmarz755 It's not "just semantics" though, the point is about the disconnect between "the image we have of a lawyer" and "the infinite set of people who can literally be a lawyer". Jimmy is constantly frustrated by people who look down on him -- who attribute a high social status to "real lawyers" but do not give him that same respect -- because he doesn't fit the average person's idea of what a lawyer ought be. He doesn't clash with "actual, real lawyers", he clashes with snobs who refuse to acknowledge him as an equal.
@@esthersmith3056 Most of those he clashes with are actually quite reasonable besides Chuck.
He is not inherently a bad guy but he toes the line into dangerous legal waters all the time in order for him to come out on top.
I think it's particularly fantastic because of the fact that it does push the boundaries of legality because Jimmy himself is known for that. The whole point is that what he does might not be legal, but it's gray enough that he gets away with it. And the fact that he's doing this in a disciplinary hearing, not a trial, gives them an easy excuse for bending the rules.
The writers clearly knew what they were doing.
Until the end where they SOMEHOW make Saul responsible to all of crimes HIS CLIENTS MADE, and even accuse him of killing cops and he decides to confess to stuff he didn't do to impress an ex and cringy cellmates.
@@KasumiRINA he was actively apart of walts criminal empire not just a simple lawyer. He laundered his money, utilised his goons (bill burr and huell) to intimidate multiple people and inadvertently paralyse Ted, actively helped establish his post-gus lab, got him into contact with gus, assisted in the attempted assassination of jessie and suggested multiple times to murder to people who were getting in the way (badger and hank) as well as the poisoning of a child. He was also privy to the murder of dozens of people (the people in prison walt murdered, the kid todd shot, hank, gomez, mike and Gus). I am no legal expert but he would certainly be charged with a lot more than just the dishonest legal practice. To add he literally negotiated his way into being considered a unwilling participant and being viewed as a victim first and associate second. He then decided to admit it all because he 1. still loved kim (it is more than obvious he loved her still when they broke up, the divorce papers scene and gene scenes) 2. Saul was as much a persona as Gene, he was living his life for nearly a decade as a fake person he couldnt take it anymore and just wanted to be himself and he couldnt do that by lying 3. he felt remorse and guilt for going above and beyond to be walts goon and 4. he also was taking a semi-pride in it simultaneously because he was integral to the whole walter cartel, he actively saved their ass and kept the money and machine turning and just like walt couldnt help but brag about his empire as much as possible jimmy or better yet saul certainly felt pride in telling the truth that he was the lynch pin. He was the last man standing and the only one the cops caught, Walt was dead and jessie disappeared of course they threw everything they could at him and he actively chose to take it all to free himself from his mental prison by accepting a physical one because at least then he could be Jimmy McGill and didnt have to betray the last person he truely cared about Kim.
The point of the battery via battery wasn't so much to prove Chuck's ailment wasn't real as to goad him into revealing how much hostility and animosity he harbored towards Jimmy, puncturing his whole "I love my brother, but my duty to the law compels me to act" line. I guess the purpose was not to prevent Jimmy from being punished but to show that there were mitigating circumstances (Chuck is a mean and vindictive SOB) to hopefully lessen his punishment. Which worked, since he was only suspended instead of disbarred.
So if I understand this correctly, Huell managed to *literally* commit battery.
And I can't imagine secretly planting property on someone is legal.
@@seanA416 you can give someone whatever you want, also a battery doesn't have electricity, it only has the ability to create electricity when plugged in. so it would never have hurt the guy anyway
@@Justin-tp1mx right but it was "offensive" in the sense he knew his brother had or believed he had this rare condition
commited to plant a battery , yes....
@@Justin-tp1mx I wonder, can you give someone something if they do not consent to receiving it?
11:50 They weren't actually law partners. They each had independent practices and shared an office space. I don't know if their relationship is still too close for her representation to be proper, but Kim refused to go into practice with Jimmy because of his propensity to bend, break, and re-write rules.
"Kim refused to go into practice with Jimmy because of his propensity to bend, break, and re-write rules."
This didn't age well
@@VDA19 I mean it was true at the time. Kim changed.
@@MrMichealHouse Kim was always dirty. She was breaking the law ever since she was a kid.
@@VDA19bro, what? Everyone has broken the law.
@@walter9240 she broke bad
Never realized that "battery" was a double entendre until now. Damn, this show is smart.
Can you explain?
@@MrBlodhund look up the definition of battery.
@@MrBlodhund battery the criminal act/tort, and the litteral cellphone battery
@@MrBlodhund You should watch the video
If only a salt shaker had somehow been written into the script.
The grayness of how James did all this was beautiful, it makes it so that when the ambiguous happens he can steer the morality of it to his favor use to the results against his brother.
I would follow this up with the episode where Jimmy is trying to get his license back
So he lost it this hearing?
@@geraldgrenier8132 yes.
@@geraldgrenier8132 He has it suspended for a year with a possibility (but not guarantee) of getting it back after a review when the year is up
@@theomegajuice8660 I mean, as long as he can get it back then it's all good man.
Arguably he won, Chuck wanted to get him disbarred forever, and he only got a year of suspension with the ability to apeal after that... only a slap on the wrist for someone like him
Is it just me or is LegalEagle almost jumping out of his chair while reviewing this episode?
Which is why he should do more Better Call Saul 🙌
Who wouldn't with this episode of BCS though?
this episode just does that to people tbh
I think he wants to try that trick during his next trial :p
Not “almost”. He’s a giddy schoolgirl over this one and I love it.
He says "he had to cut the video almost in half!" but the extended version on nebula only has 2 extra minutes.......objection!
Better call a lawyer!
I suppose "almost" is a subjectively interpretable term xD
BB and BCS were written so well. It always felt like i was watching more of a show based on real events.
The bias and special treatment chuck got from the panel made me gag. The panel members went into that hearing with a preconceived opinion of chuck, and probably an extremely high held opinion. Chuck claimed the law was too important to be tampered with but he didn’t seem to have any problem with the law being stretched in his favor.
Agreed, and the idea that the law applies to everyone equally is delusional. Banks, billionaires, politicians, people like Chuck lol etc will always be above the law.
Except the courts have already established Chuck as the victim and Jimmy as the culprit by the time this happens. Of course they're going to defer to him.
@@threenumbnuts yeah thats a problem. Most courts and jury perceive the defendant as guilty before hearing anything
@@heyitsmushu7393 no, that’s not what I’m talking about. This is a disciplinary hearing, and Jimmy already plead guilty to the felony charges. They’re completely justified in treating him as guilty, because he himself agreed to the label in the court system.
@@threenumbnuts that doesnt matter. I dont know if you have ever been the defendant, but I have. They are not ALLOWED to show deference until just evidence is given and the verdict is absolute.
"The idea that no matter who you are, your actions have consequences" - "preach baby, preach!"
Yeahh... if only it were _actually_ true...
ikr, i like a lot of legaleagle videos, but the fact that he's a lawyer and therefore kinda, "believes in" the law definitely puts a damper on things for me. that said, definitely pretty daft of me to watch a legal enthusiast's youtube channel and get upset that he's, yeah, a legal enthusiast.
LOL exactly
@@esthersmith3056 Well LE is an enthusiast of the law as it is supposed to be enforced... and gets upset when people are not treated fairly... He is aware of the inequities of law... he has spoken on them before.
@@angrynoodletwentyfive6463 Nah, my criticism of law goes beyond its flawed enforcement, and even beyond the fact that the law can only ever exist in its unequal form -- can only ever serve as a tool of power for unaccountable lawmaker, who remain unaccountable entirely because they are lawmakers.
Specifically regarding Chuck's mini-speech in the episode that LegalEagle singled out, when he says "He has a way of doing the worst things for reasons that seem almost noble" -- he's rejecting the idea that Jimmy's lawbreaking can be noble, he's presenting a legalistic view of morality; to Chuck, breaking the law is de facto ignoble. Obviously, he's not presenting a rigorous argument here, we kinda have to guess at his reasons for statements, read between the lines a little; when he says "no matter who you are, your actions have consequences", I assume that those "consequences" are "consequences for actions which society ought want punished" -- that he is again, essentially talking about the law as a conduit for morality. I don't really believe in this sort of legalistic morality, I don't think a rigid code that attempts to declare when things are "okay" or "not okay" can ever work. Any rule you can come up with will sometimes unjustly convict people. So yeah, to me, even if the law could somehow exist in an idealized, just, equal form (and again, it cannot, because lawmakers will inevitably abuse their power), it still wouldn't actually work.
@@esthersmith3056 People are making wayyy too much of his reaction to that statement. All you have to do is watch any of his protest and Trump-related videos to see that he very much understands the real-world law vs. the ideal of the law, but you do HAVE to believe in the ideal to be a good lawyer, in my opinion. Utopian ideals are something good and valid to strive for, even if they aren't reachable and you know they aren't reachable.
Planting a battery to someone with Electosensitivity is considered Battery...
Well played DJ 🔋🔋
I heard a joke on Steve Lehto's channel. "Energizer bunny arrested. Charged with battery."
Does a unconnected battery do anything to anyone like that though? (ignoring the question if the condition even exists)
It doesn't have a magnetic field without the electricity flowing around
@@tardvandecluntproductions1278
No, an isolated battery is nothing but a voltage source; no current is flowing anywhere because the circuit is not closed, therefore no pathway for the current to travel along. The exception would be in the case where the voltage source is robust enough (can generate sufficient voltage) to essentially short the terminals of the battery. For our atmosphere, breakdown voltage of air is on the order of several kilovolts per centimeter, and we just don’t have batteries that are small enough to fit in a coat pocket without being noticed and also capable of supplying tens of kilovolts of potential.
I’m not sure what the mechanism behind the alleged condition is (does he have an effect by being in the presence of magnetic fields due to a current? Is he likewise affected by permanent magnets? Is it the electric field? If so, then the batter would still generate an electric field since there exists a charge separation within batteries, and therefore an electric field likewise exists).
@@thefourshowflip and thus, the debate over whether the battery should have done anything was started (when the episode came out)
Though again, the disease is psychological so it doesn't matter
@@thejungwookim And the whitness testified their understanding is the battery is detectable
the attention to detail and accuracy in Better Call Saul is incredible, and it still doesn't make the watching experience boring, hell, it makes watching the series that much better
The standard for battery in New Mexico isn’t “harmful or offensive” but “rude, angry, or insolent manner.”
So intent is what matters. So bumping into someone intentionally to put something in their pocket would still fit that right?
@@JohnyScissors I Don't see how that is to be "Rude, Angry, Or insolent"
@@Jechti307 Yeah, IMO that doesn't count as battery under NM law
what was the standard when the show takes place since the show takes place in 2002? Has it changed in the last 20 years?
@@Jechti307 bumping into someone on purpose is definitely considered "Rude"
“He defecated through a sunroof!”
This quote will never not make me laugh when I hear it from Chuck. 😂🤣😂
What does that quote mean?
@@abcd-sj5cd jimmy actually defecated through a sunroof when they were younger. And chuck bailed him out.
After season 5 ended
“SHE defecated through a sunroof!”
@@abcd-sj5cd um defecated means shit. So Jimmy took a shit through a sunroof lol
The reveal was amazing. But yeah, it could set a dangerous precedent for how lawyers can treat a witness. Could you imagine a lawyer doubted a witness has a peanut allergy and so tricked them into trying something made with peanut oil?
Not really, since 1) it’s his brother & 2) it was a mental Illness so he knew the plan would work. It was risky but it did it’s purpose. Would be much more risky if those variables weren’t there
The difference is revealed in I believe Season 1, where a doctor flips on the switch in chucks bed while hes in the hospital, and its proven that unless he knows it is there it doesnt affect him: proving its not a real medical condition. Jimmy already knows full well.
@@heyitsmushu7393 I get that, but he did not establish that with the panel. So the fact that they are judging to see if Jimmy had behaved in an unethical manner. And this has the appearance of unethical behaviour when not informed of the totality of the evidence.
the difference is that jimmy knew and the witness still gets a physical reaction from peanut butter regardless of them knowing or not which makes it direr than chucks sitatution. like can you imagine someone saying they had a peanut allergy then you feed it to them and they don't react AT ALL and then they start freaking out hours after you tell them? it looks a lot more like a crazy person faking an allergy than anything. not saying you don't have a point but i think jimmy was trying to distract others with this "my brother is a crazy person who makes up a fake diseases" shtick and it worked
The difference between a peanaut allergy and EHS is that EHS is a mental disorder disguised as an allergy.
You can detect an allergy rather easier.
Alternative title: "Lawyer watching a lawyer defending a lawyer who was sued by a lawyer while watching a testimony of a lawyer."
I think whats more important is what happends when Jimmy inserts the battery into his cellphone. Because as stated earlier. Current needs to flow for the electromagnetic field and said "allergy" to work. However a charged battery is inert. Only when you insert it into and turn the cellphone on current will flow. So as soon as Jimmy turns on his cellphone , Chuck should show signs of a reaction. Yeah so the implication is that Chuck is crazy and only suffers his disease in reaction to his brother and their relation.
Yes, but the flowing current isn't a piece of Jimmy's argument, it's just the leadup.
He has Chuck state two things which he immediately disproves. That he thinks the nearest flowing current is in Jimmy's pocket and that he would feel a battery if it were anywhere near him.
He obviously can't feel the current in Jimmy's pocket because it doesn't have a battery in it and he doesn't realize a battery has been in his pocket for the entire time he was testifying. The current not flowing is immaterial to the argument Jimmy makes.
Happens*
@@himothaniel You say it's immaterial, but that's only because Chuck failed to recognise that the bare battery would emit no electric field. What if when Jimmy asked him if he'd notice a fully charged battery in his pocket, he replied "no, because no current would be flowing". It would have sunk his whole spiel. So either he got lucky, or more likely, the writers don't understand electricity all that well.
@@trevorlambert4226 You are reading too much into the real aspects of "what it would be like if it were possible to have the condition" thus the current needing to flow to generate a magnetic field to have said influence. The writers did understand electricity....but wrote this character with this fictitious disease and this is the way they show it is fictitious or at best psychological and definitely not physiological...that is the distinction and the intent and also the whole basis of the argument in the court.
@@trevorlambert4226 You're stating arguments that the "prosecution" (or whatever the people trying to get him disbarred are called) should hopefully bring up, but they don't actually change the effect that the testimony has on the case. Being able to catch Chuck in a misstep or having to backtrack his statements has a negative effect on his testimony. Not only that, but we're completely ignoring that the testimony continues to be degraded as he becomes more unhinged and spouts more (seeming) absurdities.
I'll always remember the first introduction of Jimmy in Breaking bad: you don't need a criminal lawyer. You need a criminal, "dramatic pause", lawyer :)
the way chuck says "he defecated thru a sunroof!!!" always makes me laugh, the pure desperation in his voice 26:06
Ahhhhhh yes, the Chicago Sunroof, a classic.
i love how in nearly all copypastas of the rant you will ever see, this sentence is left untouched regardless of what it is parodying or is it's topic about
@@zumabbar You can see why. after all, he did, in fact, defecate through a sunroof
@@zumabbar it’s just so perfect on its own.
Jimmy being charged with battery for hiring someone to plant a charged battery in chuck’s pocket is insane
I love how rule 403 is essentially: access to evidence forbidden
I appreciate your joke, even if nobody else does.
Rule 404: File Not Found
@@TheBlarggle it’s error 403: access denied, 404 is something else
@@MarlonBitoy 404 is file not found.
@@nathanb011 yes
Yes a new Better Call Saul episode! I have been waiting so long. With many episodes I thought about LegalEagle. Glad it is here, there are so many lawyering gems!
Honestly, I'm still not convinced that Jimmy even really intended to get that evidence admitted. I think he just wanted to provoke a response from Chuck that would essentially prove his case.
Can we talk about that profile picture tho
Exactly, my reading was that he was trying to get Chuck to impeach himself.
The realization that Huell committed battery with a battery is one of the best things ever
Battery with a battery seems almost too perfect.
Even better it was rechargeable type of battery. Most rechargable batteries from the time era that the show was in could contain lithium hexafluorophosphate, which if you aren't chemistry inclined is ... A Salt. Brilliant show, brilliant episode.
Unfortunately a battery doesn’t produce electromagnetic radiation and he wasn’t claiming to be susceptible to electric fields or potential differences (if he was static would be way more of a problem than a battery)
Is it stills battery if it is just something you think will discomfort them?
@@glenecollins Yeah I believe that was LegalEagle's point here. Think of the butterfly example. You may be convinced that placing a butterfly on someone isn't 'actually' hurting them in any real way, but you can still be guilty of battery for knowingly causing deep psychological distress if you did it with the knowledge that your 'victim' is deathly afraid of butterflies. So what matters is your knowledge, as well as the victim's subjective belief in his condition, regardless of how medically accurate it is. Like is the case with Chuck here. No magnetic field was present, yet he felt the discomfort as soon as he learned of the fact that there was a battery in his close vicinity - purely psychological, yet authentic, from Chuck's point of view. At least that's my understanding
@@holysecret2 I was thinking more along the lines of IRL most electrosensitives wouldn’t be worried by a battery because they actually do research into what makes electromagnetic fields (they do find a heap of things that don’t really but I haven’t seen batteries in there).
A battery only has a very weak electric field around the anode and only produces an electromagnetic field if it is in a circuit. So the EMsensitives would likely know that and be unconcerned by a battery where as a lawyer may think it would bother them because it contains “electricity”.
Would that be attempted battery with a battery if the person was unconcerned by the battery because they know it doesn’t produce a field (wether or not they can detect one) but the laser thought it would discomfort them.
Why is there no cross eyes emoji? I am starting to confuse myself 🤪
I have been waiting SOOOO long for this episode.
What an amazing episode of “Chicanery!” I enjoyed talking with you about Breaking Bad when you spoke Tagalog for my video in California.
Omg kakampi andito ka rin po pala!
Do you have a link?
I wonder if the fact that Jimmy is his brothers medical proxy (As seen in many previous episodes) would have any impact on the Battery argument. Jimmy had been told repeatedly that his brother did not have a medical condition, so would a doctor telling him that outweigh his brothers belief that he does?
I think he would need to get an official document or something along those lines coming directly from the doctor themselves to corroborate that.
@@Steamdragon13 No, the other way around. To prove he has EHS he would need to get a report from a doctor confirming said diagnosis.
In fact I'm surprised LE didn't call that one out at the beginning. I don't know US law but I don't think they'd allow anyone to claim a medical condition that effects the trial without a diagnosis. Sure the restaurant doesn't need proof of your being allergic to peanuts but the tribunal would require such evidence right? The claimed condition literally effects the outcome of this trial.
It'd be like someone claiming they have glaucoma and requiring courtroom to be altered to fit their condition except they didn't present any proof of said medical diagnosis.
Saul knew that his brother would react the way he did and cause a spectacle and that was his goal all along.
The state bar lawyer does object to introducing a Temporary Emergency Guardianship or T.E.G as evidence because the matter isn't about Chuck's mental state , its about Jimmy breaking his brother's door down and destroying potential evidence.
But then Chuck's chicanery rant proves that it is in fact his mental state which is at subject because he seems to only want to bring his brother down.
LE is saying that specifically for the crime of battery, just knowing Chuck would be distressed is enough. Chuck legitimately believes his condition is real. The ripped out wires, putting up tin foil, cooking on a camp stove all indicate Chuck truly believes this. Even Jimmy isn't arguing that point.
The issue here is that in the process of planting the battery, Jimmy's employee made physical contact with Chuck. If Jimmy just waved a cell phone battery in front of Chuck that would be rude but it couldn't be the crime of battery (which according to LE requires physical contact).
Notice Huell looks back at Chuck after planting the battery. I always imagine Jimmy asked him to watch to see if Chuck showed any sign of feeling the electricity he is supposedly so allergic to.
Jimmy knew in season 1 it was bs when the doctor powered chucks bed and he didn't have a reaction
Two questions: 1) Did the Doctor who initially proved to Jimmy that the disease was in Chuck's head by turning on a light under his bed commit battery by turning on that light?
2) We know the ailment is in his head, but does battery not extend to mental trauma?
Waited a long time for this video :D Great content
No. You can't commit a battery with electrical field, so no touching occurred. Chuck is crazy, and delusions don't count. I wrote a short story about a woman with delusions. If she electrocuted him, yes.
Good question. Certainly there would be harm. Battery requires harm or offensive touching. You should write hypotheticals for law school exams.
@@scottslotterbeck3796 Who me? o.o I was just curious about the scenario of battery because of the video, and if it could potentially come up in the show because of how petty Chuck was. I think he'd try to sue if he found out the doctor had done that to him.
Can only speak for UK law but grevious bodily harm (GBH) and actual bodily harm (ABH) can be psychological, there're have been various convictions for that caused by for example stalking. Low level assaults aren't though (common assault & battery).
First question: No, there is no way he commited battery because chuck never knew about the doctor flipping the switch and it didnt cause him bodily harm because his disease is just in his head. If he had told chuck afterwards, it might have been battery for the reason stated in the video, because then it would have caused him great psychological harm.
Second question: It does. Did you not watch the video? this is exactly what he explains at 24 minutes. If you put a butterfly on someone who is deathly afraid of butterflies and you know this, you might not actually hurt them physically, but you might cause a mental breakdown, and that would indeed be battery.
The whole point wasn't to argue against the battery charge (get it?), they already had a written confession for it. But if he could argue that Chuck was mentally ill and that Jimmy only confessed to the felony charge because he was worried about his brother's emotional state, then maybe he wouldn't get his license revoked, and it worked, he only gets a suspension.
_"Serving pork to someone who doesn't eat pork for religious reason, might be highly offensive to them"_
*Husseinberg* : _"You're goddamn right!"_
JESSE WE NEED TO FAST
😂
@@saintroddy oh my god
JESSE WE NEED TO PREPARE FOR RAMADAN
Sometimes you read a comment and actually laugh out loud 😁
So, he committed battery... with a battery. How poetic.
“You wouldn’t hit a guy with glasses!”
[takes off the glasses and smacks King Candy with them]
“You hit a guy WITH glasses.”
Jimmy made chuck get in the witness box when he scared him with the lines "you will get sick and no one will be there to help you" Chuck really wanted to keep the relationship with Jimmy solid as he feared that Jimmy might be telling the truth
Apparently no one else here has the balls to demand what's needed. We NEED "A real lawyer reviews Judge Dredd." I have so many questions.
Judge Dredd is an entirely different legal system. It would be more speculation on his part than anything.
It could be interesting to see the similarities and maybe explore the laws that could lead to such a justice systems.
@@TubaJay448 OBJECTION! MOVE TO STRIKE!
This is in my top 5 shows I've ever seen. The accuracy was a huge part of that, as well as the character depth. The dynamic between law and personal experiences gives the show a grounded feeling.
Haven't finished breaking bad, (I think I am done season 2) but I love this show. I think I have one season left but there's something so real about it, great characters. I hate chuck, so big props to the actor for nailing that.
Legal Eagle starts this video with such a crazy look that I thought he recreated everything in reality, risked his bar, and NOW he had the ANSWER
Fun fact: I was in a Mock Trial class in my freshman year of high school and we competed in the official courthouses in downtown abq, so there's a high chance I- or one of my classmates- competed in a courtroom near the one they filmed in for this episode :)
Watching him get all excited about legal minutia is amazing and is the kind of reaction you only get people who enjoy their work.
I love how excited he gets watching the climax of the scene. That's the passion of someone who is truly fascinated by the law.
I don't think I've ever seen a video where he's more excited than this before. It'd be awesome if you could give us some insights from "The Night of" the mini series that was on HBO, It was SOOO GOOD!!!
Yes!!!!! Yeeeeeees!!!!!
'Defending Jacob' was another OK show, on Apple TV+. I don't know about legal realism, but it more or less held my attention, which is all I ask for. As or 'Night of', I liked it, but I thought it was weird how the kid completely changed personality into some kind of badarse criminal after spending a bit of time in prison. I get what they were trying to say: that the criminal justice system and in particular the prison system did not reform him but rather made him into a worse person -- i.e., his time suffering the brutal conditions of the supposedly 'reformative' prison probably made him _more_ (not less) likely to commit crimes in the future. Fair enough. It just seemed kind of unrealistic to me -- like he just totally changed personality after a relatively short amount of time (too over-the-top). I thought that the promising setup for the series was better than the actual conclusion to the show, like it failed a bit to live up to the potential shown in the early episodes.
@@robertjenkins6132 I felt the self way about The Night Of. I think the story needed more episodes to make clear just how much time passed. At least, that's how it felt.
id like to think that the reason chuck was given so much leeway to rant away was because he's such a legend to the world of law. The people on the bar probably have insane respect for him and likely give him quite a bit of benefit of the doubt (although they shouldn't).
Jimmy knew (from the episode where he took Charles to the emergency room) that the disease was a mental illness, so hiding a battery on him would have no effect, and as you pointed out, the victim has to take offense... but Charles apologized to Huell (and arguably ran into him)! He didn't know anything "offensive" had taken place for, well, an hour and forty-three minutes, at which point, HE knew that his disease was a mental illness, so what justification would he have to take offense at anything other than being exposed both for being mentally ill and engaging in an elaborate, years-long vendetta against his own brother, of which this bar hearing was just the latest episode?
I agree with your overall appreciation of the legal reality, up to the point where everyone involved isn't permanently disbarred and referred both for criminal prosecution and psychological evaluation.
It was a really tight situation for the defense
Battery is not connected and there is no electromagnetism
@@markregev1651 It doesn't matter how batteries work (but even so they often have circuits in them so they could have "current flowing" even if they're not being used). He even mentioned it as a something that would set off his electrical sensitivity disorder. Jimmy suggested "like a watch battery" as an example and Chuck said yes.
Even if it was a real disease he said he feels current. A plain battery that isn't powering anything generates no current. it's the only part of this show that really grinds my gears. Because it's so simple to fix, they could have dropped a watch a small phone or anything else that actually has current.
@@carlangelo653 He had already claimed he could feel batteries when Jimmy asks the leading question, and has a visible reaction to the battery itself once he discovers it. It would be a weak argument given the previous two situations. It's clear that Chuck himself doesn't see the distinction and probably doesn't even really understand how electricity works, so the fact he can't make this argument makes a lot of sense
Objection: this episode should have been 30 mins. We are missing a minute.
The teaser video was a minute...
@@Robert_McGarry_Poems touché
It should be 42-45 minutes
You seemed like a kid in a candy store at certain times during this. I love that you are so passionate about this.
I never knew about that background with the nickname charlie hustle! It's so fitting for Jimmy's character. This show constantly impresses me.
Objection: you just skipped right over the line where he said "he defecated through a sun roof" without any comment.
"Who doesn't love a Perry Mason moment?"
Growing up my only exposure to the legal system was watching Perry Mason and Matlock with my grandfather. Then when I was in high school I was in a class that had a mock trial assignment, and I was assigned the defense attorney role. I actually got a Parry Mason court room confession out of one of the "witnesses".
how
@@bloodyhell8201 You want me to remember details of a conversation that happened over 20 years ago?
As a non-American...what is Perry Mason?
@@jdprettynails Perry Mason was a TV series in the 50s and 60s about a criminal defense lawyer by the same name. Every episode would climax with him getting the real killer to confess while on the witness stand, thus proving that his client was innocent.
@@fedos oh interesting! So pretty much the inspiration for the entire Ace Attorney series lol
Jimmy committed battery with a battery. How electrifying!
I got chills too
A problem with Jimmy's planting the battery is that a battery's current is negligable. Unless there is a closed circuit, there is virtually no current.
It's the equivalent of proving a lightbulb is broken by screwing it when the switch is on the off position.
When an attorney (I'm in the UK, so I think 'barrister' I think is our equivalent) says something that the other side object to and have struck from the testimony, the jury can't, even with the best will in the world, just forget what's been said, so even though it's been struck from the record, and even though the jury may be directed to discount it, they won't always really do that, will they, because they're human. So on that basis, is this still a valid, albeit dubious, tactic some attorney's/barristers will use?
True, but juries will point it out in deliberations. Still, does color perceptions.
That type of thing can get a mistrial, and doing it often I’d imagine could get your bar license removed. I’m sure some people do it as an occasional shady tactic, but definitely not regularly. Now, witnesses using that on the other hand…
There are no objections in UK trials. You can't strike anything from the record.
@@SingHouse Disingenuous comment. Both these things happen albeit using different terminology.
@@GogiRegion Its a pretty regular tactic actually.
i'm literally feeling second-hand giddiness because of how EXCITED he is !!! knowing that this video is 50 MINUTES LONG on nebula is also the Most Tempting curiosity stream / nebula promo i've ever heard tbh
I have a nebula subscription. I couldn't find any 50 minute video. The video on nebula has additional 2 minutes of content. Basically from 27:00, it has additional 1 minute 57 seconds, which actually makes it shorter than this video by 2 seconds.
@@DanishSatkut Our homie Eve is living in a different reality.
The video: 29 minutes
Eve: 50 MINUTES
Your giddiness is absolutely infectious. I'm glad your life's passion can bring so much entertainment and education to others.