Manipulative Conman Murders Mother and 6-Year-Old Daughter | Law & Order
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 дек 2023
- After footage is found of Morriston dragging the victims into the backroom of the jewelry shop, he is arrested and decides to represent himself in court; a decision that may cost him.
Season 11, Episode 9 'Hubris': Three adults and a young child are found brutally murdered in the backroom of a jewelry store. The victims are the owners, Adam and Corinne Bennett, as well as jewelry designer Gail Churchill and her daughter Ellie.
Law & Order is streaming now on Peacock: pck.tv/46lNAcm
Subscribe: / @lawandordernbc
Show Synopsis: In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories. From Emmy-winning creator Dick Wolf, with its groundbreaking "ripped-from-the-headlines" format, comes the highly-acclaimed, longest-running crime series in television history.
#LawAndOrder #PeacockTV
Channel description:
Welcome to the official RUclips channel for Law & Order. Watch all of the official clips from the series, some of the best moments from within the criminal justice system, where the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.
Google Play & iTunes links
About Peacock: The streaming service from NBCUniversal that’s as free as a bird. Current hits. Timeless classics. Timely updates. Stream Now With Peacock, stream current hits, hundreds of movies, thousands of episodes of TV shows, and exclusive Originals - plus timely news, live sports, WWE, and daily pop culture. Peacock’s got all your faves, including Parks & Rec, Yellowstone, Modern Family, and every episode of The Office.
Get More Peacock:
► Follow Peacock on TikTok: / peacocktv
► Follow Peacock on Instagram: / peacocktv
► Like Peacock on Facebook: / peacocktv
► Follow Peacock on Twitter: / peacocktv 
Развлечения
If I was in the jury and encountered a defendant so mild-mannered and so seemingly gentle and pure and good and who told me to listen carefully to the PROSECUTOR, then and there I would be thinking GUILTY! AS! SIN!
There is definitely such a thing as overselling it.
Thats why youre not on a jury. Your feelings are the last thing that should be a factor when CONVICTING a human being
@@TactileTherapyjuries are randomly picked, then the lawyers pick the rest. If the prosecutor thinks you may convict, for whatever reason, they will try to include you in the trial jury.
Good thing the outcome of a trial is determined by more than what a prosecutor wants@@kitb7624
@@TactileTherapyjuryarent oucked in their fitness to think objectively. They are picked on how much the lawyers think they’ll benefit and how good they guess who will vote which way.
Anyone who represents theirselves in a court of law has a fool for a client.
And in this episode, a juror, too.
And an moron for a lawyer
*themselves
Also, they have a fool for an attorney.
"And with God as my witness...I AM THAT FOOL!" - Gomez Addams
@@scottkamps1270 Sit down Cousin Itt.
If only judges could go: "I'd dismiss this as evidence... if it werent for that smug grin you just pulled. Good job, you just screwed yourself."
6:53 -- "We waited for FIFTEEN MINUTES," and she shakes her head like it was a HUGE inconvenience. This, after just having said they were half an hour late themselves, but blowing that off as if 30 minutes of keeping someone else waiting is nothing because "We're busy people."
The entitlement just oozes from her.
Ooh, shocking
So many ppl think this way
I noticed how she said FIFTEEN MINUTES about 20 seconds before arriving at this comment, haha!
And them having martinis during this visit. (Did they offer the guest a refreshment?)
Personally, if I saw a man defending himself in court, that raises some red flags to me. Didn’t Ted Bundy do that?
The villain in this episode really pissed me off, he was an unrepentant, shameless, murderous psychopath who got his comeuppance at the end of the episode.
In a way he escaped justice.
@@GreyDoofus88not for very long though, eventually one of his potential victims got the better of him when it came to killing.
By the juror who believed him enough to hang the jury. Until she didn't.
@@t-rexcellentreviews1663 Though he should've been rotting in jail for his misdeeds. Instead as a result of his unbridled arrogance, he wound up getting himself out of his own mess yet again. Clearly not in the way he intended, but he still cheated in my opinion.
Policeman: Security tapes are gone..
Lenny: Now what am I gonna watch tonight?
xDD
The amount of times the detectives break the laws throughout this series is mind boggling. I love all the smartass comments I've gotten over this, y'all are petty.
I'm sure that they were "dancing on the head of a pin", so to speak. That probably happens quite frequently in serious criminal cases. 🤔
It happened more as the series went on. I think it was a new way to bring complications into the series, because the more 'standard' problems had already been used.
The toothpick was actually legal. If there is reasonable belief that someone will destroy evidence its covered under exigent circumstances. Not saying i agree with it, but it's still the truth.
@@MisterJinKC I'll have to look into that.
Just wait until you see the actions of Officer Voight
It doesn't take much to see the Ron Wolf sense of humor in this episode.
This episode aired in 2001. The defense attorney was played by Kier Dullea..who also portrayed astronaut Dave Bowman in the film 2001 a Space Odyssey. And the actor playing the defendant was doing a flawless impression of HAL, the psycho computer in 2001 A Space Odyssey
Good call! The total lack of human affect that makes him seem so robotic. It's a great piece of acting (director: "you're a psychopath, divorced from normal expressions of emotion, keep your dialogue monotone, your face blank") that makes him so chilling. And those hypnotic, super-human eyes! You have to read them so closely!👍🏻
Keir Dullea, YES! Thanks! I thought I knew the guy.
Im sorry @marcdoherty6039, I cant do that
The judge shouldn’t have thrown out the tapes. The cops are allowed to prevent someone from going into a property while they wait for a search warrant.
Quite wrong, police are NOT allowed to do that, which is exactly why the evidence was tossed..
There was a real life case where the judge suppressed a lot of evidence from the Jury and the killer was given a lighter sentence. Look up the trial of Dominique Dunne’s case. She was a young actress that was killed by her boyfriend. She is best remembered as the older sister from Poltergeist.
wait what?@@garcia207
@@garcia207he’s so trashy and then he had the nerve to say the jury should have convicted him of murder after he suppressed evidence!!!
@@ccvv1119 especially when the Judge had the jury removed to hear the testimony from what I believe was the Defendant’s former girlfriend. She had testified similar abuse and Dominique’s killer had made a mad dash to escape the courtroom. He was actually tackled by the bailiffs. The judge ordered that the witness could not testify before the jury. After the verdict the jury was told about the other witness and they said if they were aware of what had happened, they would have given him a harsher sentence. So sad.
So...
Could we blame the building manager for having a toothpick, which gave the detective ideas?
And if Stabler were there, how would it have gone differently?
😂
I started giggling uncontrollably at work yesterday and when my bestie asked wtf was so funny, I had to explain…unprovoked, for no reason, my brain tried to imagine Lenny Briscoe (trenchcoat and all) singing, “Flabby, fat and lazy, you walked in and upsie-daisy!” 😂
RIP Jerry Orbach.
Anyone else hear a snake hissing when Morriston talks? I sure do.
For the record, police have every right to prevent a suspect from entering a premises while waiting on a search warrant. The warrant is required to SEARCH, not to protect possible evidence.
And regardless of whether the evidence was suppressed or not, no one is allowed to lie on the stand.
This is completely false.
@@kingschesthafl1702en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._McArthur
You're welcome.
@@kingschesthafl1702Show me proof
Do you understand the meaning of “search AND seizure”?
It is illegal to hold a person in police custody without probable cause, and you most certainly cannot hold them because you think you are about to find probable cause later.
@bofoshow5189 If the police are waiting for a search warrant to arrive, then they've already presented probable cause and gotten a judge to sign off on it. And preventing possible evidence tampering isn't searching or seizing.
And the defendant wasn't under arrest and therefore wasn't in police custody.
Keep the original Law & Order clips coming.
Keep all original seasons of law and order on Peacock. Come on Peacock!
The first 5 seasons with original cast member, Chris North, are my favorites!
Classic Law & Order. A great episode.
one of my favorites in the series.
Do the police need better training even in the movies? In most states, you can prevent someone from entering a building as you wait for a search warrant. Even if they can't in NYC the judge is unlikely to throw the evidence because they did not enter the apartment before they have they got the search warrant. They just block him from entering. The constitutional warranty is not a protection for the "right to destroy evidence", but for unlawful searches: again they did not enter before the warrant arrived. It's nonsense.
The issue was that they acted on the warrant before they obtained it by taking the landlords toothpick and unlocking the property
@@nataliehill1472The toothpick wasn't used to unlock the property though, it was used to prevent the defendant from being able to unlock it himself which is why they then asked for tweezers to remove the toothpick so that the door could be unlocked once they had the warrant in hand.
@@nataliehill1472 Acting on the warrant would be entering and searching, not preventing the suspect from entering the premises.
@@nataliehill1472 Could be argues that they had a valid warrant already but it was not there to be presented. If the warrant showed up at the apartment a few minutes after the suspect it means it was probably signed 30 minutes prior.
Was the constitutional warranty in the 4th ever tested in the courts? It could be that the episode was made before that case was finalised
An actual Law and Order clip! Like water in the desert!
Oh well, see you in another month😂
yeah i only really like original Law and Order, never cared for SVU
8:43 Funny what McCoy says there as I immediately thought of the Darrell Brooks case and how he attempted to do that very thing but the Judge and Prosecutor did an amazing job to make sure that didn't happen
I miss Lennie 😭😭
Dave Bowman made a special appearance, transforming from Star Child to Keir Dullea, to deliver this terrific performance as defense counsel.
What a creep. That juror also.
That juror ultimately decided the case - Morriston started dating her during the trial, and, as the chairperson, she was able to convince enough of the jury to cause a deadlock, only to get dumped the moment the trial was over.
Morriston then broke into her house to kill her, but she was able to kill him in self-defense.
@@draco84ozThanks for that summary! I was looking for a part two on this
@@draco84ozultimately justice was served, do you think he always planned to kill her to cover up lose ends or only did so when he realised she was talking to District Attorneys Office.
@@t-rexcellentreviews1663probably planned to kill her the whole time. Clearly he put little value in any life that wasn't his own. Not to mention he knew that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, dumping her after using her like that would make her determined to confess being compromised.
@@draco84ozWhich is illegal and they could've retrailed him easily
This was a great episode.
That poor baby girl 😭😭😭😭
She was an innocent child. What monster would do something pure evil?
@@Disneyfan82 I still don't understand what he had to gain by killing the little girl. Must have been a psychopath as well as a con man.
(SPOILER ALERT) If it's any consolation, he gets his by the end of the episode when the juror he romanced into getting him an acquittal kills him in self-defense.
@@BethHarmon-yh8ms Yet he escaped doing time for the murders.
@@GreyDoofus88 Karma caught up with him though.
@@BethHarmon-yh8ms It did indeed. But given that it was his own arrogance which cost him his life, who is left to answer for his crimes?
I really wish their clips would show the major points and ending like they used to...
Ohhh this episode. This guy utterly creeped me out. I can hear his voice - without even watching the video.
No offence to anyone but people who talk like, that sort of mild mannered, eerily emotionless tone of voice that never seems to change its register no matter what, is just unnerving to me.
does Tim Guinee often play these soft spoken characters? His Tomin in Stargate SG1 started off like that.
In this, Guinee doesn't look or sound like the murderer of 4 people. It's a departure from other roles he's played, where he's been cast as very decent, gentle, plain spoken, stoic types like in the film "Sweetland" (his character wasn't very talkative but he had that gentle and decent quality) and in this Chris Carter (X Files) sci fi TV series called "Strange World" (might still be up on RUclips).
However, I also saw him in this 90s British TV mini-series called "Comics" on RUclips a while ago. He plays a very different kind of character, this foul-mouthed, angry, hard-living stand-up comic. Bit of a strange series... I'm surprised it even got made for TV.
Curious, can a search warrant be delivered electronically? Do the cops have to present the warrant on paper?
Yes it has to be paper, as silly as it is.
In 2001 (this episode) they needed it hand delivered. Nowadays in many states, once the warrant has been issued it can be sent electronically to any officer involved in the search.
However, you need a hard copy to attach to the inventory of property seized. Many patrol cars have a printer connected to their MDC (mobile data computer, looks like a laptop).
All well and good, but it has to be signed by a judge first. That's the hard part...
The first time I watched this episode, that guy gave me the creeps from the get-go. And I CAN'T stand his voice
Just one word 😲
I thought the guy looked familiar. Saw him in an episode of NCIS where he was a hitman for a bunch of corrupt corporation guys. Had the cover that he was a pastor at their local church and a wife and 2 sons. That had to he an awkward conversation to tell them your husband was a monster that was a murderer for hire
Wish the full series was on peacock
The difference between legal, technical innocence and moral Innocence.
It is the machinations of the law that was designed to protect the innocent that are used by the well-read (most especially politicians) to wiggle out of justice.
This is exactly what breeds vigilantes.
Why did the video had to end before we got to hear the jury's verdict.
It was hung jury so he was set free but then he attempts to kill the jury woman, at 11:42, and she kills him in self defence
@@MikeMJPMUNCH Unbelievable, he was able to smooth talk some of the jury members into believing him and him laying eyes on his next victim in one day. That's just heinous.
@@oddeyesrebellion923I think it was more of case of he realised she was going to talk to the District Attorneys Office after they broke up, which would potentially mean a new trial, so he decided that she need to die to cover any loose ends, but ultimately, he caught at a bad time, when she was doing her dishes and she managed to grab a knife and turn the tables on him.
It was one of those episodes where I think the writers wanted to make us angry just to prove they could.
Hold on, is that . . . . . Keir Dullea? from 2001 A Space Odyssey? Haven't seen him in a long while!
it really shouldnt matter if the evidence was obtained 'illegally'. if its legit evidence it should ALWAYS be admissible.
They should have both,the eletronic copy and a paper copy for backup.that might help.
I honestly don't understand why some people choose to represent themselves during a court case.
The funny thing is they didnt need to secure the apartment since they could detain the guy on suspicion of destroying evidence. They couldnt arrest him, but they could detain him for up to 45 minutes as long as they kept him busy.
Oh my he wait 15 minutes it was hell oh the pain
“Hubris” - easily one of the Top 2 episodes of Season 11. Marsden had the jury foreperson looking like the lady the Merovingian gave the cake to in Matrix Reloaded. Jeez lady, try to make it less obvious 😂.
Captain joe west before he joined star city pd lol
I thought Joe Pera was taller ...
I'd immediately know he's guilty as soon as he started talking.
That's why you are going to get jury duty...
I don't know you. But if I was a part of a popular jury, and the accused got up to begin his defense instead of his lawyer, that would inmediately make me think: "Ok. There is something sketchy about this guy."
Excuse me for asking, but what is a "popular jury"?
I have never heard that phrase before.
And, that is why you would be disqualified as a juror....
There is absolutely nothing "sketchy" about someone representing themselves. You have a right to do so.
The heck is popular jury...?
Also this is why you will never be on jury duty...
If the tapes were admitted as evidence, would the judge allow them to taint his objectivity then?
The point of the tapes is objectivity. Who writes this stuff?
If the tapes WERE allowed in, they would, as you say, "be" the objectivity; they wouldn't "taint" the objectivity, in that circumstance...
Who writes your stuff?
Angie!!
The episode is called “Hubris”
That guy was creepy AF
Especially in court if he is acting as an attorney he needs to speak up sheesh
Sam Waterson- god
Episode?
I never liked that judge
Why thought...? Just curious...
hallowed be the ori.
I just started watching Law and Order.. what is the name of the actor with Lennie when they investigate the murder at the jewelry shop?? Ive seen him before
Detective Ed Green was played by actor Jesse L. Martin.
Gawd I hate that stupid, soft voice of that creep. I know… it’s just a tv show.
What was the verdict?
The conman managed to seduce and start dating the forewoman of the Jury and get her to influence the rest to acquit him. However, after he broke up with her the day after the trial ended, she came forth to testify against. Before the day they would testify to the judge, however, the conman broke into her home in the night and tried to kill her to prevent her from talking, causing her to kill him in self-defence.
A mistrial was declared because Morriston had enamoured the jury forewoman.
Not guilty because he seduced one of the jurors but the juror ends up going to the DA and confesses about it. Then the bad guy ends up dying because he tried to strangle the juror he seduced from behind and got stabbed by her because she had a knife or scissors.
Urgh. Arsehole!
@@FTFCHRIS well at least the fucker got what was coming to him.
Why did he kill his wife and daughter?
It wasn't his wife and daughter, the woman was his girlfriend Gail and she found out the necklace he gave her was registered to his ex-girlfriend who had disappeared in mysterious circumstances. So he was trying cover his tracks for previous crime as he was a con man with a police record.
Someone PLEASE tell me if he got sentenced
No he charmed one juror but later he wanted to kill her and she killed him in self defense
what episode is this/
Stop lying theses seasons are not available on peacock
The cops were standing there. He could not have destroyed anything before the warrant got there.
If he had gone into the apartment, and they could not (until the warrant came), he could have burned the tapes.
I’ve rarely ever heard of motions to suppress actually working in this show. Otherwise I’ve never seen a judge approve them.
It often used sometimes it works sametimes it doesn't in law and order episodes it is often used
I hate the whole evidence suppression thing. I thinks it’s absolutely ridiculous that evidence can be suppressed, if you don’t want the evidence that shows your guilty to be used then don’t do the crime. It’s shouldn’t matter how evidence is gotten, evidence is evidence
It's meant to disincentivise the Police from committing crimes. In this situation it looks ok, but what if they just broke into an apartment and then tried to justify it after the fact?
It’s there to stop the police from planting evidence. For example, the police could have found the tapes in the shop, brought them over to his apartment, then planted them there to ‘discover’. The reason these laws are in place is because cops have done stuff like that in the past. Trump whines about all the rules businesses have to follow, but they are there to stop companies from hurting people as they did in the past. We have the Food & Drug act because companies used to put foreign matter and even poisons in food, until they began to be regulated by the government in the early 1900s.
@@ianknight5120 Not just that, but also Police will plant evidence without having a warrant and this is to prevent it thought it doesn't really work out because now they just plant it WHILE searching with or even without a warrant.
@@MrMonkey2150 its slippery slope time!
The 4th amendment gives you the right not to have the cops enter your property, or search your property, unless they have a warrant. The issue is, if they violate your rights, what recourse do you have.
The rule in the US is the exclusionary rule: evidence gathered in violation of the defendant's rights is excluded.
Many disagreed with that rule. Benjamin Cardozo, one of the most brilliant jurists in American history, pithily summed up the objection: "the criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered."
The other side of the debate is, without the exclusionary rule, the police would just ignore the 4th Amendment, and break into your house at will.
(The exclusionary rule has many details and exceptions. For one thing, only the owner of the property can object. If the cops break into a house owned by A, and find evidence that implicates B, B has no standing to complain, and the evidence will come in. That one has been on several Law and Order episodes.)
The police had every right to search morriston's apartment because they were waiting on a search warrant. Still though no evidence was tainted after the search was conducted.
WOOHOO
Would be nice if we could actually pay to watch this episode
😂😂😂
You can! Law and Order site!
@@lenitaa7938 I only see seasons 21 and 22 there.
And I can't even watch the Season 22 videos! It says it's no longer available!@@lenitaa7938
I know the defendant wasn't a serial killer, but he gave off Ted Bundy vibes.
most likely modelled on him. and, yes, he clearly was a serial killer
Does the verdict have to be unanimous? Because in those last few seconds he seems to have honed in on one susceptible juror to appeal to emotionally. If he can get her to say, "Not guilty," does he get off?
Yes. Conviction or acquittal requires a unanimous verdict.
@@feverspell Thank you, feverspell. I wasn't sure.
I hate that I can't download law and order. I have a mental illness that makes me unable to leave the house so I have to rely on download (besides, I don't think copies are available in my country anyway).
My doctor told me it wud help if I owned it and got a sense of justice. I'm trying to becoz guess what? The man who assaulted me didn't just get away with it, I was punished instead of him.
Don't u just love Africa?! I used to.
What was the outcome?
The jury foreman the blonde at 11:43 forced a mistrial because the defendant flirted with her outside the courtroom and convinced her that he was innocent but afterward he dumped her. She tells the DA they go to arrest him but he’s already dead cause she killed him
He flirted with a juror and she kept voting not guilty so they declared a mistrial. He broke up with her 2 days after the trial ended so she realised her mistake, so they were supposed to retry and jury tampering. It ended with the juror killing him in self-defence because he confronted her at her house and tries to strangle her with a wire.
@tagz12345 Ok. I have seen that one when it first came out and I watched it on TV. Thanks
I wonder if real life cops,in some cases break the laws like they do here?
All the time.
What was the final outcome
He flirts with Jury foreperson to get mistrial. He then dumps her and she comes to her senses and blows whistle. Meanwhile he snucks into her apartment to kill her to tie up loose ends. She stabs him with pair of shears killing him in the process.
@@vadapallichaitu8799 Thanks for the update
@vad 7:44 apallichaitu8799 thanks for the reply.I am new to this show.
She did right stabbing him,I guess it was self defense, to stop him from harming others.
@@vadapallichaitu8799Perfect ending!
Was he based of Ted bundy or something.
Yeah this episode was based on Ted Bundy and The Gillian Guess case
Spoilers please
@@dewlewdrop3375 Long one please
Mistrial but he was killed by a member of the jury when she went to the DA
👑👑🔥🔥👏🏾👏🏾🖤🖤💜💜🧡🧡❤❤✌🏾✌🏾
.
I’m on the defense attorney and judge’s side here, those tapes *had* to be suppressed. Fruit of the poisonous tree.
Face book bobby g his think said I love you so much are my boyfriend's mean two lol better about if I am going sing my cell phone. Muse when together date with take and soda we going wendy chicken sandwich fresh fill cola coke chocolates pie lager drink
???????
This fiction is designed fantastic escapism for the purposes of selling the audience's attention to advertisers
Nothing more
Don't forget to renew your MENSA membership