Real Lawyer Reacts to Law & Order
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 окт 2024
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.lin... ⚖️
Bum bum. Doo doo doo doo dooooooo. Tab for a Cause just launched Tab for Reproductive Health that will raise money for reproductive rights legaleagle.lin...
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.lin...
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.lin...
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.lin...
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.lin...
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.lin...
Facebook: legaleagle.lin...
Tik Tok: legaleagle.lin...
Instagram: legaleagle.lin...
Reddit: legaleagle.lin...
Podcast: legaleagle.lin...
OnlyFans legaleagle.lin...
Patreon legaleagle.lin...
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
⚖What should I react to next?
🏥Tab for a Cause just launched Tab for Reproductive Health that will raise money for reproductive rights legaleagle.link/tfac
Real Lawyer Reacts to Legal Eagles (1986)
claps
Lincoln Lawyer
I think we have heard this one before, but here we go anyway.
I have a mission, and it is to either get you to please react to the movie Serial Mom, or to receive a cease and desist from you.
Please do a review on the Lincoln lawyer
In the crime show system, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important groups: the writers, who have no idea what they're doing and the audience who watch it anyway. These are their stories.
🤣🤣🤣😆
Nelson Muntz: "Haw, haw!"
That's extremely accurate...
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣I almost choked laughing!🤣🤣🤣🤣
You just summed up Chicago PD
« Why are you talking to the police without a lawyer present » is the legal equivalent of « chest compressions, chest compressions, chest compressions »
Yes
The only word you should ever utter to a cop is “lawyer”.
😂
I think it's actually "I plead the 5th". Only in 'Murica though.
Dr Mike
The TL:DW of this Law and Order episode is literally "Lawyer up and don't talk to the police" which is also VERY good advice for life in general
If there's one thing in life I've learned, it's thar the police operate on the presumption one is guilty so it doesn't matter if lawyering up makes one look guilty. Just do it
It’s more like, “The police know SOMEBODY is guilty and they don’t much care if they get it right or wrong.”
NEVER talk to the Police without a Lawyer present. NOTHING good can come of it.
@@82dorrin Surely if you're just some random witness (and, I guess, you're white) there's not much that can go wrong?
@@82dorrin and you must be explicit, especially if you've been detained. If you say "I think I need a lawyer" cops can proceed as if you didn't say it at all.
Be explicit. "I do not answer questions without an attorney present." That should be your answer to any questions, especially if you're detained
TV Lawyer A: "Did Cosgrove lie?"
TV Lawyer B: "Yeah, did a good job too"
LeagleEagle: "Yeah, who cares? Well, I mean, morally...whatever"
Spoken like a _true_ lawyer!
It was literally on Law & Order (the original, good one) where Jerry Ormond delivers the line "of course I lied. I'm paid to lie."
Yeah, that moment made me laugh too. LegalEagle has really gotten comfortable in that equivocating lawyer role (not a bad thing, just funny for some of us haha)
It may be morally wrong, but *legally ethical* and that's good enough for trial
A lawyer's answer 'It depends' EXCEPT for one thing: Don't talk to the Police, get a lawyer and let them do it. It's the one thing the profession as a whole agrees on...
_"Spoken like a true lawyer!"_
Perhaps, but that is how the legal system has been set up. You can't blame the lawyers for that -- blame the courts! The lawyers are just working within the rules that have been laid down for them by the courts. (And the Supreme Court in particular.)
"did he lie? Morally? Yeah? But who cares?" is the most accidentally hilarious lawyer thing you said.
Oh I was looking for a comment like this 🤣
That literally got a snort out of me
I was cracking up.
Whoops lmao
More sad than hilarious
Police procedurals always have that moment when the suspect asks about a lawyer and the detective says, "OK, but I can't do anything to help you if you have a lawyer." I'm still waiting for an episode where the suspect says "I appreciate your concern, but I still want a lawyer."
Me too. I also want to hear a suspect say "You say that but I'm pretty sure you're not going to do anything to help me anyhow. I think you just want to get me to talk without a lawyer so you can lie to me and trick me into saying the wrong thing."
I've seen that happen in quite a few shows actually.
This has happened but without fail the show portrays the suspect who gets a lawyer as the villain.
What we need on cop shows is more Joe Friday types and fewer Andy Scipowicz/Dirty Harry types. We need good role models for future generations.
@@ananonymousnerd5482 NYPD Blue. Whoever served as technical adviser to that show needs to be behind bars.
Or say "yeah keep threatening me after I asked for a lawyer. Best way to have the case dismissed".
"Why are you talking to the police without a lawyer present?" - Have you seen John Oliver's special on interrogations? You should definitely react to that. Way too many don't know to lawyer up any time the police want to talk to them
YES! That would be great!
Or the recent segment on false confessions and police lying which dove tails straight into this.
Upvoted. This needs to be the #1 comment :)
It's utterly insidious the way everyone is propagandised against exercising their right to counsel.
Upvoted.
Former paralegal, current high school/college teacher. I tell my students never to talk to police without a parent/guardian present (if minors), ask if ythey're being detained, and when in doubt, say: "I want a lawyer." I'm not trying to keep bad kids out of jail. I just don't want innocent people go to jail. Period.
They can only use their rights if they know those rights exist. You’re a true educator! Please stay that way. =)
Liar. Period
@@DoomsbluesWhat is the lie?
I miss the originals, where detectives always talk to people loading or unloading a truck.
Or bartender continuously wiping bar with towel.
They always know what's up! 😂
Yea I saw him. He was fine! ... person he He was WITH didn't seem to happy though. He left maybe 9:45-9:46
Or bodies being found by two people having a very real talk about their lives. Usually while jogging.
@@johnlee7164 or kids playing in a sandpit and digging up a hand
"So he disrespected you, and you just grabbed him? You don't get to do that"
To be fair, it's a pretty accurate representation of the NYPD
Seems to how the rest of the world views US cops in general.
And the other almost 18K law enforcement jurisdictions the United States has.
Also trying to justify it as "I say what's on my mind" while completely ignoring that he physically assaulted someone.
@@TV4Fun2 I really thought "I say what's on my mind," meant "I'm going to say (and do) racist things from time to time."
@@barence321 pretty much what it is lmfao
To ease your stress over not having a lawyer present:
2 guys in an interrogation room:
Guy 1: I'm not saying another word without my lawyer present.
Guy 2: ...But, you are the lawyer
Guy 1: Exactly, so where's my present?
😂😂😂😂😂
🤣🤣🤣
🤭🤭🤭🤣
😂🤣😂🤣😂🖤🖤🖤
I laughed more at this than I should have…
I love that Burn Notice cop's entire first scene is complaining that he can't legally assault people.
"I know writers who use subtext and they're all cowards!"
"speak the wrong thing" he is pissed he cant be racist lol
Hes right though. Blacks get away with everything now.
@@Lucasp110 “In the good old days you could just call them what they are, Ni..”
Stabler 2.0
"I murdered him."
"You're under arrest for murder."
"WHAT?????"
LOL
shocked Pikachu face
@@EntropyGuardian
This should be an emoji by now.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I felt the same. lmfao!
Silence is golden
Remember kids, NOTHING YOU SAY TO THE POLICE CAN BE USED TO HELP YOU IN COURT. It is nearly impossible to talk to the police and say something that won’t sound like it incriminates you. They can, and will, lie to get you to admit to things. The urge to talk is natural, but invoking the fifth and shutting up can save your ass
The fifth amendment says you have the right to not incriminate yourself.
The sixth amendment is your right to have a lawyer present during interviews/interrogation.
If you invoke your fifth amendment right to not say anything then they can, and will, keep you there as long as they want, and use any tactic within their power, to get you to talk. Anything you say will be used against you. Even your silence will be used against you.
Once you invoke your sixth amendment right to have an attorney present then they legally cannot keep interrogating you because they’ll be violating your sixth amendment right to counsel.
Once you request a lawyer anything you say, or don’t say, is inadmissible until your lawyer shows up.
Lawyer up and shut up. It’s your 6th Amendment right.
Learn from this, learn from JCS, get a lawyer and plead the 5th, especially if pleading the 4th failed
It also never hurts to just ask if you are being detained for questioning. If they aren't detaining you, just leave. You probably will want to go and find a good attorney in the meantime, but always ask.
@@gabrote42 it’s Better Call Saul. Not Just Call Saul.
I wish every Miranda was also required to add something like:
"Remember, anything and everything the police say to you may be a lie, and your response to those lies may and likely will be used against you in a court of law."
You know what I've never seen before that would be legitimately super useful? Step by step, what does it actually look like to get a lawyer. The cops are processing a scene at your house and asking you questions, do you just ignore them and start flipping the yellow pages? I think people would be more comfortable if they knew more about what the whole process looks like
Well, you would say "I'm not speaking to the police until I have an attorney present" You would wait for an attorney to arrive (either one you previously knew about which is a good idea, having a little forethought that one day you might need one) or a public defender, in the meantime of which you might be arrested if there are probable causes to do so. For example, a DUI on the side of the road. You refuse to answer questions after you have been stopped, refuse to take a breathalyzer or to do any kind of roadside sobriety test... the cops had a reason for pulling you over and that reason is likely enough to arrest you on suspicion of DUI. So you will be arrested and taken to jail and then have your opportunity to answer their questions or undergo any tests with a lawyer present. To request a lawyer before speaking to the cops you must accept the fact that depending on what information the police already have you may be arrested and held in jail until your attorney arrives. ...all that said still request an attorney. The time to argue your case is not there on the roadside or wherever you are when you are approached, but in court. As I am not an attorney but I was a paralegal (closest job that compares) in the USMC I will state this is personal opinion based on observation and *not* legal advice.
@@TresTrefusis Okay, but most of us don't already know a lawyer dealing with criminal offenses and a lot of people would rather not depend on a public defender. So how do you look up a lawyer when you're already in a situation with the police?
@@TresTrefusis FYI refusing a breathalyzer or chemical test, is considered the same as an automatic failure in every US state and comes with heavy penalties. You can refuse those silly 'field sobriety' tests, but never refuse a breathalyzer.
@@MegaPloopVideos I assume that police are obligated to inform you that refusal is the same as failing the test if that's the case?
Seems logical though. There's no guarantee the test result whenever your lawyer gets there reflects your state at the time of arrest
You can also just ask if you detained when they ask to speak with you. If you aren't detained leave and go find a good lawyer, because they very well might detain you in the future.
I have been a cop in a major metropolitan city in New England for 28 years, and if my own colleagues came up and started asking me questions about a crime, I didn’t respond to on duty…
I would get a lawyer!!!
Do Not Talk to the Police without a lawyer!
I would argue never talk to the polcie period, don't offer them your services and don't associate with them out of duty, if you are married to a police officer, cheat on him and if you want children, make sure they aren't his.
Even though it's not really a reaction or a pertinent scene, watching Devin mimic the Law & Order theme song was an essential part of this reaction video
There are FEW things that transcend generations…. It doesn’t matter if you are 80, 38, or 18…Singing/humming Law and Order is one of those things that we all understand…
@@andrewjustice210 : Don't forget *DUN DUN*
Wholeheartedly agree!! 🤗
One line Devin said I really appreciate "If you can afford a lawyer, get a lawyer" cuz it doesn't take a myopic view assuming everyone has money.
The character he was talking about specifically is rich, so that's why he was even more confused about it
Worked for a boutique law firm for awhile. We took clients on a sliding scale and accepted very low repayment plans with no interest. So even if you don't have a lot of money, it's worth it to see if you can find a lawyer. Paying $50/month for ten years is better than sitting in jail.
@@pigpjs I'm not sure financial imprisonment is much better... what happens when you miss a payment? What if you fall on hard times?
@@zixenvernon1643 You'll end up in financial imprisonment if you go to jail so probably just the version of it that comes with a lesser or no jail sentence
@@zixenvernon1643 They send you to jail.
Everybody is so damn emotional in every single scene here. The original L&O knew how to use emotions judiciously. The police, lawyers, and judges in the original were doing their jobs, and sometimes blasé because of it, as one would expect from people who have to deal with this stuff every single day.
And somehow, this is meant to take place in the same world as Homicide: Life on the Street. It's not fun to compare a show that serious about its subject matter to what the Law & Order revival is doing.
@@kilomillensimus9379 it's in the same universe as Chicago fire, PD and med as well as the law and order universe and homicide life on the street because of various crossovers between them all
Yes. And that's typical of movies and tv shows today:
Lots of emotion, very few normal behaviour.
I only got through half an episode of the new one because it just felt too forced and the writing was terrible. I love some old law and order though
The writing is sub-amateur. The dialogue sounds like a plot synopsis with quotation marks placed around it.
I remember watching a documentary about a boy who was wrongfully convicted for murdering his sister in San Diego. The boy didn't have a lawyer present during his interrogation. I think he was only 16. The show didn't say where his parents were. Eventually, he was found innocent, and the person who did the crime was found. But that stuck with me. When I had children, I told them if you are ever in front of the police, you don't give them your name without a lawyer. That's also the first thing I think of when I watch these crime shows.
Yeah, it should be the first thing these shows told you, if they weren't copaganda
I think your name is literally the one thing you have to give them, with or without a lawyer.
@@adriank4721 If I told you my name was Michael, would you believe it? Even if there was something that said "You have to give them your name.", What stops you from lying? Maybe you're not lying, but they don't believe you anyway, How do they find the truth? 'o.O
Nothing stops you from lying. But if you do, and they find out, then you're in a world of hurt.
You know what's worse than talking to the police? Lying to the police.
@@adriank4721 You're only obligated to give them your name (and license and registration) if they pull you over while driving so they can verify your information. If they're just stopping you in the street to ask you questions, you are not obligated to identify yourself or answer their questions. Ask them if you're free to leave and then do so if they say yes. If not, just keep exercising your right to remain silent, even if they arrest you.
I took a drink every time you said "get legal representation". I am now starting a gofundme for my hospital expenses
I'm impressed you even alive
You should sue Legal Eagle for the hospital expenses.
@@everydaycommentator6036 you clearly have no idea how suing works.
Move to a country with free health care and you wouldn't need to crowdfund your hospital expenses
Why are you talking without legal representation!
"Why are you talking to the police without a lawyer?"
"The show couldn't afford another actor."
🤣🤣🤣
So it's The Rookie, where the only people in Los Angeles, a massive city, is about a dozen cops and lawyers that are always involved.
It would break up the flow.
The dialogue probably wouldn't change much, they'd just have to lean in and whisper to the lawyer every before every single answer.
@@tyrant-den884 There would be no dialogue only monologue hahahaha
@@tyrant-den884 They could just get a little puppet to be the lawyer. Then the actors could just talk to a little puppet sitting on their lap.
"Hold on I must consult with my lawyer" *whispers to their hand puppet*
As a future prosecutor, I cannot stress this enough: ALWAYS have a lawyer present. Also, you CAN tell the police to kiss your ass, but...you shouldn't...but they cannot put their hands on you for it.
And yet, too often, they do. Can't wait for an actual unbiased third party to be created to investigate the numerous cases of police brutality and abuses. Nobody should be above the law.
@@holocene2164 Agreed. I highly recommend looking into local coalitions that are working to implement Police Accountability Boards in your area. I've been working with my state's branch of the ACLU to pressure lawmakers to ensure that my local PAB gets implemented properly, because even though we passed a bill to create it, it got watered down by a lot of amendments. It's difficult, slow, and draining, but we're making progress. And since no one in power is doing anything about it, it's up to volunteers and activists to get things moving.
Real question, if you’re guilty, how much should u tell your lawyer, and how much are they allowed to/do they have to tell? 👀
OUT OF sheer curiosity, btw, 😁😂
@@ToastyCas You should be honest with your lawyer. Their job is to defend you no matter what, and your conversations are confidential, so the cops can't force you or your lawyer to reveal anything said between you
@@ToastyCas Always tell your lawyer the truth. My mum (a lawyer) just lost a case because a client lied. It all came out anyway and she was blindsided by it, which ultimately cost the client dearly.
This is brilliant I covered a phenomenon in university called "CSI Syndrome" how people always think these cases get resolved in like 2 weeks time. This is a great watch though. Thank you.
I worked in a Pathology lab for decades. We saw expectations about reasonable turn-around times shift in real time thanks to CSI. Even from people who knew better.
i will say when those crime shows first started they really did show the actual procedures. law and order in the 90s is very different from the law and order of today
I watched the show because that's what I'd hoped, but I knew it wasn't realistic timetable
@@Heyu7her3 I think we would all like to believe cases were resolved in like a week or two anyway.
Yeah, cold cases are a thing and idiotic TV executives like to pretend they're not
I'll never forget an episode of SVU, where a rape victim refused to cooperate and identify her attacker, so the DA threatened her with being an accessory should he rape again.
Casey Novak took no prisoners
She would be an accessory though.
Does the fact that she's traumatized mean facts aren't facts?
Oh wait it's 2022 America so of course that's what it means.
@@mikhailvasiliev6275
What?
@@saschamayer4050
Oh shit, guess I'm not supposed to say any of this.
Alright...
Is that something that could legally happen IRL in America? 😬
I think one thing needed to be stressed here: the police pretty much NEVER want to help you when you're a suspect being interrogated.
if they say that they want to help you, then that should be a red flag right there. By the time they say that, you should ask for some real help by lawyering up
Cops never want to help you period. That’s not what they’re there for.
Exactly lol. And if they pulled that “getting a lawyer makes you look guilty” bs I’d say “I’d rather look guilty at the mall then look innocent in jail...”
What are you saying the police defiantly want to help you. They want to help you get fitted for an Orange Jumpsuit and to get an extended involuntary vacation in a state owned housing facility.
And that's exactly why these shows never show the good guys getting lawyers.
As someone who has been on a jury multiple times, I can say from brief experience, at least in my county, lying to the suspect also raises questions about credibilty to us: if the police is willing to lie to get a confession, why wont they lie to get a conviction?
Amen!
Ok, but the prosecutor will still use the confession. It's up to the defense to raise questions.
With another setup, sure, but in this one it was very cut and dry. The evidence was fairly solid(more so than the episode tried to present for some reason) and the setup for the confession had her basically confess before the explicit confession.
Knowing that, I'd have a hard time siding against the cops on this one, which is saying something given my general disdain for cops as a whole.
Lying cops are poisoning the well of public opinion. Good cops get discredited because of that. Lies hurt everyone… No one profits from a lying cop.
But that's 2 different scenarios. The police can lie in interrogation but they can't lie in the court room. They can't just make stuff up (and that's the defenses job to ensure that.)
I find it inspiring that he wears a full suit in every video. I know it’s because he’s speaking as a lawyer, and this is how lawyers dress, but I still appreciate the consistency.
It's also because the suit-maker is one of his sponsors.
I mean, we know he's wearing a shirt, tie, and jacket. Anything out of shot is a mystery.
@@doctorwhouse3881
Hot pink tight pants
@@doctorwhouse3881how tantalising
@@doctorwhouse3881he's just balls out down there baby. full dangle. swinging gently in the AC breeze. allegedly.
"I say the wrong thing and my career's over" - a cop who has just physically assaulted a random guy on the street.
Accurate.
Meanwhile look at all the cops who are still cops after murdering an unarmed suspect, real career jeopardy for sure.
And three seconds later "and I'm going to say the wrong thing all the time, because I'm a straight shooter like that".
Your career SHOULD be over with that attitude!
Not accurate because his career is still going strong and this is not the first time he’s done that sort of thing. No way. But accurate that he will just add that to the reason he’s being a jerk to people. And accurate he’ll continue to paint himself as the victim.
@@jediping how is that not accurate?
I’m not a lawyer. But when I watched Confession Tapes on Netflix all I could do was scream “WHY ARE YOU TALKING TO THE COPS. ESPECIALLY IF YOU’RE INNOCENT, GET. A. LAWYER.” My kid is going to be taught “get me a lawyer.” from the time he’s old enough to be a suspect of any kind. If he’s under 18, it’ll be “get me a lawyer and get my mom.”
Well the general idea is that if you are innocent you don't need lawyer, asking for a lawyer might mean you hide something. but ofc many times police exploits this
@@alihorda oh exactly. But the thing is people take that idea and then make the assumption they either won’t be outsmarted by the cops or the cops aren’t going to (intentionally or otherwise) railroad them because they’re innocent. And neither are true or good assumptions.
@@alihorda Asking for a lawyer is never an admission of guilt. Not everyone understands the law and its processes regardless of their innocence, which is why legal assistance is considered a fundamental right and is even (in most jurisdictions) provided for free to those who cannot afford it.
Just remember that they should ask very politely, also that they can throw you under the bus at the same time.
"I'm sorry officer I'd love to talk to you but my mum said I have to tell you to call her and to get a lawyer before I answer questions like that and I really don't want to get in that kind of trouble"
It might not be right but I'll take a smooth exit over being right and in jail.
@@alihorda That general idea is wrong. If you’re innocent and being questioned by the police, you may be a suspect; and the police will try to make you confess or say something incriminating enough to arrest you.
I was recently part of a grand jury in NY state where the question of murder 1 vs murder 2 came up. Apparently, in most of the country, you get murder 1 as long as the murder is pre-meditated. In NY, you only get murder 1 if the murder is premeditated AND there are additional aggravating circumstances, like there was torture involved or if murder was committed during a kidnapping, etc.
That was my understanding of it in some jurisdictions as well. It isn't surprising that they tried murder 2 if emotions were involved.
In my home state (Oregon), there are zero levels of murder. It's either murder or manslaughter. I'm okay with that system, because the person is dead whether you did it with premeditation or spur-of-the-moment!
@@eileene.5870 Eh, sorta. For starters manslaughter isn't just manslaughter, there's 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter. If murder is being charged, it gets a little complicated.
In terms of indictment there's "murder" (first degree, 163.107) and there's "aggravated murder" (163.095). But there's also an affirmative defense of murder in the 2nd degree (163.115) to decrease culpability of murder in the 1st degree. So IDK, maybe call it "there's zero levels of murder(asterisk)"
I attended law school and passed the bar in NY and I came here to say this. You are correct. There are a handful of different scenarios that will qualify for a murder 1 charge, most commonly felony murder or killing a cop. Premeditation alone only gets you murder 2. So while the episode is still a disaster, this was actually a thing the show did correctly.
@@Dyan713 yep, this. NY Penal Law 125.27 explains the circumstances for murder 1. (I think murder 1 is also used a little less now than it used to be, since you have to prove additional elements, the death penalty is now unavailable, and it doesn't increase the possible sentence that much.)
When I was in college a guy in my dorm was getting arrested. We were all outside and another guy said a bit loudly, “Cops f’ing suck”. He was arrested and when the crowd lost their minds the cops said “that’s what you get for resisting arrest” as a warning to the other 30 or so people outside protesting his arrest.
Kind of a crappy situation.
@@ArDeeMee camera phones were in their infancy back then.
@@Civera89 Ah, nuts. I thought you meant within the last ten years or so. You get used to these things so easily. =)
"I mean, morally, whatever" is probably the most lawyer thing ever said on this channel ;P
And NOW he looked like an actual lawyer.
@@manart6506 It was certainly the most jarringly, dispassionately lawyerly thing he's said on this channel. Especially given the fact that we have so many stories, on tape, of cops lying to suspects for hours until they admit to a crime they didn't commit.
@@TheFiddleFaddle Just remember he's speaking from his pov of what prosecutions act like.
So it's not really in conflict with what you're saying.
@@TheFiddleFaddle I think he's more to commenting how out-of-scope it is to discuss the morality of such an egregiously exploitative technique. Like, it's so obviously unethical that it feels silly even to argue that it is.
😄
I used to work on production for L&O and was frequently horrified by the legal and moral concepts in the show being offered up for public consumption.
Probably the worst being the constant insistence that anyone who "lawyers up" is immediately guilty and should have everything thrown at them the DA's office can muster until something sticks that sends them to prison.
The implication of the show is consistently that "Well, the defendant may not be guilty in this specific case, but we think they are guilty of something, so it's perfectly acceptable that we send them to prison for this thing they may not have done."
Ah yes, the idea that "If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear", and the mistaken belief that "If they're asking for a lawyer, that means they've done something that they need a lawyer for." Flawed logic both. You always want a lawyer, _especially_ if you're innocent.
It's copaganda, so that's to be expected. It paints the justice system as full of people who actually want justice, instead of the far more complicated reality.
The most realistic thing about Law & Order is the show's portrayal of cops' willingness to break the law when their feelings get hurt.
The worst crime you can commit in America is disrespecting a police officer.
Hey now, he was just saying what was on his mind. With his fists.
Cosgrove asked a question. The kid acted like a complete asshole. Suddenly the cop was the bad guy?
@@poodypooroo Cosgrove didn't use his fists.
My dad was never a fan of cops, and considering I hate my dad you'd think I'd like cops, but the enemy of my enemy is not inherently anything to me.
Then don't disrespect cops. Keep your ego in check. Problem solved!
Objection!! One thing that took me many, many years to notice is that I too hate it when legal shows and police procedurals show things like DNA results coming back in minutes (or seconds, I’m looking at you CSI) or days as this episode would seem to suggest. But Law & Order is actually fairly realistic about the passage of time. What I finally noticed is that if you pay attention to those black screens that are populated throughout the episode that show where the following scene takes place and the date you’ll see that many months are passing during a single case/episode.
Yup.
Come on, it is apparent that people who watch this show don't give a F**k about how long it takes for DNA evidence, they want it to show the guilt of the Bad Guy 100% of the time. That's why people watch the show
the
The police and prosecutors of Law & Order are particularly above reproach when it comes to ethics. They rarely break the rules and they almost always get the right person for the crime. The few episodes that tackle a wrongful conviction storyline, the characters are always very shaken up by it.
This is because it’s fiction. In real life people usually aren’t ethical superstars. There are good and bad people in all walks of life… so it’s best to just err on the side of caution and keep your mouth shut and lawyer up.
Except for that time Jack almost convicted that guy of murder when he knew it wasn't murder just to make a point about inadequate sentencing.
I used to find it rather amusing how often this would happen in the older episodes of L&W - that the police would go after someone whom they had wrongly accused of a crime, harassing them because they were convinced they were the right suspect, or maybe the DA's office would prosecute someone who later turned out to be innocent but was sent to prison and committed suicide there, or maybe was beaten to death by another inmate.
One would think that the police and/or DA's office would then learn from their mistakes, feel a bit of humility if not humanity towards the next person they accused or prosecuted, but no it wouldn't be too long before they would go right back to doing the same things and making the same a**hole mistakes as they had in previous episodes.
Which is how you knew L&W was probably a lot truer to life than many would like to admit.
@@bryanjackson8917 Rather than admit that they are wrong they will even double down and refuse to allow the defense to get items tested for DNA. Then inevitably it comes back to someone else and they say “doesn’t mean he didn’t do it, just that he had an accomplice”.🤦♀️
Then because of their ineptitude and arrogance they cause someone else to lose their life as well since a murderer was left to roam unchecked. Convictions over justice.
Reminds me of that episode where the wrong guy got sent to prison and died there
The police are, indeed, usually some of the least ethical people. Recruiting standards are twisted, training emphasizes scaring the shit out of them and priming them to go for their guns for any and every reason, and there's pretty much no real consequences 90 percent of the time they do commit misconduct.
"I mean, morally... Whatever" spoken like a true lawyer
Classic Winger
Then they wonder why nobody likes them.
haha... I seriously loved that line and thought the exact same thing you commented.
If the question is "does 1+1 equal 2?" the answer is "yes" even if the math is done on an immoral subject. In the same way, the law is not morality, it is a logical framework for making complex decisions at large scales. Moral questions are not legal questions, and legal questions are not moral questions. Mixing the two is when we start to have problems.
@@Teth47 I could just be speaking for myself but I'm pretty sure we all understand the context of the comment it just sounded really funny- like it should be clipped and shared out of context.
Honestly it would certainly be nice if these shows actually did more to portray prosecutorial misconduct or problematic law enforcement practices but they always seem to pretty much vindicate them entirely by making it seem like they’re always getting it right and that they’re only breaking laws and regulations for the greater good and that they’re being hindered by “overreach”…
It would certainly go a long way towards de-fetishizing the US’s obsession with “Law and Order” through near draconian means and methods…
I'm still pissed off by an old L&O:SVU episode where Miloni's character breaks into a guy's house to harass him.
He wasn't gathering evidence, he was just harassing the guy.
No one says anything, I could not even say if the audience was supposed disagree with it because the perp was such an a$$hole.
Last season of Brooklyn 99 focused on just that sort of thing
Well, that is the US propaganda at work as made by Hollywood: ''look at how much we're already bending over backwards so this scumbag's rights are protected and so what if we bend the rules a little bit to make sure there are no more victims.''
@@FieldMarshalFry getting Dr. Cox to play the head of the patrol union was inspired.
Right up there with Rosa quiting and turning on cops immediately.
This episode screamed police propaganda to me. It never addressed the concept of lawyering up so people won’t even get that idea in real life. And the whole “we won’t use a coerced confession” bit feels like tricking people into thinking that won’t happen in real life, which will lead to more people giving coerced confessions even if they smell something fishy.
“Did you say anything stupid? And by anything stupid I mean ANYTHING AT ALL!”
- Saul Goodman
I've always laughed when a judge asks for a jury to disregard testimony. No one could help but remember it.
Or say to themselves "I wonder why he or she told me to disregard it" which then leads to thinking that "it must be important" which then leads to "I'll have to remember that" accompanied by "but I can't say anything else about this to any other jurors because that would screw things up and I really want to see this person found guilty/not guilty".
I wonder if it really ever happens in real life or if it's a TV thing. Hmmm. Didn't the judge tell the jury to disregard someone's entire testimony in that Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard case? I cant remember the testimony though, lol.
I've been on a jury and I asked a question tother judge asking how we could make a decision when we've only heard one side of a story.
We were told most court cases come down to "he said, she said" and we were not to speculate why another side didn't come forward or what they might have seen or said
And hoo boy was it hard getting people to stop speculating on that in the room.
"disregard testimony" just like "put that toothpaste back in the tube"
Yeah when my mom was part of a jury one time the defendant tackled his own lawyer (who was not doing a good job), and then after all that the jury was told to disregard it LMAO
Police lying absolutely diminishes the value of a confession. Maybe not before the law, but innocent people often confess when they think they have no other option. John Oliver did a good piece on this recently.
This is correct I am shocked that literally the same lawyer who tells people to lawyer up doesn’t seem to know why he tells people to lawyer up. People make false confessions all the time. Yes this particular confession happened to not be false but people make false confessions due to legal police tactics all the time. Confessions are not irrefutable proof of guilt especially when you can establish it was obtained through dodgy tactics like “if you say exactly these words we will give you immunity and not prosecute you”.
@@Wynneception I think his reaction to that was that legally the confession isn’t any different based on how it was gotten, he wasn’t ignoring the possibility of someone giving a false confession
While this is true, not using the confession as evidence at all clearly weakens the case even further. A somewhat dubious confession is still better evidence than no confession at all.
While I agree that lying isn't the best position to take for getting a confession, I don't mind much in fact. As long as they also continue the investigation to prove it was them in other ways as well along with the confession.
@@AllyMonsters The problem with that is that, in the real world, they almost never do continue with any further investigation, because confessions are perceived by juries as being so reliable.
"Too bad we didn't have a damn confession."
What? What the hell was she doing at 16:45 of the video if she wasn't confessing on the witness stand? She said, "I thought he was going to kill me, so I shot him!" That sounds like a confession to me. All she said in the station was "Yes I shot him."
Actually wait, rewatching the initial confession, Cosgrove perjured himself since she makes no mention of what she did with the gun, they just arrest her after saying she shot him without waiting for her to give any additional details. He says under oath, "Because the defendant actually told me she tossed the murder weapon into that dumpster." She did not.
I thought about this as well 😂
I think what they’re going for is that in the station she confessed to premeditated murder, but the defence is aiming to prove she only shot after being provoked, or even that she did it in self defence. Either way she’s admitting to shooting him, but it matters under what circumstances she pulled the trigger?
But the show is failing horribly at portraying this narrative, it just ends up incredibly confusing. And also laughable, because the DA’s are remorseful about the woman going to jail, simply because she had a sob story about her reasons for committing murder lol.
Couldn’t him grabbing her without her consent also be taken to a degree as her feeling threatened? Especially when he has a known, violent history towards her? That just….idk I feel like there’s a case from the angle she shot him out of reaction to him grabbing her
Either way, that's a confession that Pheonix Wrong would do very unlawyerlike things to obtain...
The writers forgot that she didn't admit to tossing the gun. They're not very good at writing.
She should have yelled “NOT!” after “Yes, I shot him.” Then they wouldn’t have been able to use it.
Watching a lawyer reacting to Law & Order is way more fun than I've ever had watching an actual episode.
There is no way they immediately remand her when she confesses. They would continue to interrogate her, for more details.
Exactly. What if she had yelled “NOT!” immediately afterwards?
3:07 And remember, this is supposed to be a show that portrays the cops in a POSITIVE light. This is like asking your friend to be your wingman and make you look better in front of prospective women, and they share that hilarious story of how you used to shout homophobic slurs at teenagers when you were in your thirties.
The scarier part is the realization that there are loads of people who'd see that scene as cops being portrayed in a positive light. Probably the same people who'd shout the homophobic slurs, come to think of it.
L & O isn't about portraying cops in a positive way, it's supposed to be a dramatized version of what cops & lawyers do for their jobs. DRAMATIZED
@@andiward7068 Yeah, saying otherwise is something someone who didn't watch much, if any, of that show would do.
All these years later, I still remember plenty of times on those shows when cops acted out of line.
@@andiward7068 Almost LIONIZED. Perhaps, MYTHOLOGIZED, or SANITIZED.
i disagree. the show often takes the approach of painting the characters as what they are: human, complex and, very often, flawed. the whole premise of the show is about instigating these types of conversations and creating a discourse. the writers never shied away from painting the cast in a less than savory light to get a point across about the discrepancies and contradictions about the criminal justice system in the US.
OBJECTION, 19:35. While I am not a lawyer, one thing that L&O has been consistent about (and they *do* use WestLaw to check their legality) is that, under New York law, Murder 1 is reserved for capital cases. If it's not considered a capital situation, they virtually always try it as Murder 2. This may just be a quirk of New York law vs. California law.
Speaking as a public defender the whole "Why are you talking to the police w/o a lawyer?!?!" is something I say to myself way too much.
Why not "Why are you talking to the police w/o _immunity_ ?!?!"
I can't see what the reason would be, even with a lawyer present.
On the other hand, talking to a prosecutor (in contradistinction to police) with or via a lawyer, might be part of plea bargaining or whatever.
@@robertjenkins6132 True, I suppose I should rephrase and say "why didnt you ask for a lawyer instead of talking to the cops?!?!" is something I say to myself a lot.
Characters talking to the cops without a lawyer is sadly not something that breaks legal realism.
Cops go out of their way to be aggressive and act like they can hurt you if you don’t submit and answer their questions. Also, they have guns. I’ve always talked to the police because I don’t want to end up spending 12-16 hours being arrested, interrogated, and in a cell before they decide they’re done with me. I have attorneys in my family, I know not to talk to them if it’s a crime that could actually end in non-financial punishments, but if there’s some pissed off cop in my face because I’m drinking with my friends in a park at night, I’ll talk to them every single time because I’d rather pay $200-500 than deal with the hassle of getting off scot free.
@@robertjenkins6132 people sadly fall for the cops lies due to these types of tv shows pushing copaganda . “Lawyers are for guilty people, you’re not guilty are you?” Or “we know it was an accident and if you tell us what we need to know, you’ll be able to walk out of here/get a lower sentence etc”.
I tell people that they should never under any circumstances talk to a cop, just say “sorry, I’d like to request my attorney “.. they are NOT your friends.
And one last thing, thank you for your service OP. Public defenders are undervalued and overworked and overlooked.
the most important thing i've learned when i needed an attorney was that YOU. DON'T. SPEAK. you don't explain. you don't try to justify. you don't come up with excuses. you strictly answer the questions that are asked of you and you let your attorney do the rest. law does not care about you personally. people can say horrible shit about you and you have to sit there and take it even if it's a lie. trying to argue is futile. you shut tf up and let your attorney talk. this is a world where the language and customs are foreign to you, where every words can mean something completely different than intended. you will want to defend yourself from name calling and lies but it's more productive to simply focus on facts and talking only when you need to.
law is about order first, not morality. it's not about truth but about who has got the best papertrail. it's a tough pill to swallow, but knowing this helped. of course, this is not legal advice but just what i've learned.
I guess that is why it's called Law & Order, not Law & Morals. Which would make for an interesting show itself.
let's be real: this episode is mainly a mess because "yes we need a murderer and not-bill cosby is a perfect target" but also "but nobody actually likes cosby anymore and we don't want them to get hit hard for it" but "we can't NOT have the police win"
The subject they are attempting to approach is ridiculous. A prosecutor who won't take cases where the police lied at some point? They would have simply fired him on the spot.
"You must have severely misunderstood the job description. Thank you for you time, the door is over there."
@@TheNetherwalker idk Law and Order's track record but I imagine they're incentivized to make the police and the law system look good, which is why they'd do something like that.
@@edfreak9001 Probably why it's clocking in at 28% on rottentomatoes. Audience is looking for a realistic crime drama, not a fantasy land where prosecutors are paragons of honesty. Dragons and unicorns would be more believable than a prosecutor who cares about anything but their conviction rate.
@@TheNetherwalker would that not make sense it light of recent events? Many places around the country have been experimenting with weird caveats and loopholes where they refuse to prosecute, even when guilt isn't in question. The original Law and order always tried to base stories off of real cases and real legal procedure, could that be the analogue they are going for with that plot point?
@@leethax100 You could have done a parallel to the Cosby case with a solid story and good acting. Yes the narrative is compelling but that is because they cheated and stole it from reality. They had a free plot and still couldn't make it work.
My wife always loved Law & Order. I have always been frustrated by the terrible courtroom scenes. Now that she's in law classes, she shares my frustration at long last. It's nice to watch the show and see her shouting at the TV like I always did.
"We have a guy who is a stand-in for Bill Cosby, and right off the bat, this video is completely demonitized."
We appreciate your sacrifice, sir!
"You can't do that mister police Burn Notice guy!"
Kinda tips their hand about what sort of characer he's going to be when he was on that show.
"Yeah, who cares... well, morally, whatever."
Geeze, that's the most lawyer thing ever. LOL
I really gave the new version a shot. Episode 9 though turned into such a cartoon that I was actually laughing. After that, I'm going back to repeats.
The writing has suffered ... greatly.
So bad it's good, or just so bad it's bad?
I couldn’t make it through the first episode of the new series.
What’s the name of the new one.
So many shows (of all types) have devolved into cartoons. Writing has become so stupid overall
Objection! Sometimes, people will forget stuff, and then when they start talking about it again, they remember more details as they explain and go through the story! Especially since she had been drinking, I wouldn't be surprised if she literally just hadn't processed anything from that night until she was forced to talk about it. I mean, this happens to me all the time because I have memory problems and also smoke cannabis (legal in my state!!), where I'll completely forget something but the longer I talk about it the more I can recall. This happens every time I had to do a psychiatric intake evaluation hahahaha
I understand that you are speaking specifically on legality and whether things are done realistically to standards, but people go to prison all the time for confessing to crimes they didn't actually commit. And cops being allowed to lie to people during interrogation is a huge factor.
I think they were trying to show the new ADA doesn't want to be part of that problem.
I remember McCoy using many questionably morale techniques because getting a conviction of the one who committed the crime was his top priority. In fact, it was the female lawyers who were always frustrated and (Sometimes) fired because they did not have the same mode of thought. The idea that he would not use a legal technique betrays his character.
Yep. Jack McCoy not using a lawfully-obtained confession? ROTFLMFAO
@@jaciem yep Jack would make sure the confession wasn't false and then use it to make them cop to plea deal for whatever sentence he thought was appropriate knowing they didn't stand a chance against him in court and he'd make damn sure they knew that.
I always thought even more crazy than adults not having representation when talking to the police, were shows like Law and Order or CSI with episodes where they would frequently question CHILDREN without their legal guardians and/or lawyer present and no one ever said anything about it
to be fair they do that a lot here, and the worst part is that kids aren't smart enough to know to ask for someone and the police never tell them to get a guardian. They lie to the kids just like they lie to adults.
@@thesun5275 To be fair, it's realistic because the cops don't give a shit about law or your rights.
@@thesun5275 Which is fitting, since the US are also hot on throwing children into prison. There are people in your country who literally grew up in prison! Wtf!
Would love to hear your thoughts on the Last Week Tonight segment about Law & Order’s negative impact on the public’s expectations of cops caused by Law & Order doing things like glorifying cops roughing up civilians during questioning, the demonization of defense attorneys, and the hero worship of police by showing case after case coming to a resolution with justice being served. Especially Law & Order SVU not reflecting the realities that sexual assault/rape cases go untouched for months and years.
I've watched a lot of the original Law & Order, and I don't remember the detectives ever roughing up civilians during questioning. Since the show was about the police and prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys were obviously not going to get hero's treatment. I don't think it amounts to demonizing. And the were plenty of times in the original show where the defendant is found not guilty. I can't speak to SVU, as I haven't watched it in years, but one of the reasons I stopped watching was that the grounding it had (to an extent) replicated from L&O was starting to fall to the wayside in favor of agendas.
I recall reading about several cases where the police got a signed confession, but the defendant was then exonerated through other evidence (DNA, Fingerprints, etc). People will lie even if it incriminates them if they see it as the only way out of their current situation or they've been gas-lit into "maybe i did do it". Personally if i found out the method that cop used to get a confession i wouldn't believe the confession.
seems dumb to confess to something you didnt do just because you are a suspect, specially not having a lawyer present and yet the confession was legally obtained, he didnt force her or said anything bad would happen to her
@@PopelessCatholic If you feel like you did not have a choice (one way or another) or have more to lose by NOT taking the blame, you will in fact confess.
@@PopelessCatholic How long can you handle being called a liar while being lied to? After a couple hrs of telling the truth it's frustrating, after a few more it's demoralizing and then it's being kicked while down and you're willing to do what it takes to make them stop even, if it's only long enough to get an attorney that, but by then it's too late.
@@PopelessCatholic It's not so simple they'll stick you into interrogation rooms for hours on end. They will deny you sleep or food. They will try to talk you into forfeiting your right to a lawyer or to leave depending on the kind of interrogation. They'll chip away at your will until you agree to whatever they say just so you can eat, sleep, or leave. You think you won;t fall for it but give it 11 hours in an interrogation room where you have been proclaiming your innocence over and over but they wont listen when you are hungry, thirsty, tired, and worse might not even know what rights you have. Then see if you wont cave just to get out of there.
Cases like that exist but they're blown way out of proportions. In the overwhelming majority of cases, cops lying to suspects simply results in idiot criminals confessing their (real) guilt. The leeway given to cops in terms of lying to suspects helps clear thousands and thousands of cases. The harm done to society in terms of guilty, violent people walking free by preventing them from doing so would far outweigh the good. Especially since safeguards exist to prevent false confessions: simply asking for a lawyer, the generalization of taped interrogations that help differentiate legit confessions from extorted ones...
The idea that the prosecution wouldn't use a coerced confession given the chance is laughable. The tactics police use to get confessions out of people today simply should not be legal. I could probably never serve on a jury because if I see a confession admitted I will consider as accurate as a coin flip.
Little things like that is why you and I get kicked from Juries....
They are not looking for people who will question the Process, just follow the steps.
Remember, when you lawyer up, you must explicitly say “I want a lawyer”. There’s no room for vagueness. And say NOTHING without a lawyer present besides that. If you initiate, it opens you up to interrogation.
(I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. This is just life advice.)
... So, just to be clear.... You don't wanna talk with us? This is YOUR opportunity to tell us YOUR side of the story...
After you get a lawyer, what if you say 'I want another lawyer' and refuse to talk until you get another lawyer? And then another, and another, until there's no more room or the police figure out you're just not going to be helpful?
@@amymason156, the sixth amendment gives you the right to have a lawyer present during any police interview and during your trial.
It doesn’t say you have the right to 1000 lawyers. If you can afford that many, good for you, but for most people it’s going to be someone from the public defender’s office who is overworked and understaffed.
@ 3:01 “Clearly a constitutional violation here”. This reminds me of when I was telling my story of being arrested to a family friend (lawyer) and she said “the police can’t do that!” Like… I don’t know what to tell you… they already did it and will definitely do it again with impunity.
He’s a lawyer, and he’s discussing things by the word of the law. And he’s right, that WAS a constitutional violation, one that will go unpunished.
@@theoneandonlymichaelmccormick okay I’m a criminal discussing my experiences with law enforcement. I wasn’t disputing whether or not it was a constitutional violation, just relating it to my experiences of being the affected party of constitutional violations that will go unpunished.
Watching law and order with my Grandmother was what made me decide I wanted to be a lawyer. That reason has definitely changed, but I remember 5 year old me saying I would be a lawyer and watching this show. I'm in my 3rd year of law school now! :)
You got this.
Congratulations. You’ll be great, and I hope your grandmother is proud of you. “To Kill a Mockingbird”, and “And Justice For All” made me want to be a lawyer. I retired 5 years ago.
Good luck! Don’t become a prosecutor!
Good luck!
Good luck!
10:41 “Yeah, who cares? Well, I mean, *morally,* whatever…”
Oh. Oh, that hurt. That reaction, and hasty afterthought, felt very genuine.
Yeah… and Deven constantly talks about lawyers “undeserved” negative reputation
@@Tulsa360 Morality is kinda meh on some facts, engineers know about it =P, it's wrong? yes, yes it is
it's non ethical, perfectly fine as far as a lot of thinkers go
A killer that was caught with legal yet morally dubious methods, is fine for the law, then there is no problem outside you might feel shitty after a bit (or not, whatever)
Facts are laid there
It may seem cold, but he was speaking in the context of legality, and as an audience member who knows the confession is the actual truth within this little TV universe. In that regard "who cares" makes sense because, legally, the fact is that confession is valid and this woman is guilty as hell *full* *stop*
I love Law and Order, but yeah it can play really fast and loose with the law and be really copagandistic at times. Even here, it insinuates that prosecutors would feel bad about using a confession from a person who didn't have a lawyer and who was lied to, which just really isn't the case.
Still, I might give the reboot a try if nothing else for the Burn Notice guy since I loved him in Burn Notice.
I've missed his face, it's even more face than he had in burn notice. It'd be funny if he was actually Weston working a long cover operation as the cop lol
Interesting point. I didn't know the word copagandistic so I'm defining it for any others in need.
(From Wikipedia)
Copaganda, a portmanteau of cop and propaganda, is a phenomenon described by critics of law enforcement in which news media and other social institutions promote celebratory portrayals of police officers with the intent of swaying public opinion for the benefit of police departments and law enforcement
To be honest, I always thought Law & Order played fast and loose with realism. It's funny and interesting to watch a real lawyer dissect it, but seeing how many people are bemoaning the new series for its irrealism is... weird to see.
It's good to see Jeffrey Donovan in a relatively leading role again. Everyone will always know him as "the Burn Notice guy" though xD "My name is Michael Westin. I used to be a spy, until..."
@@prometheus56 The thing about this particular episode is it's subtle and probably thinks it's doing the opposite by portraying a cop who other cops think is wrong for getting rough with suspects and being suspicious of being accused of racial profiling lying to a suspect and getting a confession as bad. But the thing is, by portraying the prosecutors as incredibly concerned by this in a way no real life prosecutors really would, since it was in fact legal, it creates the false impression that prosecutors in real life will go out of their way to ensure a defendant isn't tricked into giving a confession, whether real or false, to a degree that they almost never really would.
She was not detained so no Miranda warning is needed. Cops lie there is old RUclips video floating around where both a defense attorney and a police officer agree that when talking to the cops a lawyer is a good idea
There were some episodes where suspects had lawyers. I remember one episode that took the detectives to Los Angeles to interrogate a movie director. The interview took place in the studio's conference room, the director was flanked by a half a dozen people, from his lawyer to the studio's lawyer to his talent agency manager to the PR person.
Every question directed at the director was answered by somebody else, verbal statements were replaced by written statements that were handed over, and when the detectives ended the interview, the director hadn't actually said a word.
Was actually refreshing to watch.
Most of the original episodes had lawyers present during interrogations, but quality does tend to go down after twenty seasons. I remember that episode, was part of a three part story, Season 7, episodes 15-17. Classic Law and Order was great man, not this trash.
I remember the episode you’re talking about. It was the L.A. 3 parter
Law and Order just really hasn't been the same since Jerry Orbach passed. He was a huge part of the heart of the show.
I’m not over him either. 😢
Brisco, and Green was my favorite partnership in the show.
Totally agree
@@TChalla616 ya. Orbach just had the perfect way of setting up every scene so that everyone else around him could totally shine. He gave Jesse Martin a chance to really grow and show all he could do as an actor while on the show. The combination of McCoy, Briscoe, and Van Buren was the bed rock of what made the show a true tent pole.
Agree!
I watched many episodes of Law & Order, Law & Order SVU, etc., and I generally dislike the idea that people can just volunteer information without a lawyer present due to the fact that we’re largely told to respect police officers i.e. the mantra, “If you didn’t do anything wrong, then you have anything to worry about.”
So the pressure is on-right there then. And if you’re not too sure about your rights; you’re on the hook for anything you say and they can decide to mess up your life.
Our rights aren’t properly explained to us from a young age other than the 1st Amendment.
Law & Order is obviously for entertainment purposes and the interrogations during stops, busts, and interviews are needed to drive the plot forward, but I believe it affected people’s real life views on police. And I wish someone would’ve explained to me when I was younger that police officer’s could legally intimidate, coerce, and ask incriminating questions and they aren’t actually legally obligated to discuss what they stop us for.
Enjoyed the show but hated the way it presented police work considering they would straight up harass people and violate their rights. But I guess that was the most accurate representation of police.m
Bold of you to claim our first amendment rights are properly explained
Law & Order is not just for entertainment purposes. It exists to reinforce a narrative that serves the interests of the police and harms the general public.
@@jewishautisticnerd3874, you’re right. [p]roperly explained is the incorrect wording considering people have been using it to just say whatever they wanted on whatever platform and expect no reaction. I should say it’s by far the most talked about and misunderstood/misused amendment in recent memory.
I think whatever class police officers take in the academy that teaches them what laws to enforce, should be taught in every high school to the average citizen so they know their rights, and what laws not to break.
Gotta love the premise of this episode: Let's take on a messy situation and get it so wrong that everyone will be mad at us.
It's the Gamergate episode all over again.
*THERE WAS A GAMERGATE EPISODE?*
@@Delightfully_Bitchy It's Law and Order; they have an episode on every major public scandal! Preferably so heavily watered down that it basically drowns in its own nonsense
@@Delightfully_Bitchy SVU handled that one. And that statement alone should tell you all you need to know.
Outrage gets ratings. (Or engagement if online)
What I find interesting is that it seems like early on, L&O was actually a show that sort of made its bones on actually making an effort to represent reality (obviously some artistic license was still present, but they paid far more mind to "okay, how does this stuff work in real life" than pretty much any other show ever did). If you know what to look for, it's *very* apparent in the early years and is still noticeably present through about Season 8 or 9. But then they just started to let that fall by the wayside more and more, and by about Season 15 it felt like most of that was out the window completely (except when they needed it as a plot complication, naturally). It's unfortunate because I found the comparatively-accurate version far more interesting than the "make it up as we go along" style they adopted later.
Not everyone knows when to lawyer up. Last Week Tonight did an episode recently on interrogations and how police abuse their power to lie in order to manipulate and bring false confessions out of people. Would be interesting to see your perspective on it.
Not all confessions are false?
@@xXevilsmilesXx No but a disproportionate amount of them have been shown to be false, and the fact that police are forcing false confessions to begin with is a problem.
@@joelcastro-reyes1667 define 'disproportionate' in this context.
@@xXevilsmilesXx I would point you to Last Week Tonight's episode on Police Interrogations for context
@@joelcastro-reyes1667 do tell.
I think what they were going for with the whole confession from lying thing was how sometimes a detective will get someone in a room for like 8 hours and just berate them with questions like "why did you do it?" until the person finally goes "Fine it was me what ever" and confesses to a crime they didn't commit. That being said, they went about it the completely wrong way.
If you admit it, you'll get your life back... That's not what happens when you admit you did a crime.
Also, John Oliver just did a piece on this. (interrogations)
One of my mom's favorite stories of me when I was a little kid was that I would *not* go to bed until the Law & Order theme was finished, and this was in the early 90s when the theme song was *really long.*
I absolutely *had* to wait for that finishing "Bow bow boooow" at the end of the theme. :P
The first thing my dad ever told me about the police is “only say 4 words: I WANT A LAWYER”
You should say "Give me a lawyer"
Some police might just make an argument of "Well, he's just saying he wants a lawyer and not asking to give him one"
Cant hurt to be very precise and not leaving any room for maneuvers
I was rewatching CSI:Miami the other day and they solve entire murder cases in a single day. DNA tests, talking to multiple witnesses, the CSI team running prints, finding insane details that somehow break open the case, doing full autopsies, etc, all in a day.
The US constitution does allow the police to lie to you in order to obtain a confession, despite the possibility of that increasing the chances of a false confession. It, however, also protects from this by giving you the right to an attorney whenever you talk to the police. Even a public defender will tell you the police are lying and you shouldn't confess anything.
That’s why LE was pretty much screaming “why are you talking to the police without a lawyer!?” the first half of the video.
Yep!
Perhaps the biggest inconsistency with this series is the fact that Jeffrey Donovan (Cosgrove) was plead guilty of murder for burning someone to death (as Jacob Reese)
To be fair, psychological and deception research could point to the possibility of a false confession to question reliability though with the mass of supporting evidence it seems like a pretty strong case for the prosecution.
Asking a rape victim if she would like to confess to the murder of her rapist, with the lie that she won't be prosecuted for it, is just asking for a false confession. Obviously how they set up this scenario, the physical evidence supported the confession, but just the confession alone was weak and should not be relied upon. That just goes to Devin's point though.
HAVE A LAWYER IF YOU ARE TALKING TO THE POLICE.
Even a public defender would of been able to let her know they were lying and not to confess anything.
In my opinion, confessions shouldn’t be allowed. If the person genuinely wants to confess, they should be able to provide incriminating evidence which would then be used to secure the conviction. I.e., showing them where the body is or handing over the weapon used
Iow, you can’t confess, but you can elect to help with the investigation
That would be a nice way to go about. False confession are a major systemic problem. We gave them a good deal of focus in my undergraduate courses on Social Psychology and the Law and Lying and Deception, and now I'm going to grad school to study cognitive psychology with a focus on its intersection with the legal system. This has been on my mind recently. I think implementing that kind of reform would be super hard because most people don't realize how big a problem false confession are, but it's a neat idea.
Here's a burning legal question I have: Say I am arrested, detained, or otherwise brought in for questioning by the police. How do I *get* a lawyer? The Miranda rights say one will be provided to me if I can't afford one, but when? I've seen videos commentating on interrogations where usually the perp is too dumb to ever ask, but even when they *do* ask for a lawyer, they get strung along and manipulated into thinking they'll look more innocent if they defend themselves solo. Obviously this is always the wrong move, but what if the cops just make me wait around all day and don't call the lawyer if I don't talk?
you said nothing, then they get nothing. and without any evidence you will be released inside of a few days. if you have already been indicated by other evidence that you are a suspect, you could be detained for longer.
I believe the way it works is, if you ask for a lawyer, then they have to immediately stop asking you questions, and get you a lawyer. Any further interrogation is a violation of your civil liberties, and would result in any information that they obtain after you asking for an attorney being thrown out in court.
Just keep asking for one. They will likely keep trying to ask you questions regardless, just continue asking for the lawyer and do not answer the questions. Be adamant, remind them that if they don't get you a lawyer they're violating your right to attorney.
They will stop talking to you(mostly), but will hold you as absolutely long as possible, up to and including charging and arresting you if possible
@@TChalla616 One would think, but in one of the few interrogations I watched, the suspect did ask for a lawyer early on and the cop kept saying "come on, why do you need a lawyer if you didn't do anything? While you're sitting here not cooperating, your missing wife (who they know is dead) could be getting further and further from being found. We just need you to help us understand what's going on." I remember one of them was an actual cop who had murdered someone, and he wouldn't talk until they easily honey-potted him with a gentler, female agent.
We have the gift of hindsight in these criminal interrogation videos of knowing the suspect is guilty before we start watching, but it's terrifying and disgusting to imagine the cops treating innocent people the same way and just doing everything they can to convince them to not exercise their rights. Heck, even watching known murderers get this treatment makes me uncomfortable, for the implication of this being how the police work.
I wanna see Legal Eagle cover the episode of Community episode 316 Basic Lupine Urology, which is not only an excellent episode of Community, but also an excellent episode of Law and Order. Instead of a brief L&O joke or cameo, they have the entire epsiode as a Law and Order tribute episode.
For arguments sake, I know a cop can lie during an interrogation, but if he guaranteed the person “immunity” or said they wouldn’t be prosecuted, wouldn’t that be coercion or “promising something”?
Guaranteed how? Pinky-sweared? Part of the lie is that the police doesn’t even have the authority to give such immunity.
Except Cosgrove didn't say he would guarantee immunity or that she wouldn't be prosecuted. He said they would help her & she could move on with her life. That statement DOES NOT categorically mean you are guaranteed no prosecution & have immunity. From his p.o.v. he could've meant "help you go to prison" & "move on with your life as you go to prison."
We need "The Lincoln Lawyer Gets Lawyered" next please. I've always loved the books.
Yes! I just watched. Good drama, prob bad law.
@@citylemon7832 I just finished the show too, and actually, the law was pretty accurate! (I'm a 3rd year law student). The author of the books was a crime reporter before becoming a novelist, so he knows a lot about how the system works.
Your consistency and quality of content never disappoints! ❤
Idk why but I'm very glad that Jeffery Donovan is known as the Burn Notice guy by the Legal Eagle.
As opposed to the asshole guy in Hitch.
One thing about the show I've noticed is that this is the show that inspired future lawyers and future detectives. Although most episodes I've seen of law and order have the mostly demonetized certain individuals so apparently the show isn't afraid of doing that. Like in all the episodes I've watched it's always been based off of events that happened in real life. Huh? I may not be a lawyer. I didn't even know a district attorney would need a lawyer present despite being a lawyer themselves? From understanding it's just a show and from what you're saying about many and your rights these suspects who likely could have been responsible for killing this guy that's based off Bill Cosby never even had lawyers present yeah that's kind of messed up apparently they're just making themselves more guilty by the second
you have 2 watch the older episodes of law and order from the 90s. That was when the show was realistic
My friend sat in pre-trial detention for 6 months before even getting to go before the judge and plead not guilty. Then 2 more years in pre-trial detention until the trial, where he was acquitted as the video evidence proved it wasn't him.
His life ruined from being locked up for 2.5 years, and no recompense as this was considered a speedy trial
In fiction, being innocent and unjustly accused somehow speedruns you through your trial.
Arrested at 9am, in court by noon, found guilty by 3pm and on the electric chair at midnight.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed ..."
The authors of the sixth ammendment are looking down upon us, in horror.
in the US? :O I'm so sorry!!
There was a serious and egregious lack of handheld shakeycam in this reboot. I can't trust a Law and Order episode that looks like it cost more than 15 bucks to make.
Enjoyed the comments on the DNA testing process. I work in the field, and have designed/developed numerous forensic DNA kits at a biotech company for use in forensic labs, and I'm always amused at how they present the forensic DNA process... Apparently, it's an off screen black box that got them data during the commercial break.
What?! You can't fast forward science? It takes an uncontaminated sample for accurate results? Geez, next you'll claim there's no way to tell exactly how many hrs/days a sample was left behind. How can we magic the answers using science if you keep using scientific facts?
And that's why I like Bones more.
That IS something I miss about the older episodes…especially of SVU - they’d frequently say “the dna isn’t back yet”. You know, completely realistic turnaround times? I miss those…
Definitely a staple product. I have probably seen most of, if not all, of the original episodes. Many of which, with my very missed grandmother. She always mentioned what a good singer Jerry Orbach was.
13:30 - Well, it IS constitutional, but also it IS less reliable, because it causes a TON of false confessions. I don't know if lawyers would/should give a damn about that, but it is an important fact nonetheless.
That's why Police need to be very careful when lying to a suspect. Also why Anthony Anderson's character was raising his eyebrow.
There was another Law & Order episode where the interrogation did result in a false confession.
Depends on if the prosecutor thinks it would make the case too weak to succeed. Prosecutors are there to win, they rarely care about innocence
This is exactly why, in some other countries, police are not allowed to lie to suspects.
The Golden Age of "Law & Order" were the Lenny years. Lenny Briscoe was so entertaining that he singlehandedly carried the show for a decade. When Jerry Orbach died the show lost its heart. Sure, after stumbling for a few seasons (wasn't a fan of Fontana and REALLY didn't like the girl that replaced him) Bernard and Lupo made a pretty decent detective duo, and I'm glad Bernard is still on the show now now. This season is... okay. Solid acting as usual, but the plots... "Law and Order" has always been a time capsule of issues that plagued the day ("Ripped from the Headlines.") but this season seems VERY much a product of its era, even more so than its spawn "SVU." Seems every episode is tackling hot-button issues of our time and it does make me kind of miss the days where the killer killed the victim because the victim owed him money, or slept with his wife, or some other petty motive.
I agree with you 100%. I miss Jerry Orbach. I have four or five channels airing Law & Order every day, and his were the best seasons. I'm not watching the new season, or the other two L&O shows on Thursday night; recent seasons of SVU are more about the drama of the cops' lives than solving cases, and that wasn't what drew me to the show originally. And the new one with Meloni? Not even interested.
@@beckymurphy4714 "Organized Crime" is a very different show than all the other Law and Orders. It's serialized instead of episodic, and the last season had three story arcs. I think it's better than the new season of "L&O," but I am annoyed how the show REALLY hypes up a potential romance between Stabler and Benson. And since (spoilers) Barba at the end of the last season of SVU revealed that he was in love with Liv, that romance just became a love triangle... or rectangle, since Liv's first love came back and she has unresolved feelings for him.
Law & Order doesn't need explicit romances. It was hinted that McCoy slept with his first on-screen assistant, but they never really showed any personal affection toward each other on screen. That is SUPPOSED to be how it's done.
@@vampman87 more than hinted, it was outright stated.
It's a bummer that the writing and acting doesn't seem up to classic L&O levels, but it's just one episode. Not every episode of the first run was a winner either.
@@fluffysheap no, it's 10 episodes in and it's just not as good. The cops have no working chemistry, they're partners yet every episode it seems like they just met. The DA is...soppy, that assistant is just not a great actress. Where's Rubirossa? Is McCoy the ONLY DA that ever actually moved up in that office? I'd have loved to have seen her be the lead on the show.
Shows like this convince people that the police have good and fair motives and therefore if they interview you, you should speak with them honestly to help them solve crimes. But then actually they're allowed to lie to your face to get you convicted, even if you're not the correct suspect. Waving off that whole problem as "ethically, whatever" is pretty bad, I would consider this a core societal problem.
Agreed!
It’s totally a problem. It’s evident.
It is so fascinating and compelling to see an informed and astute attorney compare judicial, investigate and prosecutorial reality with the grossly under researched writing of TV dramas. These videos are so interesting and educational.
I worked as a civil litigation paralegal for cloae to 40 years. I knew and admired two criminal defense attorneys. The back of their business cards clearly said, SHUT THE F*CK UP. Loved those two attorneys for that alone.
That's actually legal advice I have both received and seen lawyers give out to others in legal matters - STFU. If you feel like talking - STFU. If you feel like making a phone call - STFU. In general STFU about your case to everyone except your lawyer. Advice I now give out when people ask me for any help with issues. . . . . "STFU and get a good Lawyer".
Reminds me of a youtuber, Bruce Rivers. He’s a criminal lawyer and his motto is ”Stop self-sniching!” 😂
liar.
@@Doomsblues Nope.
8 minutes in to the video and I'm worried about his health everytime he says: "Why are you talking to the police without a lawyer present!?" 🤣 I also loved "Law & Order" and I didn't know it was back!
it's the equivalent of Dr. Mike's chest compressions.
I didn't know it was back either, but this episode doesn't exactly present the best case for watching. I don't know if I was just really young so the show was better or if I just love shlocky law stuff and can overlook the ridiculousness.
All I know is I love Sam Waterston
Thanks Legal Eagle! Now I don't even talk to my dad (a Police Officer) without my lawyer present.
There was an episode of either Boston Legal or The Practice (i forget which) in which James Spader's character said something like "... morals and legal ethics are often mutually exclusive..." and you saying "... morally, whatever..." drove that point home harder than I could have imagined. I love it!