Law & Order - A Trial With A Twist
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- When some new evidence is discovered the trial takes a turn.
Stream Law & Order on Peacock: pck.tv/46lNAcm
From Season 2, Episode 5 ‘Misconception’, An apparent attack on a pregnant woman who then miscarried is part of a blackmail scheme against her boss.
Watch Law & Order on Google Play: bit.ly/2IbIu71
Watch Law & Order on iTunes apple.co/2Ia46QZ
Subscribe: / @lawandordernbc
This is 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.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
"Nobody got hurt!" Oh, for goodness sake, that has to win the award for the most ludicrous, stupid statement ever.
"Nobody got hurt!"
Bruh you damaged your own uterus so much that you can longer have children.
@@horselover7744 Which is horrifying, but the result being she can't have any more kids means she wouldn't be able to repeat this again, or get mad and harm or kill a child after birth.
@@oceanelf2512 No sympathy.
well in their eyes, which is crazy, the baby wasnt a person yet.
"They're guilty of the crime that was in their hearts all along." Game, set, match, case Defense
Wait do they killed.their own child, got her uterus irreparable all to blackmail the boss??? Is this stupidity or psychopathy?
I just call it Evil, I think that covers it.
just pure greed bro
It's both, and it adds up to evil.
they don’t have anything that works there, therefore their degrees can’t be certified
Both and karma
'The jury disbelieved their testimony. Last time I looked, that is not reviewable upon appeal'
- Executive ADA Benjamin Stone, circa 1990 A.D.
1991
@@otaviofrn_adv Thanks!
To all those who think this is some kind of political commentary for Pro-Choice/Life, I look at it more as a eye opener to responsibility for either choice. I know people can look at it and find arguments for either side but I think it's a fairly good episode and exposed just how evil some ppl could be.
Regardless of the debate on that, I think we can all agree that kicking someone until miscarriage is wrong and should be punished.
@@0Jenna7 he didn't just kick her she got pregnant in the first place so she can kill it i mean wth really!! I can understand why someone would want an abortion after finding out that they're pregnant they're many reasons but she got pregnant so she can get money and then get rid of it
I'm pro choice, everyone's circumstances are different and it takes a lot for a person to come to that decision. But I'm also pretty sure having a baby specifically with the intent of killing it is murder
premeditated infanticide
The problem in this case was that they didn't intend the baby to die. However, they did it before 24 weeks for if the baby did die It wasn't going to be murder.
Basically, if you believe they were evil enough to plot that totally out You have to find them not guilty.
However, if you don't believe their truthful and knew it beforehand, then they're guilty.
I m pro life, but me being a Christian is a small influence on my decision. Theese are 2 main reasons why I'm pro life 1. Among all aborted babies there might had a possibility of the one child who might had invented the artificial gravity, the one child that who would had invented a way to travel in space, the one who would had invented the teleportation. Those things to become a reality only needs a child to be born to have that specific genius brains that can solve these mysteries. 2. The abortion is a sla on the faces of those couples who has used hundreds thousands of dollars in fertility treatments and programs for years and still no baby for them and then they hear that some one has done the abortion so it is a painful knive in the back for those couples who are desperate for having a child. So why not give that baby who you do not want to those couples who are childless.
@@sannakarppinen4163 amongst those women who often have to drop out school to support unwanted kids is someone that could have just done that.
Forcing women to carry unwanted fetus incase they may invent a cure to cancer is bullshit and not Christian at all.
Women who accidentally get pregnant are not carriers for those who cant concieve. There are thousand of kids is the system they should adopt.
Womens body. Womens choice
@@sannakarppinen4163 amongs those those aborted could also be a Hitler number 2. It's easy to to play the game what could have been...
I just want to put it out there that these episodes were based on real cases.
Heartbreaking 😔
yes LAW AND ORDER SVU has had many shows based on true life stories. I just watched the gabriel hernandez story , a boy tortured and killed by the mothers boyfriend. I think this subject was portrayed in one of their shows...
@San Cho just because people don’t like what politicians or tv personalities get away with, it doesn’t mean it can’t be on tv. I’m sick of people thinking every show since 2017 is politically motivated.
I actually don't think pro life or pro choice are good arguments to bring up for this. The actual trial wasn't discussing that and honestly shouldn't impact their guilt in the jury. I mean I'm honestly a bit confused what they were trying to argue here I'd have to watch the whole thing.
No crime? No one was hurt..... urm the fact that she was injured causing permernant damage equates to harm let alone beating her to abort killing the foetus. They should be charged with conspiracy, gbh assault as well as attempted murder.
They are punishing the one who was already injured. She can't be put in jail for hurting herself.
I like the ending of what he said. 'Another justice never reproduced.'
It’s crazy that this is Peter Stones father
@Tommy Kavanaugh chief Dodds
Feel so bad for Peter. Man's going to go bald when the genetics bite him in the bug in that universe.
Ben Stone was the best character in L&O even better than Jack McCoy.
If what Robinette said is true, then I liked the judge's 'denied' reaction at 6:09 even more like, "I'm not touching this one."
'as a result of the kicks there was severe damage to my uterine wall, I'll never have another child' short while later 'there was no crime, nobody got hurt' but contradictory there dearie.
If she isn’t mad about damaging her own body nobody else should. People do drugs drink alcohol till their liver fails. They should go to jail for attempt murder too
@@sunnight8287 well,she allowed herself to be damaged with the purpose of holding someone else accountable for it. I mean...
@@abigailap-apid6513 who?
@@sunnight8287 her boss. It's in the description.
@@abigailap-apid6513 Then why is she convicted for attempt to murder and not blackmail?
This case was so twisted it's not funny. It really makes me think of that saying that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" although with the absurd fact that it turns it on it's head making it instead "Knowledge of the law is an excuse"...lol.
At the end Stone points out that "The Jury disbelieved their testimony, last I looked that's not reviewable upon appeal" which is true. Stone used the fact that the ex-lawyer was disbarred for perjury as a reasonable basis to not believe him.
I mean what kind of people do you know who would allow the loophole of them knowing beating a woman to cause her to lose a baby before 24 weeks wasn't a crime but after 25 was to get away with such evil?
All people following the law. It's no different than someone getting away with something at the age of 17 years when they wouldn't at the age of 18 years.
How can someone NOT knowing the law and doing something be objectively more culpable and somehow worse than them knowing the law and doing the exact same thing?
"Common law" is to LAW as farts are to hot air balloons.
Does anyone even need to convince the jury when the criminal is dangling himself/herself by the hook😂? "Nobody got hurt!"
You can’t be held criminally liable for something that isn’t a crime. Even if you think carrying garbage to the garbage can with your left hand is a crime you can’t be convicted.
Um. No duh?
You actually can be criminally liable for breaking an obscured law. That’s why juries still are relevant in trials, to have the common sense of saying something is wrong or right in court of law.
Actually you can. It's called Mens Rea. Like if you try to hire a hitman, but the person who you try to hire is an undercover agent. You are still guilty of attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder. Your intention is to do something wrong, even if you never did.
@@randomfandomfan5080 hiring a hit man IS a crime. Conspiring to commit a crime is still a crime.
@@TheFrizbaloid But you didn't actually hire a hitman, you just thought you did. Law school hypothetical: If I carry a bag of flower across the border to Mexico, convinced it's cocaine, am I guilty of a crime? The answer is yes, attempted drug trafficking. You can convict on a Mens Rea only case if you put attempt before the crime.
The one thing I didn’t understand about this episode was why the prosecutors didn’t bring up the original scheme which was to accuse the wife’s employer of assault.
That plan failed, IIRC, because the judge in that case said that it was not clear the 24-week statute was met.
If the husband knows the law and the wife knows how long she had been pregnant, than shouldn’t they have known the judge in that first case would’ve have dismissed the charges against the employer?
But they went ahead with the plan anyway. Why? They must’ve not known for sure how long the pregnancy was otherwise their original plan would’ve failed.
In surprised Stone didn’t bring this up.
The lady lawyer looks a lot like Kate McKinnon.
Good lord, you can see how old this is, just by color quality.
Criminal- We committed no crime. Nobody got hurt.
Me- Yet you killed your own baby while inside the womb
Its called Abortion
@@tereasdownes9793 Yes, but abortion means to terminate a baby, with the end result being death. Besides, the term abort medically means that you use drugs to halt, then destroy the growth of the fetus. Since no such medication was used, abortion in this case is not the best word to use.
Exactly, its murder either way
@@yobro5907 ....that's not the definition of abortion....
The definition of abortion is "the deliberate termination of a pregnancy." I don't know where the fuck you got the idea that it only meant only when pharmaceuticals were involved but you are incorrect.
@@yobro5907 in fact most abortions are preformed surgically (look up D&C) not pharmaceutically
Private Pyle did not pass the Marines in Full Metal Jacket so he became a detective in Law and Order Special Victims Unit.
I thought he shot himself in the head ...my bad
He didnt. He's on Criminal Intent. Duh.
Anyone else noticed that everytime the lawyer stood he would bottom up his suit
Because that’s what you’re supposed to do...
mr stone looks like anthony hopkins
"no one got hurt" Like wtf. someone did get hurt, the baby did
Exactly. Proof positive Amy Newhouse cared nothing for her own child. She herself got hurt when she was kicked. The ex-boss got hurt when she blackmailed him. She and Chris are disgusting.
She even got hurt herself so severely that she cannot have children.
The baby was a fetus. It couldn't live outside of the womb. Therefore it isn't murder. Disgusting that people like you exist in the 21st century.
@@TiffWaffles It's a living thing. It's not like a brick that you randomly kick, or throw. It's disgusting that people like you exist at all
@@nadjak3410 Good. She doesn't deserve to reproduce
What Actor playes the Defence Lawyer.... Ahe looks lioe Kate McKinnon but its 1990s....
How does knowing the law make you innocent, it makes no sense.
Fawn-duh-lack. That’s how Wisconsinites say Fond du lac.
Crazy how they killed this innocent precious baby
You get caught and your sorry if you hadn't been caught you wouldn't care your guilty
That last line...fucking cold
Excellent episode.
There is something profoundly strange with her nose!
Hey, it's a young and kinda hot Faith Yokas from "The Third Watch". Her partner sort of looks like Carey Elways from the Princess Bride.
Thank you. I couldn’t remember where I knew her from. I remembered cop show, but that was it.
Tough case on both sides
@San Cho Agreed
That lawyer looks like kate mckinnon
That guy looks familiar 🤔
Is that Jubal early from firefly??
Paul Hampton , I knew he looked familiar... what a great show!
How could he be disbarred when I didn’t think Wisconsin even had a bar?
Isn't that Officer Burges from Third Watch?
Yes
Acting in law and order is clearly a rite of passage into hollyweird.
I'm not a lawyer but can someone who is tell me if a person has to answer the questions they are asked or can they say they don't want to answer it
Usually yes, but their defence was that they knew the law... that's why she was required to answer.
If you don't answer you may be held in contempt but then on one episode the witness plead the fifth and the judge dismissed her.
If you're testifying then you are subject to cross examination. You cannot decide what questions you will and will not answer.
There are definite implications for the abortion debate here.
What is this episode about? I don't understand how whether they know the law would change whether they're guilty or not?
Essentially…. They didn’t want a baby and technically they preformed a back alley abortion which in itself isn’t essentially illegal however they did so with the intention of blackmailing the woman’s employer. They cited a part of the law that says if the abortion is performed before a certain amount of time it’s completely legal. The argument here is did they “really” know and understand the law or were they using it as an excuse. The act wasn’t illegal per say, but did they genuinely know what they were doing was “okay?”
It’s about the intent. A very interesting case for sure.
Whats happening here
They tried to kill there baby. Via a loop hole and failed
I would suggest you really watch the episode fully. It can't really be explained fully with just 2 or 3 sentences but really the word Evil wouldn't be far wrong.
So I see where the "Ace Attorney" series get their objections tendency from...
Those two people must be total idiots to think they did nothing wrong. They practically killed a innocent baby. I'm no lawyer but that is still murder in my eyes.
Clearly this couple are awful people but I don’t understand this clip at all.
The lawyer says if they knew the law then they aren’t guilty, *so they haven’t broken any laws*, but he’s prosecuting them anyway.
I repeat, no law has been broken.
And this court case is based on what was in their hearts - that’s idiotic. Because by this lawyer’s standards if I accidentally kill a room full of people by negligence, I should walk free because I didn’t mean to do it. 🙄
They didn't break the law in the state where this idiot studied law. But they broke the law in this state they r being tried.
@Kanika Garal thanks for your response.
However, if they did break the law why even use that law as a defence? The prosecuting lawyer says the law is obscure not that it’s irrelevant because it doesn’t apply in New York.
Also in the walk and talk at the end, the co-counsel says the judge should have set aside the verdict, but didn’t out of horror of what they had done.
The argument as I understand it is: If they *thought* the law in NY made it not a crime, then they're protected because they did not have the mental state of doing something they knew to be wrong. It's not a great defense, and a jury could easily find them guilty even if the jury believed them, but "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" is far from absolute.
@@GamesFromSpace which is probably why they are getting tried for attempted murder, as no murder did occur but if they did not know of that technicality then they would've murdered their baby. Hence the attempt, they tried to murder their baby but didn't only because under 24 weeks since conception(btw, good luck figuring out the exact date of that unless you only have sex once a month) it doesn't count as being alive yet.
This case seemed to be driven solely by public opinion and instigation, not an actual crime, which is pointed out in the video...they're guilty of blackmail and or financial crimes definitely but attempted murder seemed to be driven only by public consternation.
there was no actual crime according to the law, other than people wanted it to be counted as such and so becasue of public opinion it was.
To think faith was on law and order before Third watch
Surely it was wrong in law to convict these two Defendants?
Don't know much if anything about the law in New York, but in the UK there is a distinction between factual and legal impossibility.
E.g. if you have a suitcase full of flour and attempt to smuggle it into into the country.
If you think that the flour is cocaine, then there is a factual impossibility - on the facts you cannot have commited a crime. You did attempt a crime, however, so can be convicted of an attempt.
If you know the suitcase is full of flour, but think that flour is illegal, that is a legal impossibility. It is legally impossible to smuggle flour into the country. As such, dispite thinking that you are going to commit a crime, you cannot be convicted of an attempt.
Surely the case in this video is a legal impossibility and the Defendants should not have been convicted?
Abortion n murder are two different things.. In India abortion is illegal as females are put to death n males are highly priced... But women can generally abort before a certain time period not knowing the gender. They'll need a very valid reason.
Here the intent was criminal, i.e harm the fetus to claim compensation.. If you're jokingly carrying a bag of flour to a country that bans drugs by putting people to death n act innocent. The intent is still criminal. If your bringing a clock in your suitcase n joking about bombs in airport, another criminal act... It could be a joke to some but serious issue for security reasons. .
That is essentially what ADA Ben Stone is arguing here. That they didn't know it was legal, or to use your example, that they didn't know the white powder in the suitcase was flour. Hence the attempt conviction. It's a technicality but it's enough to convict. The real hook here is that the jury found the defendants testimony about what and when they knew to not be credible in large part do to the heinous nature of their actions but also because the male defendant had been previously punished for asking a witness to lie under oath.
Can someone please explain the context of this episode?
More like, 'A trial with a flip'.
It’s the guy from dollhouse
I don’t get it, why is it a crime only if they didn’t know it was legal
Jesus
Isnt that Tara from Buffy????
If a fetus can't survive outside its mom or a medical incubator, it's not murder. Not morally, at least.
What about people being kept alive on life support if they have the chance of recovery. Would turning the life support off be murder?
Was it based on a real case?
Is the defence lawyer Kate McKinnon??
No it's not, it just looks like her.
I might get on a ship
A baby died and yet no crime was committed and noone got hurt? Yet she says that she had planned the attack? That makes no sense at all. I don't honestly see how if a child grows within the uterus anyone can claim it's not a life until it takes its first breath outside of the womb. That would be like trying to say a plant thats dead can still grow and yet not be alive.. from the minute a plant seed is germinated.. life is underway. Can they say it's not alive until it breaks through the soil and a sprout is seen? If it's not alive how did it get through the soil in the first place. How is a foetus any fucking different. Yet she then condemns another person because they had sex outside of their marriage? How does that affect them personally? This is a clear example of self justification.
I don't really understand why she would get in trouble for agreeing to be kicked even if it was gonna lead to an abortion. Regardless of any moral judgement (since this is law, not moral). It's her foetus and her body being hurt. the foetus/baby has not yet employed any public ressources, it lived on her personal ressources. What does it matter to a jury of her peers that she made a bad decision resulting in the foetus/baby dying.
You say this is an argument of law not morality and then go on to make a purely moralist argument. The Actual law is clear cut.
Murder is the unlawful killing of an person. Legal Abortion provides a legal avenue to kill your unborn child and thus is not murder by law.
It is not about "bad decisions" her and her husband together concocted a plan involving fraud, assault, false statements and blackmail along with the unlawful killing of her child these are all actual crimes.
What you think about the value of her child is irrelevant under the law. If she wanted to kill her baby legally she had the means to do so, instead she chose to murder her baby for profit.
@@louiscypher4186 from my understanding of this short clip, they're trying to pin her for murder, not blackmail. Since I didn't see the whole episode I may be wrong of course. But if I'm right, I don't get why you would bring up other crimes (the prosecutor did in his closing argument but it was to remind the jury of her character, her morals or lack thereof).
Again from my understanding,the prosecutor is trying to prove that she had committed attempted murder. The question is not about how she terminated the foetus, nor the circumstances (blackmail). But rather it's about whether or not she knew that her foetus being younger than 24 weeks, the law didn't view it as a person, and so terminating it wouldn't be a crime. Basically she's not being punished for whatever she did or how she did it, she's being punished because she can't prove that she KNEW she could do it under the law.
But the argument that I'm making is a critic on the actual existence of the law I guess. I understand that there's a moral judgement to be made on voluntary abortion. What I don't get is why society would feel the need to legislate on it, especially in specific cases like this one, when the abortion has been performed outside the perimeters of public space (since it was done by her boyfriend hitting her and not in a public hospital). This is what I meant.
@@mimio008 That's how the law works, she was accused of a crime murdering her child. Her defence was that it wasn't murder because the child was under 24 weeks old. If you're accused of stealing a car your friend lent you, you're defence is going to be it wasn't theft because you had permission to use it. If you can't prove that you had permission you're going to have a tough time convincing a jury. That's it, that's all this was.
As for the rest, it was quite literally in the middle of a public space, it was on the sidewalk in downtown Manhattan after which was transported to a public hospital. She tied up both EMS workers and surgeons who treated her injuries and tried to save her baby and then went on to further tie up public resources investigating the crime she falsely reported as happening in any case where it happened is irrelevant.
As for the law existence of the law, it's because women demanded that people who assault pregnant women and subsequently kill the child face charges for murdering their child. You cannot have it both way's either the child is a living human being worthy of recognition as a life and as such it should be protected by the law or it's simply a bunch of cells growing within a human host.
So a sensible compromise was reached, past a certain point during the pregnancy the child is recognised as a living human in the eye's of the law.
@@louiscypher4186 the reason why she went to prison is a bit more subtle than what you say. You'll see it if you rewatch the clip. Anyway...
That's a great argument you gave, protection of an unborn child from all aggressors also means protection from its own parent. I never thought of it like that but it makes sense.
Why did she want her own baby killed? I don’t understand
This is just pro-life propaganda