I still remember watching this when it aired some 25 years ago.. still get goosebumps.. what writing, what performance 👏 😮this doesn’t happen anymore..
I know exactly how you feel. The chill I felt that one feels when watching acting so intense coupled with writing so brilliant in its urtter simplicity... THIS is why people --whatever the outcomo--devote their lives to this craft. This series represents some of James Kelley's finest work. And as for Holland Taylot, Linda Hunt, Lara Boyle and Kelli Williams: well done, Dear Ladies. Well. Done.
The US Constitution was designed to protect it's citizens from it's government. Innocence and guilt has nothing to do with it. State and federal laws do that.
@@Subangelis I read it as part of my profession and I teach it. The idea that the Constitution as a concept and as a document was designed to "protect citizens from the government" is right wing pablum. There's a couple of amendments that have that purpose, but that's all.
Well I don’t believe you’re supreme court judge but even if you were then you’re assumptions you’re intelligence even would come into question. To overrule the majority of the people who have decided as a nation in this case of over 350 million people that you’re going to violate right one time to let some wacko criminal gothen that goes to show there’s a real problem in this country this whole thing is nothing but a contraption to overrule the rights of the people the people the people of the United States of America we have a constitution we’re going to keep it you make a move against it you’re not gonna like the response.
She makes a point about the victim being a nun more than once. Would she have made a point about a victim being a butcher, a baker, a candlestick maker? Is the crime more heinous for happening to someone who is presumably more likely to enter Heaven when they die? A person whose death widows no spouse nor orphans any children?
Every Amendment matters, though Helen does have a point though there is a counterpoint . The Constitution was intended to protect the innocent and the just... but.. "Better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent is imprisoned."
"Better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent is imprisoned."..........and those 1000 freed guilty people will kill again, rape again, loot again. So in effect, more innocent people are hurt by that kind of thinking.
"Better a thousand guilty free then a single one innocent imprisoned" when I hear that I always think "When the law of the land appeases the guilty at the expense of the innocent, how have you not imprisoned the latter already."
The judicial system must work for everyone or it works for no one. I’m no lawyer but both sides had an argument. I don’t think any rational person would not have opened that closet if somebody had said there’s weapons in it. On the other hand though there are rules to law and law enforcement and if those rules are not followed then things like this happen.
The right decision. All of these comments about the law protecting the innocent and not the guilty - who decides whom is the guilty at less clear cut moments? I had Army Police illegally search my property. They found stuff. I denied taking drugs. Turns out that they illegally searched my room. What they found was inadmissible. Sucks to be them. I am now an Accountant working for a FTSE 100 company.
As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with you and Zoey Hiller. Even at the point of closing arguments, who's to say who's guilty or innocent? No one was convicted yet.
That is your opinion, but if the cops went to your residence and searched you without a warrant, you would invoke your rights and this case as a point of law.@@dumbidea1007
@@dumbidea1007 Hard to swallow but how many times have we seen Helen charge into court arguing passion over facts and then get all P'O'd when she loses.
@@mikemactavish1665 yeah the character all lack principles and are just hypocritical. Only Eugene and allan were 100% honest and had actual principles and they Ironically were the only ones not being sanctimonious. Eugene was for the system all the way even if it costed him his wife and child. Allan on the other hand was for his clients. He knew the system was a joke so he put a red nose and played the clown as long as it satisfied his sense of ethics
This is a simple issue: Which is more dangerous in the long run? One nun chopper. A government that thinks it can invade the privacy of hundreds of millions of people at will, sometimes even destroying property, making false arrests, and killing people in those searches. Sorry, but government is just an entirely different scale of danger. Letting one murder go to keep the government constrained is a bargain. In the past, much more blood was shed by our ancestors to achieve today’s freedoms. We should never forget the true cost of freedom.
The truth of the matter is that if the police did not do so much to erode the public’s faith in them, many of the restrictions amendments have put on them wouldn’t be necessary. The reason we have the amendments and the specific language is because the police did things in the past that HAVE MADE THEM NECESSARY. On the other hand, law should not completely shut down common sense. In this case, it was reasonable to believe all of what the police assumed given the situation. And since they would have arrested the guy, and the girl would have told them the gun story anyway, THE BODY WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND ANYWAY. It was only a matter of time here. So, there IS a case to made for both sides.
@@solmas2111honestly, it was just a folly choice made by the police. Some of the more experienced “brass” might’ve said “hey dont go in we need a warrant” if consulted, some more experienced “brass” mightve made the same mistake. In all honesty the laws can be very goofy, understandably so, but still very goofy. My guess the officers were trying to do their jobs and accidentally overstepped. It happens. Should they have gotten a warrant, yes. Would they have known they needed one to secure the evidence, quite probably, no.
@@ezekielellis7471 no. this isn't happenstance. its the fact that the vast majority of police officers who are given the immense responsibility of carrying a GUN and a BADGE in the US are SEVERELY undereducated about the laws they are meant to be upholding and the procedures by which to carry out and uphold those laws that keeps EVERYONE, including themselves safe. They effed up. It's GREAT that they did. They have to pay for it now, cos you never forget a hard-won lesson and you will always remember why you follow protocol.
@wittyroark thanks it's been solong since I've seen commercials for this show one I never got around to watching but knew it was pretty damn good I think I'm gonna start😁
The CONSTITUTION is to protect the people from the Government going after them. The CONSTITUTION is there not for the people. But to tell the Government these are rights given to the people by God and you will not make law's against them. But if you have a cop who acts like a criminal. To hurt an innocent person. Then the law's must be used to let those who are also guilty go. When the Government does wrong. That's also how you protect the innocent. May not feel right or seem right. But that is how it is. Or we can just be like China and lock up whoever we want. Just like we are now in 2024.
The Constitution Of The United States Of America is the *SUPREME* law of the land and *any* law/statue (or judgement) which contradicts The Constitution *is no law at all* and not only from the finding of such Unconstitutionality, but from it's very inception!!! precedent *does not set law!* ONLY The Constitution does *SHALL NOT be infringed* is supreme law
"...shall not be infringed.", is only HALF of the law for the HALF witted who choose to only read and accept what fits their ideology.. "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Do not quote the law unless you're willing to accept it IN IT'S ENTIRETY.
Not quite. The law goes, from greatest authority to least, Constitutional provision --> Federal Statute/Law OR Federal Case Law OR Treaty Provision --> State Statute/Law OR State Case Law --> ect. In other words, decisions made by judges do have the force of law, and can override statutes or laws of the same level. Also, without case law, the Exclusionary rule that makes illegally obtained evidence inadmissible wouldn't exist. And if that were the case, police would be able to violate your 4th amendment without significant consequence.
"I find no probable cause to hold the defendant" (mutters under breath) "and no reason to sanction any protection for him when he's walking the street while everyone knows what he's done"
To loose is to set free, release. To lose, as it is written in the title section, is to fail to win, which is an adequate word for the situation in the scene and the title itself. 🤗
I love how story writers can single out and pin point the absurdity of the US legal system and their obsession with that constitution and ridiculous interpretations of its amendments. They are klinging on a relic and cannot adapt it to modern times. And the bitch about it like it is something good! 😂
This scene is so terrible, trying to make us feel sympathy for the prosecution. If the courts allowed illegal searches even once that would be a slippery slope you really don't want to go down. Train the police better - make them dot the i'a and cross the t's. These technicalities exist to protect the innocent. If police officers did everything according to hunches (which they do even now) no one would be safe from illegal searches and you would have to carry your "papers" around at all times.
Did you see the case where a police officer arrested a guy, beat him because he was supposedly "resisting arrest" (which he wasn't), pulled down his pants and tasered his balls because he was supposedly "resisting arrest" while being held down by 4 cops all while his kids where in the backseat of the car screaming and watching the scene. And all of that because he supposedly didn't turn on the blinker before turning. Which he actually did it was on CCTV. Cops in the US are so out of control it's simply insane.
@@Kalenz1234 He wasn't even the driver. He was in the passenger seat. His wife/girlfriend was the driver. Plus, all the camera footage shows that there was no way the police could tell if the blinker was used or not.
It is absolutely not trying to elicit sympathy for the prosecution, only depict the emotions of a specific character who is a prosecutor. The show's protagonists are defense attorneys, their victories are our victories. People who tend to sympathize with prosecutors likely do not enjoy this show at all.
I think you missed the point. As for training the police better, maybe change the hiring requirements. Perhaps requiring any individual that has received prior training for a profession that centered around killing people(the military) to undergo extensive psychological testing to ensure suitability for the position.
"I'm saying a bunch of words that make it sound like I'm gonna rule for one side BUT I'm actually gonna rule for the other side." So many dramatizations of judge-issued verdicts follow this format. Do real judges engage in this kind of crap?
Actually the whole episode needs to be seen to understand this. The Judge here is conflicted since the beginning. She even asks another Judge on how to interpret the 4th amendment.
Judges will occasionally opine from the bench, especially where a controversial ruling is entered. Dissent to precedent set forth by the SCotUS, especially where it applies to the Bill of Rights, despite having to rule in favor that allows the alleged perpetrator of a heinous act to go free without so much as a trial, is probably going to get any judge on their soapbox.
It is a well known method in debate. Admit some fact that support's the opposing side of an issue, only to put forward more facts that support your side. It is usually used to prevent opponents from claiming that you only care about facts that support your perspective. Of course, in today's political reality, it is receiving less use, especially from politicians. They see any admission in the other side's favors as a sign of weakness.
The Constitution does not demand that criminals be set free if their rights are violated. If rights are violated, give the criminal some compensation in some form - maybe even by providing defense lawyers - and punish the police officers or whoever violated the rights.
For every right you have, there is a remedy if the state violates that right. Otherwise, your rights don't exist. You have a right against unreasonable search and seizures, which is violated when the police enter your home and search and seize evidence absent a valid warrant (except in certain cases). If the police violate this right, resulting in the state having incriminating evidence against you, what remedy would be fair to you? Money? How much money would it take for you to be ok with going to jail, potentially for years? If you get sentenced to life in prison or execution, no amount would be worth it. Paid for defense attorneys? With the incriminating evidence they illegally seized, you are likely to go to jail anyway. Punishing the police officer's involved? That may help others in the future, but it doesn't do anything for you. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that making the illegally seized evidence inadmissible against you is the only way prevent the officer's misconduct from harming you. It also forces the cops to follow the law, else guilty people go free.
@@finris1 Why not just punish the officers for their criminal misconduct like we do others? Why instead let the criminal go free to commit more crimes - maybe even murder? "How much money would it take for you to be ok with going to jail?" That is a stupid question. The criminal would be going to jail for the crime he committed. The Supreme Court ruled evidence from warrantless searches is generally inadmissable because it seemed to be the only remedy to rampant police misconduct THAT WAS IN THEIR POWER TO DO. The Supreme Court could not pass a law making it illegal and establish penalties for police violators. Legislators should pass laws doing the later and making the evidence admissible. I would expect the Supreme Court to vacate its earlier rulings.
@@rocky3993 I am not sure that you read my post or just skimmed it, as you appear to have misunderstood. If your rights are violated, and nothing is done to address that violation, then your rights don't exist. So if police violate your rights to find and seize evidence against you, there needs to be some remedy to address that violation. Money isn't sufficient to compensate you if your freedom is in jeopardy, and punishing the police will only help other people in the future. So making the evidence inadmissible is the only practical method available.
@@finris1 I did not misunderstand, I just don't agree. In my mind, the person who committed a crime implicitly gave the police permission to gather evidence about his crime. He gave up his rights when he committed the crime. If it turns out he did not do the crime, then his rights were violated and the police that violated them should be punished for their violation. Letting a killer go free because one police officer screwed up violated the rights of the victims, their families, and any people the criminal harms in the future. I balance the rights and don't want the criminals to go free.
@@rocky3993 (1) Rights are something that we all have under the law. They don't just disappear, no matter what we do. (2) If the world worked as you seem to desire, it would be a mess. Police would be gambling with the law. Breaking into people's homes based on suspicions and hoping the person had incriminating evidence to seize. It would establish the legality of the search based on the results and not the evidence held beforehand. Our rights wouldn't mean anything.
It isn't. Generally for searches, if there is reason to believe that evidence will be lost unless police perform a search, then a search can be done without a warrant. This is often used in cases where it is believed that a suspect inside will destroy the evidence (like flushing drugs down the toilet) before police can get a warrant.
Helen Gamble was right in telling the judge to do what's right and let the appellate and, if it gets there, the Supreme Court, tell her that she is wrong. Cowardly ruling.
In my opinion, if a person is guilty with reasonable suspicion… and previous evidence proves that guilt, then the underlying rules are in error… and the criminal has been freed from the justice they deserve!
The problem is that you are making that augment knowing if they are guilty, which is often only known after the police illegally searched and seized incriminating evidence. If there is enough evidence to conclude a person is guilty of some crime, probable cause is established, and a warrant can be obtained. No violations of their rights. If there is not enough evidence, then you don't know if they are guilty of the crime or just have bad luck.
"I'm asking you to not give a fuck what the Supreme Court says, to sully yourself, based solely on my emotional outburst and screaming and temper tantrums, Your Honor. Is that too much to ask?" My God....and this person is supposed to be a competent lawyer?
Appeals to nullification only work on a Jury, not a judge, and usually you can only try it in closing statements. It is a Desperation move, not an Argument.
I still remember watching this when it aired some 25 years ago.. still get goosebumps.. what writing, what performance 👏 😮this doesn’t happen anymore..
Yes, it does. Shut up or pay attention.
I know exactly how you feel. The chill I felt that one feels when watching acting so intense coupled with writing so brilliant in its urtter simplicity...
THIS is why people --whatever the outcomo--devote their lives to this craft. This series represents some of James Kelley's finest work. And as for Holland Taylot, Linda Hunt, Lara Boyle and Kelli Williams: well done, Dear Ladies. Well. Done.
The Practice took the law and made you rethink it.. Amazing show with amazing actors.
I wish real judges had such character.
Great writing, greater acting.
What a powerful scene. You can see it from both sides of the argument, and the writing and acting were superb.
Why does the victim being a nun matter at all? Murder is murder and is heinous no matter what profession the victim was.
Maybe watch the series before you comment...There's a theme.
Why ask why?
Linda Hunt was glorious in this role. She brought the ideal combination of intelligence, gravitas, and moral character a good judge should have.
Probably the greatest courtroom drama scene ever.
Fact's
I believe you meant to write,the greatest courtroom drama scene in television history!
And the best courtroom dramedy was Ally McBeal !
You forgot Alan Shore in the supreme court.
Then again, there's perry mason,Matlock and maybe Hawkins starring the late, great Jimmy Stewart
I Been On A Binge Watching This On Hulu, I'm On Season 4 Right Now
One of the greatest shows of all time.
top 10 episode. Brilliant.
The US Constitution was designed to protect it's citizens from it's government. Innocence and guilt has nothing to do with it. State and federal laws do that.
That's actually not true, but you got your "likes" so that's something.
@@gmh471 It is true. Try reading it sometime.
@@Subangelis I read it as part of my profession and I teach it. The idea that the Constitution as a concept and as a document was designed to "protect citizens from the government" is right wing pablum. There's a couple of amendments that have that purpose, but that's all.
yet no one's protecting you from mistakes with APOSTROPHES! hahaha. come on, mate.
@@gmh471it’s true the point was stopping the state
Laws are made to protect citizens from other citizens that’s the whole basis of the constitution
"If you like or agree with all of your decisions as a judge then you're not a good judge" - Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
that liar?
@@bhakti235 put a sock in it libby.
I lovely sentiment from a terrible judge.
It was actually Justice Antonin Scalia who said it first
Well I don’t believe you’re supreme court judge but even if you were then you’re assumptions you’re intelligence even would come into question. To overrule the majority of the people who have decided as a nation in this case of over 350 million people that you’re going to violate right one time to let some wacko criminal gothen that goes to show there’s a real problem in this country this whole thing is nothing but a contraption to overrule the rights of the people the people the people of the United States of America we have a constitution we’re going to keep it you make a move against it you’re not gonna like the response.
She makes a point about the victim being a nun more than once.
Would she have made a point about a victim being a butcher, a baker, a candlestick maker?
Is the crime more heinous for happening to someone who is presumably more likely to enter Heaven when they die? A person whose death widows no spouse nor orphans any children?
The original title of this show: “Courtroom Glances.”
Every Amendment matters, though Helen does have a point though there is a counterpoint . The Constitution was intended to protect the innocent and the just... but.. "Better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent is imprisoned."
"Better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent is imprisoned."..........and those 1000 freed guilty people will kill again, rape again, loot again. So in effect, more innocent people are hurt by that kind of thinking.
The point was that they didn't know the guy was guilty until they did the search. It is like trying to open a locked door when the key is behind it.
@@finris1 , precisely.
"Better a thousand guilty free then a single one innocent imprisoned" when I hear that I always think
"When the law of the land appeases the guilty at the expense of the innocent, how have you not imprisoned the latter already."
@@The_Phoenix_Saga, I do agree. I feel that still.. the man was the ultimate slime.
The judicial system must work for everyone or it works for no one. I’m no lawyer but both sides had an argument. I don’t think any rational person would not have opened that closet if somebody had said there’s weapons in it. On the other hand though there are rules to law and law enforcement and if those rules are not followed then things like this happen.
is it illegal to have weapons in the US now ? they had no business looking in the closet.
Obviously this is made for TV drama but does anyone know if this material is covered when police recruits go through the academy ?
Edna Mode is always a legend.
The right decision. All of these comments about the law protecting the innocent and not the guilty - who decides whom is the guilty at less clear cut moments?
I had Army Police illegally search my property. They found stuff.
I denied taking drugs.
Turns out that they illegally searched my room. What they found was inadmissible.
Sucks to be them.
I am now an Accountant working for a FTSE 100 company.
As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with you and Zoey Hiller. Even at the point of closing arguments, who's to say who's guilty or innocent? No one was convicted yet.
What I love about this show is that is celebrates THE RULE OF LAW above everything. Yours was also a victory for the rule of law. 👍👍👍
I agree. It was the correct ruling
Can someone give the episode title as well as the season. I'd love to watch the whole thing
Already mentioned in Description
just watch the whole series, it's all fantastic
Sn 3 ep 19. But watch the whole series if you can. Sn 4 ep. 20 will have you bleary
And today we have judges that put gag orders on the defendant when gag orders are specifically for the prosecution.
Helen Gamble was like Marcia Clark. The police kept messing up her cases.
What film is that?
The ruling was correct
The system has to work for everyone, even on legal technicalities.
But those detail were added to remove common sense in favor of bureaucracy
This is why the court Yates became a kafkaïen nightmare
That is your opinion, but if the cops went to your residence and searched you without a warrant, you would invoke your rights and this case as a point of law.@@dumbidea1007
@@dumbidea1007 Hard to swallow but how many times have we seen Helen charge into court arguing passion over facts and then get all P'O'd when she loses.
@@mikemactavish1665 yeah the character all lack principles and are just hypocritical.
Only Eugene and allan were 100% honest and had actual principles and they Ironically were the only ones not being sanctimonious.
Eugene was for the system all the way even if it costed him his wife and child.
Allan on the other hand was for his clients.
He knew the system was a joke so he put a red nose and played the clown as long as it satisfied his sense of ethics
Shadout Mapes has spoken!!!
every time i see that actress i think of The Shadout Mapes
It was the correct rulling
Sadly yes
As I recall the cops shot him dead a few eps later. So no biggie.
@@akshaynatu6568 lol
@@akshaynatu6568 good for them. Let's celebrate
No it wasn't. They ignored the inevitable discovery rule.
No Brave can be seen now a days Helen
This is a simple issue: Which is more dangerous in the long run?
One nun chopper.
A government that thinks it can invade the privacy of hundreds of millions of people at will, sometimes even destroying property, making false arrests, and killing people in those searches.
Sorry, but government is just an entirely different scale of danger. Letting one murder go to keep the government constrained is a bargain. In the past, much more blood was shed by our ancestors to achieve today’s freedoms. We should never forget the true cost of freedom.
The truth of the matter is that if the police did not do so much to erode the public’s faith in them, many of the restrictions amendments have put on them wouldn’t be necessary. The reason we have the amendments and the specific language is because the police did things in the past that HAVE MADE THEM NECESSARY. On the other hand, law should not completely shut down common sense. In this case, it was reasonable to believe all of what the police assumed given the situation. And since they would have arrested the guy, and the girl would have told them the gun story anyway, THE BODY WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND ANYWAY. It was only a matter of time here. So, there IS a case to made for both sides.
But it is also reasonable that what the first lawyer said. They could secure the crime scene and get the warrant for the evidence. Why didn't they?
@@solmas2111honestly, it was just a folly choice made by the police. Some of the more experienced “brass” might’ve said “hey dont go in we need a warrant” if consulted, some more experienced “brass” mightve made the same mistake. In all honesty the laws can be very goofy, understandably so, but still very goofy. My guess the officers were trying to do their jobs and accidentally overstepped. It happens. Should they have gotten a warrant, yes. Would they have known they needed one to secure the evidence, quite probably, no.
@@ezekielellis7471 no. this isn't happenstance. its the fact that the vast majority of police officers who are given the immense responsibility of carrying a GUN and a BADGE in the US are SEVERELY undereducated about the laws they are meant to be upholding and the procedures by which to carry out and uphold those laws that keeps EVERYONE, including themselves safe. They effed up. It's GREAT that they did. They have to pay for it now, cos you never forget a hard-won lesson and you will always remember why you follow protocol.
Can lawyers in real life actually speak so eloquently impromptu like they do in court drama?
That is it
Hey ?wats the name of this show I forgotit
The Practice
@wittyroark thanks it's been solong since I've seen commercials for this show one I never got around to watching but knew it was pretty damn good I think I'm gonna start😁
@@joshuaarmendariz4967 it's much better than Boston Legal and Suits. There are no RICH lawyers here worried about their suits. Only laborious cases.
@wittyroark yea but I love James spider soo..ima watch both
@@joshuaarmendariz4967 😄... where do u think Alan Shore and Danny Crane were born ?
Watch the show and u r in for a treat in the last season.
The CONSTITUTION is to protect the people from the Government going after them. The CONSTITUTION is there not for the people. But to tell the Government these are rights given to the people by God and you will not make law's against them.
But if you have a cop who acts like a criminal. To hurt an innocent person. Then the law's must be used to let those who are also guilty go. When the Government does wrong. That's also how you protect the innocent. May not feel right or seem right. But that is how it is. Or we can just be like China and lock up whoever we want. Just like we are now in 2024.
The Constitution Of The United States Of America is the *SUPREME* law of the land and *any* law/statue (or judgement) which contradicts The Constitution *is no law at all* and not only from the finding of such Unconstitutionality, but from it's very inception!!!
precedent *does not set law!* ONLY The Constitution does
*SHALL NOT be infringed* is supreme law
"...shall not be infringed.", is only HALF of the law for the HALF witted who choose to only read and accept what fits their ideology..
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Do not quote the law unless you're willing to accept it IN IT'S ENTIRETY.
Not quite. The law goes, from greatest authority to least, Constitutional provision --> Federal Statute/Law OR Federal Case Law OR Treaty Provision --> State Statute/Law OR State Case Law --> ect.
In other words, decisions made by judges do have the force of law, and can override statutes or laws of the same level. Also, without case law, the Exclusionary rule that makes illegally obtained evidence inadmissible wouldn't exist. And if that were the case, police would be able to violate your 4th amendment without significant consequence.
Only back stabbing with proud.
"I find no probable cause to hold the defendant" (mutters under breath) "and no reason to sanction any protection for him when he's walking the street while everyone knows what he's done"
Judges do not act with a this anymore, it about their own personal narrative that matters, not the written law!
Remember when she was the most beautiful woman on TV
Then she fell into the hollywood image issues and turned herself into an unrecognizable lady.
And Jack Nicholson fiancee
@@grantkyle8823 awesome for both of them. Shame about her face
No.
Loose*?
To loose is to set free, release. To lose, as it is written in the title section, is to fail to win, which is an adequate word for the situation in the scene and the title itself. 🤗
I love how story writers can single out and pin point the absurdity of the US legal system and their obsession with that constitution and ridiculous interpretations of its amendments.
They are klinging on a relic and cannot adapt it to modern times. And the bitch about it like it is something good! 😂
That man is so handsome.
And they never show him working out or jogging even ONCE in the entire run of the show. Smh. Just perfect genes?
That is debatable Bubba Clark. Honestly I never thought she was that beautiful but she did look better before the plastic surgery.
This scene is so terrible, trying to make us feel sympathy for the prosecution. If the courts allowed illegal searches even once that would be a slippery slope you really don't want to go down. Train the police better - make them dot the i'a and cross the t's. These technicalities exist to protect the innocent. If police officers did everything according to hunches (which they do even now) no one would be safe from illegal searches and you would have to carry your "papers" around at all times.
Did you see the case where a police officer arrested a guy, beat him because he was supposedly "resisting arrest" (which he wasn't), pulled down his pants and tasered his balls because he was supposedly "resisting arrest" while being held down by 4 cops all while his kids where in the backseat of the car screaming and watching the scene.
And all of that because he supposedly didn't turn on the blinker before turning. Which he actually did it was on CCTV.
Cops in the US are so out of control it's simply insane.
@@Kalenz1234 He wasn't even the driver. He was in the passenger seat. His wife/girlfriend was the driver.
Plus, all the camera footage shows that there was no way the police could tell if the blinker was used or not.
@@Subangelis The story gets even more bizarre and unbelievable. What a fucked up country.
It is absolutely not trying to elicit sympathy for the prosecution, only depict the emotions of a specific character who is a prosecutor. The show's protagonists are defense attorneys, their victories are our victories. People who tend to sympathize with prosecutors likely do not enjoy this show at all.
I think you missed the point.
As for training the police better, maybe change the hiring requirements. Perhaps requiring any individual that has received prior training for a profession that centered around killing people(the military) to undergo extensive psychological testing to ensure suitability for the position.
"I'm saying a bunch of words that make it sound like I'm gonna rule for one side BUT I'm actually gonna rule for the other side." So many dramatizations of judge-issued verdicts follow this format. Do real judges engage in this kind of crap?
Actually the whole episode needs to be seen to understand this. The Judge here is conflicted since the beginning. She even asks another Judge on how to interpret the 4th amendment.
This is a reading of a judicial decision. They're usually submitted in writing with no ceremony but this is a drama.
Judges will occasionally opine from the bench, especially where a controversial ruling is entered. Dissent to precedent set forth by the SCotUS, especially where it applies to the Bill of Rights, despite having to rule in favor that allows the alleged perpetrator of a heinous act to go free without so much as a trial, is probably going to get any judge on their soapbox.
It is a well known method in debate. Admit some fact that support's the opposing side of an issue, only to put forward more facts that support your side. It is usually used to prevent opponents from claiming that you only care about facts that support your perspective.
Of course, in today's political reality, it is receiving less use, especially from politicians. They see any admission in the other side's favors as a sign of weakness.
@@finris1 You totally nailed it. Very few people debate or argue like this any more. It's tragic.
The Constitution does not demand that criminals be set free if their rights are violated. If rights are violated, give the criminal some compensation in some form - maybe even by providing defense lawyers - and punish the police officers or whoever violated the rights.
For every right you have, there is a remedy if the state violates that right. Otherwise, your rights don't exist.
You have a right against unreasonable search and seizures, which is violated when the police enter your home and search and seize evidence absent a valid warrant (except in certain cases). If the police violate this right, resulting in the state having incriminating evidence against you, what remedy would be fair to you?
Money? How much money would it take for you to be ok with going to jail, potentially for years? If you get sentenced to life in prison or execution, no amount would be worth it. Paid for defense attorneys? With the incriminating evidence they illegally seized, you are likely to go to jail anyway. Punishing the police officer's involved? That may help others in the future, but it doesn't do anything for you.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that making the illegally seized evidence inadmissible against you is the only way prevent the officer's misconduct from harming you. It also forces the cops to follow the law, else guilty people go free.
@@finris1 Why not just punish the officers for their criminal misconduct like we do others?
Why instead let the criminal go free to commit more crimes - maybe even murder?
"How much money would it take for you to be ok with going to jail?" That is a stupid question. The criminal would be going to jail for the crime he committed.
The Supreme Court ruled evidence from warrantless searches is generally inadmissable because it seemed to be the only remedy to rampant police misconduct THAT WAS IN THEIR POWER TO DO. The Supreme Court could not pass a law making it illegal and establish penalties for police violators.
Legislators should pass laws doing the later and making the evidence admissible. I would expect the Supreme Court to vacate its earlier rulings.
@@rocky3993
I am not sure that you read my post or just skimmed it, as you appear to have misunderstood.
If your rights are violated, and nothing is done to address that violation, then your rights don't exist. So if police violate your rights to find and seize evidence against you, there needs to be some remedy to address that violation.
Money isn't sufficient to compensate you if your freedom is in jeopardy, and punishing the police will only help other people in the future. So making the evidence inadmissible is the only practical method available.
@@finris1
I did not misunderstand, I just don't agree.
In my mind, the person who committed a crime implicitly gave the police permission to gather evidence about his crime. He gave up his rights when he committed the crime.
If it turns out he did not do the crime, then his rights were violated and the police that violated them should be punished for their violation.
Letting a killer go free because one police officer screwed up violated the rights of the victims, their families, and any people the criminal harms in the future. I balance the rights and don't want the criminals to go free.
@@rocky3993
(1) Rights are something that we all have under the law. They don't just disappear, no matter what we do.
(2) If the world worked as you seem to desire, it would be a mess. Police would be gambling with the law. Breaking into people's homes based on suspicions and hoping the person had incriminating evidence to seize.
It would establish the legality of the search based on the results and not the evidence held beforehand. Our rights wouldn't mean anything.
There is nothing more evil than the worship of the law to the exclusion of morality. The judge's last argument contained circular logic.
These people should be caught and punished severely
I know I only saw US law on tv but surely the 'exigent sircumtance' is not that new
It isn't. Generally for searches, if there is reason to believe that evidence will be lost unless police perform a search, then a search can be done without a warrant. This is often used in cases where it is believed that a suspect inside will destroy the evidence (like flushing drugs down the toilet) before police can get a warrant.
Helen Gamble was right in telling the judge to do what's right and let the appellate and, if it gets there, the Supreme Court, tell her that she is wrong. Cowardly ruling.
In my opinion, if a person is guilty with reasonable suspicion… and previous evidence proves that guilt, then the underlying rules are in error… and the criminal has been freed from the justice they deserve!
The problem is that you are making that augment knowing if they are guilty, which is often only known after the police illegally searched and seized incriminating evidence.
If there is enough evidence to conclude a person is guilty of some crime, probable cause is established, and a warrant can be obtained. No violations of their rights.
If there is not enough evidence, then you don't know if they are guilty of the crime or just have bad luck.
"I'm asking you to not give a fuck what the Supreme Court says, to sully yourself, based solely on my emotional outburst and screaming and temper tantrums, Your Honor. Is that too much to ask?"
My God....and this person is supposed to be a competent lawyer?
Appeals to nullification only work on a Jury, not a judge, and usually you can only try it in closing statements. It is a Desperation move, not an Argument.
@@c13rmusic She knew she was screwed ever since the last conference in judge's chambers. She had to hail mary it.
I TRULY ENJOY IGNORING ALL YOUR COMMERCIALS!! MUTED AND SCROLLED OFF OF!!! KEEP WASTING YOUR MONEY!