- Were you aware at the time that, in addition to making fake bombs, the FBI had been recruiting
Mr. Fayed for 18 months? - No, ma'am. - That he has no history of violence, no history of terrorist affiliation? - He doesn't know that. - Has no evidence indicating he's-- - Object! - Any interest in terrorism--
- Objection! - Prior to being recruited
by this team of agents? - No, ma'am. (light music) - Hey, Legal Eagles, it's
time to think like a lawyer. Today we're covering a
show called For the People. I don't know anything about this show, but it was highly
requested by you out there, so keep those recommendations coming. I'm always looking for new portrayals of lawyers and courtrooms in the media. As always, be sure to comment in the form of an objection, which I will either sustain or overrule. And while you're there, let me know what movie or TV show I should do next. And of course, stick around
until the end of this video, where I give the first
episode of For the People a grade for legal realism. So, without further ado, let's dig into the first episode of For the People. (jazzy music) All right, New York. It's always New York for some reason. Ah, the famous New York Supreme Court. Oh, but that's a different courthouse. Oh, that is the Riverside,
California courthouse. I know that courthouse very well, both the New York one
and the California one. - There are two great courts in America, the Supreme Court and the one
you're sitting in right now. This is the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the oldest, most
prestigious, highest profile trial court in America. - I don't know if the SCNY
is the oldest US court. I would think that it was created at the same time as the
other district courts, but there's no doubt that the Southern District of New York is one of the most high profile federal courts in the United States. There is a ton of high profile litigation that goes on in the Southern
District of New York because that is where New York City is, so there are a lot of
high profile cases there. So, it is not an exaggeration to say that it is one of the most prestigious places to be an assistant US attorney or a federal public defender. - This is the court that heard claims over the sinking of the Titanic, this is the court that heard the case against the Rosenbergs. Aaron Burr was a lawyer in this court. - You wanna claim Aaron Burr? - The cases are hard, stakes are high, the lawyers on the other
side better than you, and the judges are smarter than you. Some of you won't succeed. Some of you are not worthy. But for those of you who are, your time here will be the
highlight of your career. - All right, that's not a crazy speech to be given by a judge at
a swearing in ceremony. That's, I can imagine that
actually happening in real life. - [All] So help me God. - Welcome to the mother court. (dramatic music) - And they're walking
out of the Supreme Court, the State Court, I think. That's funny. So, interestingly, this
takes place in federal court, not state court the way
that Law and Order does. Law and Order takes place
entirely within the state court. But the federal courts
exist for two reasons. Number one, there are federal laws. As you may know, there
are two types of law in the United States,
there are those that are created by the state governments, and there are the laws that are created by the federal government. Sometimes there's overlap,
sometimes there isn't. But if you have a case that deals specifically with federal
law and federal jurisdiction, you're going to be litigating your case in the federal courts. And then additionally, especially if you're on the civil side, you'll deal with what's
called diversity jurisdiction, where if you have defendants who are citizens of different states, the federal courts were designed to handle litigation
amongst different states and amongst citizens of different states to make sure that everyone
gets a fair shake. But this looks like it's
gonna be a criminal show 'cause we're dealing with
the federal prosecutors and the federal public defenders, so that leads me to believe that this show is probably dealing exclusively with federal criminal law,
as opposed to civil law. - Good morning everyone, I'm Jill Carlon. I'm the Federal Public Defender. Inside these envelopes is your first case. And let me warn you, you're not gonna win. You're up against the
United States government, and the government almost always wins because they have all the power. - Some truth to that. So, the advice that this head public defender is giving them, while a little cynical, is
probably pretty accurate. You're probably not gonna take a lot of these things to trial, you're probably not gonna go to the mat on a lot of these cases,
but you're going to plead, you're gonna give these people the best defense you possibly can, even if that results in
guilty pleas down the line. - What's duty? - The attorney on duty picks
up any cases that come in. - Do you need someone today? - Yes, but you have to
have some experience to be on duty, Sandra. - I have experience. - You have experience
clerking on the Supreme Court, which is great experience
for being a justice on the Supreme Court. It doesn't have anything
to do with this job. I'll put you on duty when you're ready. - I'm ready. - Yes, that is accurate. If you clerk for the Supreme Court, that is the most prestigious thing you could possibly do, it's
a huge star on your record, but it doesn't mean you necessarily have on the ground experience,
although some people do have experience before
they clerk the Supreme Court. But it would not be a
Shonda Rhimes legal TV show if there wasn't someone that
clerked for the Supreme Court. It shows up in all of her
shows for some reason. - Why would I give you his case? - Because a farm animal
could win this case, and that case actually matters, and if it matters, you
should give it to me. When I was clerking on the Supreme Court-- - Another Supreme Court clerk, wow. - Is that true? Leonard doesn't think
you're ready for this case. - Well, he's right, neither one of us is ready for a case like this, but I'm at least humble
enough to recognize it, and I'll work that much
harder because of it. (quirky music) I've never been a fan of humility. - That's so ridiculous. Also, where are their
supervising attorneys? You're not gonna handle a terrorism case on your first day as an
AUSA, that's ridiculous. - Do a good job on your new case and you'll get recognized
because you're good, and decent, and you do
things the right way, which is what matters
in the long run, okay? Okay? Now, I have to go because I have my first appearance as an attorney in the Southern District of New York. - First appearance? It's your first day! - What's the charge? - 18 USC 2332(a)(3). You picked this up on duty? - Yes. - That can't be on duty, 2332(a)(3) is-- - Attempted use of a
weapon of mass destruction against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or any department or agency
of the United States, I know. - No, you don't. That's ridiculous that anyone would have encyclopedic knowledge
of the entire US Code just memorized like that. The entire US Code is bigger than all of those books put together, and it is ridiculous to expect that anyone would have the
code section memorized, even just the criminal
law sections memorized. It's preposterous. - Your Honor, as alleged in the complaint, Madeline McCarna was an
administrative assistant at Ilaria Pharmaceuticals,
and illegally traded on inside information regarding a merger between Ilaria and Biogen. - Excuse me, Your Honor,
but the complaint actually does not allege that. It alleges that Ms. McCarna
passed on information to her ex-husband, who
executed the trades, facts which we deny. - [Judge] What was the
value of the trades? - $9325 and 54 cents, Your Honor. - $9000? This is what Roger Dun is prioritizing in the US Attorney's Office nowadays? - So, unlike most shows I've seen, they were actually arguing with the judge behind council table, which is generally where you're gonna be arguing. You're not gonna be
wandering inside of the well like you see on TV, so
that kind of quality is probably something you
would see in real life, and a judge is likely to get upset about a matter that is taking
up the government's time over just $9000. That's a very small
case, so I would expect the judge to be annoyed by that. - If they're offering a deal like that in a case like this, there must be something wrong with the evidence. - Maybe, but if you wanna find out, you're gonna have to reject the offer, and if you reject the offer, you're going to trial-- - Well, maybe.
- You're going to lose. - Well, also maybe. - I can give it to someone else. - No. - Just because you reject a plea deal early on in the case doesn't mean that that plea deal will no longer be available throughout the rest of the case. This particular case
is probably gonna take a year or two before
it even gets to trial. There'll be months, if
not years of litigation, and it would not be insane to
reject the first plea deal, especially when you haven't even talked to your client yet. So, she's not really in a position to know whether the plea deal is
good or bad at this point, so of course, if there's a choice, she's going to have to reject it, and by the way, she's gonna
have to talk to her client about whether to accept or
reject the plea deal too. So, I understand the cynicism
from the head PD here that you're just trying to
plead these things down, but you can't do that on your first day when you don't know any of
the facts in this situation. - Are you okay? - I'm gonna do this. - You know how we've always said-- - That is a really nice
apartment in New York. - You rejected a plea deal
without talking to me. - You said talk to my client,
I talked to my client. - Well, you didn't talk to
me, and that was a mistake, and you can't afford to
make mistakes like that on a job like this. - Yeah, you really need to talk to your supervising attorney there. That's a big deal right there. - Well, Kate, here's the problem, for you: my client, and let's keep it simple and call him Adam Dial, couldn't have committed the alleged fraud because, as you probably have tabbed there in one of your binders, fraud requires an intent to deceive-- - Oh, no, not the mens rea argument. - Because he actually
believes all this is real. Crazy? Possibly, but the upshot
is, no intent, no crime. - He is technically right. I assume that the crime of fraud is probably similar to the similar to the civil requirements for fraud, which do require an intent to deceive, or a knowing falsity of the
representations that one makes. That being said, that is a very, very difficult argument to make, especially given that there will be other circumstantial evidence, like the fact that he
took all of the money from the people that he defrauded and used it for his own purposes. You don't have to necessarily
bring a psychologist in. You can just say that,
well, he took the money from these people that he defrauded, and therefore, that shows that he had the required mental state, and that's probably
going to carry the day. Good luck in court, man. - Yeah, he's buying the whole thing. Yeah, everything, that's what I'm saying. The Bureau, the technology upgrade. Yeah, I've gone full primal fear on him. Yeah, this guy's a real tool. - Tab four of my discovery guide, request jailhouse recordings. - Nice, that is 100% accurate. When you make a phone call in jail, unless it's to your lawyer, that is definitely discoverable. In fact, most jails
have a warning that says your phone call will be recorded, so you don't have a reasonable
expectation of privacy, and you should be on notice
that your phone calls are going to be recorded, and
they can be used against you. This is a little bit dramatic,
but definitely could happen. - I just don't understand why we're prosecuting a case like this against a secretary for a $9000 trade. - Well, that is a problem that
you don't understand that, so let me spell it out for you: you're prosecuting the
case 'cause I told you to, and I told you to prosecute the case 'cause that secretary broke the law. Every now and then, regular people-- - Fair enough. - Need to be reminded that there are serious consequences to breaking
the law, whatever the law-- - Yeah, absolutely. - Stop signs. People start doing whatever
the hell they feel like, our whole system breaks
down and cars crash, markets crash, people get hurt. - Yeah, and it'll piss off the judge, but he's absolutely right. A crime is a crime, and just
because it's a small amount doesn't mean that it
shouldn't go unpunished. - What, what is this? - Extra papers to fit in your bag. You should always carry a lot of paper. They get worried you have
something they don't know about. (laughing) - That's clever. - This case is about attempt
and you can't prove attempt, because he was arrested before he got to the Statue of Liberty. - Attempt only requires
the defendants take a substantial step--
- Yep. - Toward the commission of a crime. - Very true. - He was on Liberty Island with a bomb. - Then why was the plan always to wait to arrest him until he got to the crown, because that's what you thought
you needed to prove attempt? - They're young, they're
hungry, they're smart. Let them fight it out. - Now, the prosecutors are right. You can have an attempted crime with really just minimal actions taken toward the final
act of the crime itself. So, taking what he thought was a bomb to Liberty Island would
absolutely qualify as attempted terrorism here. - You know you're part of an important tradition in my life? I'm going to trial tomorrow. - Going to trial tomorrow, what? Have years passed since his first day? - Are you nervous? - Is it that spicy? - The trial, are you
nervous about the trial? - No, I'm not. I'm gonna win. - How many trials have you done if you clerked for the Supreme Court? Probably zero. And where is his team
of other lawyers too? You're not gonna go to
trial with just one person on a terrorism case in the
Southern District of New York. - Please, tell the jury
what happened that morning. - Well, I saw this young
man come of the ferry carrying a camera. He was sweating, jittery. I asked to see his camera,
and that's when I realized it was a bomb. - A fake bomb made by the FBI. - I didn't know that at the time. - Were you aware at the time that, in addition to making fake bombs, the FBI had been recruiting
Mr. Fayed for 18 months? - No, ma'am. - She can't really ask those
questions of this witness. This witness is a percipient
witness to what happened on the day that the
defendant was arrested, so all of the stuff that happened before he got there is totally
irrelevant for this witness. He has no personal knowledge of that and he can't really opine or testify about those percipient facts. This is the wrong witness
to ask those questions. - Were you aware at the time that, in addition to making fake bombs, the FBI had been recruiting
Mr. Fayed for 18 months? - No, ma'am. - That he has no history of violence, no history of terrorist affiliation? - He doesn't know that. - Has no evidence indicating he's ever had any interest in terrorism prior to being recruited by this team of agents? - No, ma'am. - You remember Mr. Fayed well, sir? - [Witness] Yes. - Hmm, really? How long have you worked on that ferry? - 19 years. - 19 years, and how many ferries a day? - [Witness] 25, 26. - Thousands of ferries, tens
of thousands of visitors, and you want the jury to believe that you remember my client? Not just remember him, remember him well? - Yes. - Well, unless your memory has been jogged by the government, Mr. Rockton, how could you possibly
remember my client at all? - Because I quit my job
because of him, that's how! Because that ferry he was on was the last ferry I ever worked. I was down there on 9/11, ma'am, on the island, right next to her. The idea that someone would
wanna blow her up now? I remember. - Don't ask a question you don't know the answer to on cross. - [Jill] Never ask a question
you don't know the answer to. (laughing) - Nice. Okay, closing argument. - We live in a dangerous time. - I'm gonna assume he got permission to enter the well to talk to the jury. - Our enemies used to be overseas, and we could see them. Tanks and airplanes. They wore uniforms. - Oh, that is not a proper argument here. - But now we're living on the battlefield. - I mean, he's relying on things that are outside of this trial. You gotta be really careful when you make this kind of argument and this kind of appeal to emotion. I don't think a prosecutor's
gonna get away with that. - They look like us, they talk like us, they live down the hallway from us. We only find out who they are and the damage they wanna
do after they've done it. - Oh, man. - After they've shot up a nightclub-- - That's not proper. - Or blowing up a marathon. - Oh, come on, man! You can't bring in facts
from other terrorist acts as your closing argument for this particular criminal trial here. That is not proper at all. This is a big gaff here. - Ms. Bell wants you to believe that our government did this. Ask yourself how much money, how much time would it
take to convince you to blow the head off
the Statue of Liberty. - He's making some
contradictory arguments here. - That man is not a criminal, and law enforcement
prevented no crime here. They manufactured a crime. Instead of hunting actual terrorists, your government tried to make a terrorist. They contacted him, they befriended him. - It's really unrealistic that these first year attorneys
are going to be making the closing arguments here. This is a high profile case. It would almost certainly be their bosses or their bosses' bosses that
are making these arguments and handling this trial, not these really, really young attorneys, regardless of the fact if they clerked for the Supreme Court. That just won't apply. - They picked a target for him, they built a bomb for him, they made him. - Yeah, but he took the act. It's a totally separate act. I don't think that defense applies here. I think he has taken the predicate acts. Regardless of whether
the bomb worked or not, he thought it did, so he
had the right mens rea. I don't think the
entrapment defense works. I don't think they really manufactured his particular acts. They may have helped him along, but I don't think that rises to the defense of entrapment here. - It's easy to become
distracted in a case like this, to become emotional, to
focus on the wrong things. But this case is about one
thing and one thing only: it is about the power of
the United States government being used to systematically
target, and manipulate, and incarcerate American citizens because of their religion! - I mean, there's been
no evidence of that. - Their national origin, their color. - I mean, she's bringing
in outside facts too. - But what you have today
is even more powerful. You have the power to say no. You have the power to resist. In this courthouse, in this courtroom, in those seats today, you have
the awesome power of justice. And there's nothing
more powerful than that. - Yeah, I think she's gonna lose. - Versus Mohammed Fayed--
- I think he's guilty. - We the jury find the
defendant, Mohammed Fayed, guilty of one count of attempted use of-- - Called it. - You uh, do you mind if I sit here? (tragic music) - Jesus, so morose. You just won a big trial. - I told you you were gonna lose. I told you. This isn't TV. (laughing) - Okay. - [Sandra] What did I get? - What? - You said on the first
day, get something. What did I get today? - You got beat. And now you gotta get up. - And also, you'll be able
to appeal and probably win and cause a new trial
because the prosecutor made ridiculous arguments
in his closing argument, so there's always that,
there's always appeal. - There it is, right there. See it? The mother court. - Are we worthy? - Yes, I think so, we are.
- We are worthy. - You just handled your
own trial as first chair. - We are so worthy. - Who is worthier than us? - Aaron Burr?
- Please! (bang) (quirky music) - Okay, now it's time
to give For the People a grade for legal realism. (knocking) It was on the cusp of being the most accurate show I've ever seen, but didn't quite make it. It was overly dramatic,
you had things happening on a timescale that
isn't really believable. But for the most part, they are making semi-reasonable arguments, the things that are happening could actually happen in real life. It is far more accurate than
I ever thought it would be. So, at the end of the
day, I'm going to give For the People episode one an A minus, a shockingly accurate legal
procedural from Shonda Rhimes. I can't believe it. You know, a lot of people become lawyers because they think they're
bad at math and science. If only they'd learned the right way, there would be fewer lawyers in the world. That's why Brilliant.org created the best interactive app for learning
how to problem solve. From basic logic to high school algebra to computer science fundamentals, Brilliant turned learning into a game. If only Brilliant had been
around when I was a student, I might not have gone into law and actually done something
good for the world. Whether you're a student who wants to get better math grades, or a parent who wants their kid to be a scientist, Brilliant can help you learn how. Get better at STEM and actually
prevent future lawyers. If you visit Brilliant.org/LegalEagle or click the link in the description, you can sign up for free and learn all kinds of things not
related to being a lawyer. And as a bonus for Legal Eagles, the first 200 people will also get 20% off their annual membership. Remember, only you can
stop future lawyers, and until next time,
I'll see you in court.
