- Oh no, what are they doing? Oh no. Oh my God! Oh no! Alright, this is a perfect example of sometimes the evidence
just speaks for itself. This is - this is awful and hilarious. (upbeat music plays) Hey Legal Eagles. D. James Stone here teaching
you how to think like a lawyer. Today we're gonna review
Better Call Saul episode one. This is really exciting for me because I loved Breaking Bad. And the character of Saul
Goodman was particularly good because he gave such good legal advice. Of course, it was legal
advice in the context of a drug dealing psychopath but still, good legal advice nonetheless. Be sure to like and
subscribe to make sure that you never miss out on
a future Lawyer Reacts. And of course be sure
to leave your comments in the form of an objection. I will either overrule or
sustain your objections based on their legal merit. And of course stay until the end when I give Better Call Saul episode one a grade for legal realism. So without further ado, let's dig right in to Better Call Saul episode one. - [Jimmy] Your brain is
just not all there yet. If we were all held responsible for what we did when we were 19. (laughs) I remember what it was like being a kid. Think back. (laughs) It's all... Judge, what would you say? (door creaks open)
These boys. - God, that is exactly what
courtroom bathrooms looks like. They are just out of the last century, they've got those weird
push-up soap dispensers. Just horribly dirty. This seems pretty accurate so far. - 19, I can't, I don't... These three young men, just like you. Just like you. (sighs) - God. And it's so funny because
lawyers really do practice their opening and closing
statements in the bathroom before they go in to court. That is probably where you'll
find most trial attorneys when court is about to start. (doors open) Alright, gave himself a pep talk. - Oh to be 19 again. (laughs) - Okay, you can never just storm in to the middle of the well, the area between counsel
table and the judge. It does seem like there is
a prior relationship here between the judge and Saul Goodman, given that the judge sent the bailiff into the bathroom to get him. I'm guessing the judge
has interacted with Saul many times before, so he's
giving him some leeway but you can't just burst
in there like that. But it seems like he may have
prior permission to do that so we'll keep watching. - [Jimmy] (coughs) But if
you're being honest I mean, really honest, you'll recall that you also had an underdeveloped 19 year old brain. Me personally, (laughs) if I were held accountable for some of the stupid
decisions I made when I was 19, oh boy, wow. And I bet if we were in church right now I'd get a big Amen. - This is really good. What Saul Goodman is doing, is he's making himself seem personable. Your credibility is everything when you're in front of the jury. So you want to make it seem like you are a relatable person. You're just another member of the jury. So he's doing a great job
of seeming self-deprecating and forming an emotional
connection with his jury in this what looks like
a closing argument so, so far very good. - Which brings us to these three. Now, these three knuckleheads, and I'm sorry boys but
that's what you are. They did a dumb thing. - That's also really good. When you have bad facts, you need to get ahead of
them to front run them. And to show that you're
aware of those bad facts, but to downplay them and to show that they aren't dispositive to your case. So I like what he's done. He's actually making his
own client seem personable. They're young, they're knuckleheads as he put it. He is making them seem relatable but also showing that
they have made a mistake and trying to get ahead
of whatever bad facts are against his case. So far pretty good. - Fact one: Nobody got hurt. Not a soul. Very important to keep that in mind. Fact two: Now the prosecution
keeps bending this term "Criminal Trespass". Mr. Spanazo, the property owner, admitted to us that he keeps
most portions of his business open to the public,
both day and night, so. "Trespassing?" Eh, that's a bit of a reach, don't you think Dave? (laughs) - Ah, man I really like this as well. Keep in mind that a
trial can go on for days, and sometimes weeks. So there are hundreds if
not thousands of facts, dozens of people testifying. A trial is a very complex thing. So what Saul Goodman has done here is reminded the jury of
two, and only two facts. Because a trial is really, really complex and he just wants them
to focus on two things that are particularly good for his case. So he points out that no one got hurt, which may be important
from a legal perspective in that one of the
elements of whatever crime they're being charged with may
be triggered by bodily harm. But, more importantly, it
shows on an emotional level that there's no need for the
jury to punish these boys because no one was hurt, so it dovetails on the emotional. And then the second
thing that he focuses on is the legal requirement
for criminal trespass not being made. If the property owner gives consent to someone entering their property, then these boys can't be
guilty of the crime of criminal trespass. So he's focusing on the one
hand on the emotional trigger that no one was hurt, and also on the legal
trigger that the element of criminal trespass isn't met. So out of all the things that
the jury learned in trial, he focuses on these two salient points, which are both good for his case. And I think that that
is a very good way of going about your closing argument. - Here's what I know, these three young men,
near honor students all-- - "Near honor students" - Were feeling their
oats one Saturday night, and they just went a little bananas. I don't know, call me crazy but I don't think they
deserve to have their bright futures ruined
by a momentary, minute, never-to-be-repeated lapse of judgment. - Another good emotional point - You're bigger than that. - (laughs) That's really good. There are two rhetorical
devices that Saul Goodman is using here to great effect. The first is that he is
referring to the dramaturgical, so he is putting the jury up on a stage, showing them that people are watching. And number two, he is ascribing the values that he wants to the jury. He's saying that they
are bigger than that, hoping that they will
rise to the attribute that he is already ascribed to them. So those are two killer
persuasive techniques that Saul Goodman has used here. - (wheels squeaking) - (laughs) Oh God, what have they done? Oh no, he's just going to show a video. (laughs) - (tape loading into VCR) - So because this is his closing argument, all the evidence has already come in. So, the prosecutor doesn't
have to lay any foundation, all of that has already been established during the course of the trial, and the judge has already
approved or denied all of the exhibits,
including God only knows what's going to be on this video tape. - [Man] He's dead, they
suck it all out, dumb ass! - [Brunette Man] Awesome!
Where did they put it? Alright, I'm through
the neck bone now, dude! - Get over here man!
- I'm getting it! (laughter and chattering) - I got it! - Alright! (laughs) - Oh! - Oh no. - Get off! - Chill out. Wait, wait, okay. Wait for it! - Oh no, what are they doing? Oh no. Oh my god! Oh no. Alright, this is a perfect example of sometimes the evidence
just speaks for itself. In Latin, that's the
phrase "res ipsa loquitur", "the thing speaks for itself." And, frankly, sometimes it doesn't require any legal argument. You just show the thing
itself, and that's bad enough. Sometimes you don't need to gild the lily, or pound the rubble, it's
just bad enough as it is. And if I was the prosecutor
in this particular case, I probably would've done the same thing. Just show the tape, let
it speak for itself, and let the jury decide. This doesn't need any argument at all. This is- This is awful And hilarious. - [Man] I will if you will, loser. - Alright, alright! (laughs) - The hell kind of math is that? - [Woman] $700 per defense. - No, no, no, defendant, "dant." Three defendants, $2100. Which, by the way, bargain,
what I did for them. - [Woman] They going to jail, ain't they? - So, since when does that matter? They had sex with a head! - (laughs) So I guess in this case, Saul is a public
defender. As you may know, there are two types of government
attorneys in this context. There are the prosecutors,
who are employed by the state to actually prosecute
those alleged of crimes. And then there are also public defenders, who provide a defense to
those who can't afford one. It goes back to the 1960's,
to a Supreme Court case called Gideon versus Wainwright, which held that under the
Sixth Amendment's protection to a trial, the defendants were
required to have an attorney because if they didn't have an attorney, the right to an impartial
trial would never be upheld because it would be inherently unfair. So, under Supreme Court
precedent, if you cannot afford an attorney, you are
provided a public defender. Now that only applies
in the criminal context, it does not apply in the civil context. If you are sued civilly,
you're basically on your own, and that's where attorneys like me, a civil attorney, come in
and we save your bacon. - You can tell me what this
$26,000 is supposed to be for. - That's money for Chuck.
Isn't that what you wanted? - A measly 26 grand? (scoffs) Jesus, you're like Peter
Minuit with the Indians. Throw in some beads and
shells while you're at it. - It's just a start, there'll be more. Unless, you're gonna
just tear them all up. - Why was it made out
to me? Why not Chuck? - So he personally told
you that it's his wish to withdrawal from the firm? See, that would surprise me. - [Jimmy] It's been nearly a
year since he set foot in here. - Okay, so one of the
reasons that Jimmy may not want to cash this check, or
have his client cash this check, is that there is a doctrine
in most jurisdictions that says that even if you
don't have a written contract, an express contract that is spelled out and has all the terms, you can sometimes enter into a contract by your conduct. So I think he's worried
about the idea that if he cashes this check,
he may tacitly agree to the terms of this settlement
with this other law firm, and therefore give them
the deal that they want, which is not a deal that
Jimmy or his client want. So I think he is worried about
forming a settlement contract by his own conduct. But, I guess we'll see. - 630 bucks. Is that for one fall? - Two. - Two falls in one day? (laughs) Even at your age, that's gotta hurt. - True that. - Right, well, I got a job for you. How's 2 grand sound? - 2 grand, for one hit? - One hit. Plus you get to learn from the best. - Okay, I probably don't need to tell you how unethical it is for an
attorney to go out and pay people to fake an injury and basically
defraud some poor victim. But let's talk about
some of the nuances here. If they were to go forward with this plan, they would be engaging in
fraud and would be liable for civil and potentially criminal fraud. Now on top of that, they
would not be able to get compensation for whatever
injuries that they have. Of course, fraud creates
an affirmative defense to the kind of allegations
that they would want to create. But more fundamentally, they
lack what's called "standing." In the US system, in order to
go forward with a civil suit, you have to have
standing. You have to show that you have suffered
an injury, and when you intentionally engage in
this kind of conduct, you negate the kind of
standing that would give rise to an injury. So, not only will they not
be able to get compensation because they have defrauded someone, but they also lack the underlying elements of the civil suit. They lack standing and they
lack an actionable injury. So if they ever get caught, this is not a good thing for them. - [Bailiff] All rise. - Okay, that was the first
episode of Better Call Saul, and it did not disappoint. I really look forward to
reviewing future episodes of this series, it's great. But now it's time to give Better Call Saul a grade for legal realism,
so let's think about this. Well, we have realistic
depictions of the monotony of courtroom life. We have some really good
arguments being made, trying to appeal to
jury's emotional state. We have big firm attorneys being jerks. We have the unglamorous
life of an attorney who is just trying to make ends meet. And we have literal
ambulance chasers who are throwing themselves in front of cars. All in all, we have a
realistic depiction of a lot of the parts that go
into a lawyer's life that rarely get any screen time, with only minimal dramatic license. So, I'm giving Better Call
Saul episode one an A- for legal realism. Well done! So hit that bell to be
notified of my next reaction, and check out this playlist I put together that includes all of my prior reactions, including my reaction
to Suits, The Good Wife, and many others. So click on that playlist,
and I'll see you in court! (funky music plays)
This is a fantastic youtube channel, really glad he's finally started watching BCS. I'd really like to hear what he'd have to say about the bar hearing in 3x05.
Pretty cool, though he won't have as much to analyze after season one. Also, the fact that he's watching the episode for the first time as he reacts to it means that he confuses some things, notably thinking that Jimmy's meeting with HHM is about a client when it's about Chuck.
thanks for sharing this.. I think i like this video....
that was really satisfying!
I'm sorry, I was busy trying to figure out if that tie was hamlindigo or not, and then I fell asleep.
"Hamlindigo" is recognized by the spellchecker. "Spellcheck" is not.