- Standard community property applies, and she is entitled to
half of the marital assets, or $11.395 million. Jordan fades back, swish! And that's the game! - Yeah, that's not the end of the game. That's the beginning. (light music) Hey, legal eagles, D. James Stone here teaching you how to think like a lawyer so you can crush law school. You know, when I'm not
teaching law students how to kick ass in law school, I'm often watching
courtroom movies myself. But unlike all of you normals, I can't turn off that
lawyer part of my brain that's always analyzing
the courtroom scenes for whether they're using a great tactic that I should use in my own practice or whether I should just
pull out all of my hair. Last time around I analyzed
a few of my favorite courtroom movies. This time around I'm reacting
to some of the legal movies that you suggested that I watch. If you have additional ideas
for movies that I haven't reacted to yet, please let
me know in the Comments. I'm always looking for new ideas and other legal movies that
I've never seen before. But let's dive right in. We're gonna start with one of the funniest courtroom scenes of all time, and that's in Liar Liar. - Mr. Reede, it is out
of sheer morbid curiosity I'm allowing this freak show to continue. Mrs. Cole. If you dare. - Mrs. Cole... Is this a copy of your driver's license? - Yes. - That's good. He's laying the foundation
with the witness. It's a simple question, but you have to establish
that a document is what it purports to be, and he can do that through this woman who owns the driver's license. So that's good foundation work. - It says here you're a blonde, are you? - Gah. - If you don't remember,
perhaps Mr. Falk will. - [Mrs. Cole] Brunette. - We can play the tape again. Maybe it's on there. - I'm a brunette! - Thank you. Now let's see. Weight 105. Yeah. In your bra. - Your honor, I object. - You would. - Bastard! - Hag! - Quiet! - Now normally you wouldn't try to set up your own client and witness
to be shown to be a liar. But this is all part of
sort of an elaborate ruse, so it obviously leads somewhere. But generally not the
best practice to impugn the reputation of your
own witness and client. - Overruled. Weight. - 118. All right, fine. Fine, I'm 127. - Uh-huh. And it says here you were born in 1964, but that's not true either, is it? Is it? - No. - Now let me get this straight. That would mean that
you lied about your age to make yourself older. But why would any woman wanna do that? - I changed it so I could get married. - And the truth shall set you free! My client lied about her age. She was only 17 when she got married, which makes her a minor. And in the great state of California, no minor can enter into any legal contract without parental consent, including... - Prenuptial agreements. - Prenuptial agreements! This contract is void. The fact that my client has been ridden more than Seattle Sloo is irrelevant. - So this is a very clever legal argument, apart from all of the argument that Jim Carrey is doing in this scene. You wouldn't yell it to the courtroom during the middle of an examination. There are some solid legal
arguments going on here. Specifically he's making the argument that if a minor enters into a contract, the contract is void because
you're not allowed to have an adult contract with a minor. Now that's not exactly
the way the law works. Generally speaking what happens is, a minor can form a contract
without parental consent. But what happens is that when the minor reaches the age of majority they have the ability to
either ratify the contract or to exit the contract
as if it never happened. So, sometimes you really need to be aware of a risk when you form
a contract with a minor. And there's a very famous
case involving Bob Dylan, who entered into a studio
contract before he turned 18, and then I believe he did
not ratify the contract afterwards. But certainly that does not end the case. And Jim Carrey just can't
simply make an argument to the judge and say that therefore I have won this case because of this single piece of evidence. What would actually happen is that that would sort of start the
argument in this question. In this case this woman
has been in this marriage for decades, it seems. And of course she enticed her husband into entering this prenuptial
agreement through fraud. Now fraud is also often a defense to a contract. And there's a doctrine
called Unclean Hands, which basically says
that you cannot profit from your own deception or deceit if you're entering into a contract or if you have conducted some fraud. So I don't know where this
particular argument ends up. It's a clever argument to
say that she was a minor and therefore she has the
ability to disassociate the contract itself and rescind it. But that is sort of the
beginning of the argument, not the end. There are plenty of arguments
the other side can make to say that, just because she was a minor doesn't end the situation. And the other person was blameless because how could he know that she was essentially conducting
a fraud on the marriage? So there's probably going
to be a lot of analysis both in marital law and
contract law in California to decide which way this one goes. It's an interesting argument but that's absolutely not the end. It's gonna be litigated
quite a bit from this point. - Standard community property applies, and she is entitled to
half of the marital assets or $11.395 million. Jordan fades back, swish! And that's the game! - Yeah, that's not the end of the game. That's the beginning. (applause) (gavel bangs) - [Judge] Order. Order! In light of this new evidence, the court must rule in favor of Mrs. Cole. She is hereby awarded half
of the marital assets. - So, a judge would never
simply issue a ruling immediately after one
particular piece of evidence, especially when there are
gonna be good legal arguments going back and forth. In reality the judge would probably ask for separate briefing
from both the plaintiff and the defendant on this thorny piece of law, and to find out what the repercussions are from this evidence. That evidence may be dispositive, but it also may be totally irrelevant. So the judge would take
it all into submission and give it a ruling
within a couple of weeks, and not rule from the bench like this. The next clip comes from My Cousin Vinny, one of my favorite legal movies. - Show those eyeglasses
to the jury, please. Thank you. Thank you. Now, Mr. Tipton, were you
wearing them that day? - No. - Yes, you see... You were 50 feet away, you made a positive
eyewitness identification, and, and, and, and, and yet you were not wearing your necessary prescription eyeglasses. - You see this a lot in legal movies where the examining attorney is literally inches from
the face of the witness. In reality you are not
allowed to be anywhere near the witness, even a friendly witness. And the area between the
judge and the witness on one hand, and the tables for counsel, on the other, it's called the well, the judicial well. And you are not allowed to
even set foot in the well without the express
permission of the judge. So you see that all over the place. You see it in this particular shot. He would not be allowed to
be that close to the witness. - They're reading glasses. - Uh... Well... Mister... Could you tell the court what color eyes the defendants have? - Brown. Hazel green. - No more questions. - There is a rule amongst trial lawyers that you do not ask a
question of the witness you don't know the answer to, or that you don't know that the witness is going to give you a favorable answer. That's why in cross examination you are allowed to
issue leading questions, which is a question
that implies the answer. And you would almost always
want to use leading questions when cross examining a
hostile witness like this one, to make sure that you get
the answer that you want. And often the tone and
substance of the question is more important than how
the witness actually answers. But he really shot himself in the foot by asking an open-ended question that actually bolstered the credibility of the witness on the stand, and really hurt his client. So that's rule number one in
terms of cross examination. You don't wanna do that. - [Judge] Mr. Gambini. Your witness. - Ha! He's a tough one. - Yes. - Mr. Tipton... When you viewed the defendants walking from their car
into the Sack of Suds, what angle was your point of view? - They was kinda walkin' toward me when they entered the store. - And when they left, what
angle was your point of view? - They was kinda walkin' away from me. - So would you say you
got a better shot of them goin' in and not so much comin' out? - You could say that. - I did say that. Would you say that? - Yeah. - That is a good tactic by Joe Pesci here to really narrow the witness' testimony, and not just generally
agree with the statement but to get a positive
statement out of the witness along the lines of what you want. So he was right to
clarify from the witness. - Is it possible the two "utes"... - Two what? - Also, what Joe Pesci is doing here is asking very pointed questions that he's not necessarily
going to get an admission that's going to win his case, but he's going to use
that testimony later on in the trial. And so you have to be very circumspect with respect to the witnesses
that are on the stand. You can't win your entire
case with one witness. So all he's doing is
getting the narrow point out that this witness saw
the two people coming in but didn't really see
their faces going out, which will be relevant
to what other witnesses and what other evidence
shows later on in the court. And that's the best that you can do. And it's your job as the attorney to tie that all together
in your closing statements. It's not your job to prove your case with one particular witness. So, Joe Pesci is doing
a really good job here. - What do you do in your father's garage? - Tune ups, oil changes, brake relining, engine rebuild, rebuild some trannies, the rear end. - Okay, okay. But does being an ex-mechanic necessarily qualify you as being expert on tire marks? - No. Thank you. Goodbye. - This is a pretty good back and forth between the attorney and the witness. When you offer a witness as an expert, the other side is allowed to probe that and question whether or not
they are sufficient experts in some area so that they
can offer an opinion. The difference between
a person who just tells what they know, what they personally saw, and an expert, is an expert is allowed to give an opinion based
on potentially evidence but not actually having
personally seen or heard or written or whatever the
evidence that's in front of them. So that's why it's important to make sure that they meet the minimum threshold for an expert opinion. And that's what the
attorneys are doing here. - Your honor, Miss Vito's expertise is in general automotive knowledge. It is in this area that her testimony will be applicable. Now if Mr. Trotter wishes
to voir dire the witness as to the extent of her
expertise in this area, I'm sure he's gonna be
more than satisfied. - That's a good retort by Joe Pesci, who responds to the
argument that she is not an expert in tire marks, but is an expert in a very narrow area. And that is the only area
that he's going to ask for an expert opinion. Generally this would happen in briefing and not actually on the witness stand, but it could happen on
the witness stand too. And he essentially making a proffer that he's only gonna ask certain questions of Marisa Tomei. And the term that he uses, voir dire, and it's pronounced differently
in different places. Some places it's called voir "deer". That is the correct term
for examining an expert on their supposed expertise. You would also conduct a
voir "deer", or a voir dire, of a jury if you're asking if they are sufficient to sit on the jury
in a particular case as well. - Okay. - All right. All right. Now, Ms. Vito, being an expert on general
automotive knowledge, can you tell me what would the correct ignition timing be on a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet with a 327 cubic-inch engine and a four-barrel carburetor? - That's a bullshit question. - Does that mean that you can't answer it? - It's a bullshit question. It's impossible to answer. - Impossible because you
don't know the answer! - Nobody could answer that question. - Your honor, I move
to disqualify Ms. Vito as an expert witness. - Can you answer the question? - No. It is a trick question. - Why is it a trick question? - Watch this. - 'Cause Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55. The 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the
correct ignition timing would be four degrees
before top dead center. - [Trotter] Well... - Despite the questions
being a little argumentative, the big problem there is
that he asked a question he did not know the answer to, and he didn't know how the witness was going to answer it, so he ends up looking like a fool, and bolstering the
credibility of the witness. And while he got a little close and was in the well of the court, that's, that's an interaction that could take place. - Ah. She's acceptable, your honor. - And he sees that he's
beaten and he retreats. That's the way a smart lawyer would react. You just move on and you
deal with the testimony that comes out later. This next scene comes from
the movie The Insider. - That is correct. - In other words it acts as a drug. - I object to the form of the question. - It acts as a drug on the... - Object to the form... - It acts as a drug... - Object! - Is there an echo in here? Your objection's been recorded. She typed it into her
little machine over there. It's on the record. - This is a really interesting scene that you really don't
see much of in the media. This is a deposition, so you are allowed to ask questions of a particular witness. The witness has to give
their testimony under oath, and it's all recorded by a stenographer as if that witness was on the stand. But this takes place before trial. This is not a part of
the trial proceedings, it's part of the discovery proceedings, before trail ever happens. So what generally happens
in a deposition is you have the witness, the
attorney for the witness, the attorney for the other side, and the stenographer to
write down every word that the witness says. And that becomes part of
the deposition record. And the opposing attorney is allowed to make objections to the questions that you're asking. But nothing really happens. You're just objecting
so that you can preserve that objection for a later time in case the question
is ever asked in court. If you fail to make your objection during a disposition, and the same question
is asked on the stand, you have waived your objection and you can't object at a later time. So you're preserving the record. What's going on here is
something that happens rarely but it does happen, which is where you have this giant room because it's a huge class action, and you have an attorney for one side and then hundreds or dozens of attorneys for the other side. In this case The Insider
is the real life story of the tobacco litigation that
happened in the early '90s. So the tobacco industry
obviously has an army of lawyers, and they're
trying to stop this witness from testifying. So he's making his objection, and he specifically says,
I object to the form of the question, which in the south is generally the only
thing you're allowed to do in a deposition. You can't object to hearsay. You can't object to speculation. You can only object to
the form of the question. So that's what he's doing, but he's doing it over
and over and over again to try and prevent the
witness from testifying. So it's a common tactic. It's not exactly what you should be doing, but it's true to life. So this could be the actual dialogue from a real life deposition. I'm not sure. But stuff like that definitely happens. - So now I'll proceed with
my deposition of my witness. - That's right. The opposing side has
made their objections. They've objected to the form
of the question many times. And then the other
attorney just moves forward and says, you made your objection, you preserved for the record. Now I'm moving on and
I'm asking my question. - Does it... - Dr. Wigand... I am instructing you not to answer that question. In accordance to the
terms of the contractual obligations undertaken by you not to disclose any information about your work at the
Brown and Williamson tobacco company. - So he has instructed
the witness not to answer. And that usually comes up
only when you're dealing with a privilege issue. So, for example, if you ask a question that infringes on the
attorney/client privilege, than you would instruct
the witness not to answer. So an opposing attorney
can't ask, for example, what you discussed with your attorney. In that situation you
would instruct your client not to answer on the
basis of that privilege. This is a different situation, though, because the tobacco company is effectively a third party here. So this doctor no longer works
for the tobacco companies. So they probably can't instruct someone who is a third party
to them not to answer. Usually it's up to the witness whether they're going to follow the attorney's instructions or not. And so it's a little
tenuous whether you can instruct a witness not
to answer on the basis of a contractual obligation. And by the way, usually
nondisclosure agreements don't hold up in the face
of a court proceeding, because then that would be
contrary to public policy. So using a nondisclosure agreement to try and prevent a
witness from testifying is an interesting
tactic, but I don't think it would hold up. - And in accordance with
the force and effect of the temporary restraining order that has been entered against you by the court in the state of Kentucky. That means you don't talk. - So that's another
situation that's interesting in that there's supposedly
a restraining order from another state, ordering him not to disclose. It's an interesting situation. And I know that in real life this was a big part of this litigation whether this former doctor, or this doctor who was a former employee of the tobacco company, was bound by this nondisclosure agreement. But this interchange
between the two attorneys and the objections and the instructions not to answer, that dialogue
is pretty realistic. And sometimes you get these big rooms. This is a little bit more dramatic than you would have in a real deposition. Even in one that has dozens of attorneys, you're really just in
a big conference room sitting around at a table. No one is standing up walking
around asking questions, you know, pretending like you're in court. It's all just everybody sitting down, and you're not gonna get
these sort of histrionics. But the dialogue itself is true to life, and in these big class actions you can get situations where you have lots of parties in a deposition. And sometimes it can
get pretty heated too. - Mr. Motley, we have rights here. - Oh, you got rights. And lefts. Ups and downs and middles. So what? You don't get to instruct
anything around here. This is not North Carolina, not South Carolina, nor Kentucky. This is the sovereign state
of Mississippi's proceeding. Wipe that smirk off your face! Dr. Wigand's deposition
will be part of this record! And I'm gonna take my witness' testimony whether the hell you like it or not! - Yeah, and so there you have it. He's saying that the
other side can't instruct the witness not to answer. And in the absence of a court order, in this particular court, that attorney is doing the right thing and he's just moving forward. And the attorneys can argue on whether that testimony is
admissible at a later date, but the important thing is
to get that testimony down on paper so that you at
least have the option to use it later regardless
of whether it was proper in the first place. And when you get these
disputes in a deposition, you have to, it's a
game of chicken usually. The other side will say
that they're gonna shut the deposition down, and potentially face the ire of the court, unless they can convince the court that what the other side
was doing was so crazy that the deposition
shouldn't move forward. So you gotta be very
careful on both sides, and when in doubt just move forward and ask the questions so
you can get some testimony on the record. All right, the next clip is
from The Devil's Advocate. - [Man] All right, Mr.
Clinteen, let me ask you this. Do you think as a juror you would be able to set
aside any prior opinion you might hold about the
savings and loan industry? That was a question, sir. - What? Do I like bankers? - This is a voir dire
of a panel of jurors. A lot of people will
experience this very thing when they get called for jury duty. One side is asking
questions of the jurors. They're trying to figure out, number one, can they be impartial, but number two, more importantly, are they more likely to vote for your side over the other's? And the attorney has
asked a classic question about can you be impartial
for a particular defendant or plaintiff? And the next best thing to getting someone who you think is going to
vote for you in the trial is to show that they can't be impartial and have the judge dismiss them. So you get a certain number
of peremptory challenges, which means that you can
get rid of potential jurors for no reason at all, but you only get a
certain amount of those. But if you can convince the judge to get rid of the jurors for you, then you get an unlimited number of those. So it's a game of cat and mouse between the attorneys, the
jurors and the other side. (man clears throat) - Your honor, may I have a minute, please, to confer with my colleagues? - [Judge] You may. - Neville. While you're at it, let's
get rid of number four, six, and I'd say lose number 12, except the prosecutor's gonna
fuck up and do it for us. - Number six? - In a major case, you actually might have jury consultants behind you. It's very common to consult with not only your co-counsel, who
are watching the jurors while you're asking questions, and they might have some intuition about who they should keep and
who they should get rid of. But you also might have consultants who all they do all day long is try to pick favorable juries for you. So there aren't any consultants here because they're relying on
the acumen of Keanu Reeves. But you might see one in real life if the case is big enough. If the dollar amount is worth it. - You're kiddin', right? She's my first choice. - She's my first pass. - And four? With the dreadlocks. That's crazy. That's a defendant's
juror if I ever saw one. - Did you see his shoes? - Yeah, it's unfortunate
that there is a lot of sort of stereotyping that goes on when you're selecting a jury. I think that's sort of what
they're alluding to here with that particular pick, or dismissal. There are laws that say
you cannot get rid of, you know, every minority
that's on a jury, for example. You've gotta thread a very fine line in some of these cases. So it's unfortunate that
they're sort of profiling people based on that. But it happens in real life unfortunately. - Look, kid, maybe down in Florida you are the next big thing. This is New York, Manhattan. We're not squeezing oranges here. - He polishes those shoes every night. He makes his own clothes. He may look like a brother
with an attitude to you, but I see a man with a
shotgun under his bed. And woe betide the creature
who steps into his garden. And number six, your favorite? She's damaged goods. - There's a science to
picking a good jury, but there's also a lot of
intuition that goes on too. I don't know that it would be so crazy as what Keanu Reeves
is talking about here, but there's an art and a science to it. It can really make a
difference in your case. So those are some of my
favorite legal movies. If you'd like to see
more Lawyer Reacts videos or hear about my law-school experience, please click on this short playlist that I put together. It includes the latest video I did on law-school horror stories. I think you'll really like it. Please click Subscribe
if you like this video so that you never miss the next one. And otherwise, I'll see
you in the next video.
