- Tell me Tommy, why are you so sure this is Santa Claus? - Because my daddy told me so.
(courtroom laughing) Didn't you daddy? - Hearsay. (upbeat music) Hey legal eagles, it's time to think like a lawyer, and it's time to save Santa Claus. Today we are covering
the Christmas classic Miracle on 34th Street. Now, I may be a jaded, cynical lawyer, but I love a good holiday movie, especially one that involves
lawyers saving the day. Because who is is going
to save Santa Claus if not for the lawyers? (bells chiming) If you disagree with me, be sure to comment in
the form of an objection, which I'll either sustain or overrule. And I will pin the best comment that most thinks like a lawyer. Of course, stay until the end, when I give Miracle on 34th Street a grade for legal realism, and we settle once and
for all the question of whether there really
is a Santa Claus or not. So, without further adieu, let's dig in to the original
Miracle on 24th Street. (band playing holiday music) Terrible Santa Claus. Oh, could be public intoxication. Big trouble. - She's a little confused, and I thought maybe you could
help to straighten her out. - I'd be glad to. - Would you please tell her that you're not really Santa Claus? That there actually is no such person. - Ugh, how dare she! - I disagree with you Mrs. Walker, but not only is there such a person, but here I am to prove it. - No, no, no, you misunderstand. I want you to tell her the truth. What's your name? - Kris Kringle. I'll bet you're in the first grade. - Second. - I mean, your real name. - That is my real name. - So there is a
philosophical discussion here that this movie sort of skirts, which is, what does it
actually mean to be someone. What if your particular subjective belief about your own identity doesn't comport with what
everybody else thinks. Is there such a thing as a platonic ideal of someone's identity? These are some heady,
philosophical questions that I'm not even going to try to answer. But I think we should
probably keep that in mind as we delve into a trial over
one's own personal identity. - Now, I want you to stand
with your feet together and your arms extended. - Then I want you to
muscular coordination test. Surely. Be glad to (chuckling). You know, sometimes the cause
of nervous habits like yours is not obvious. No, often they're the
result of an insecurity. Are you happy at home Mr. Sawyer? - That will be all Mr. Kringle! The examination's over, you may go. - I have to believe that having an on-staff
psychologist or therapist is pretty unusual in a department store. Even in the 1940s, it seems kind of weird to have
someone permanently on staff who does nothing but psychologically
evaluate your employees. You're probably doing something wrong, creating a dangerous workplace, if you have to have a psychologist on hand in your department store. It seems a little weird. - I beg your pardon! - You're job here, I understand, is to give intelligence tests. Passing yourself off as a psychologist. You ought to be horsewhipped. Taking a normal,
impressionable boy like Alfred, and filling him up with
complexes and phobias? - I think I'm better equipped
to judge that than you are. - Just because the boy wants to be good and kind to children, you tell him he has a guilt complex. - Having the same delusion, you couldn't possibly understand. The boy is definitely maladjusted, and I'm helping him. - Maladjusted? You talk about maladjusted. Seems to me that the patient
is running the clinic here. - I won't stand... Leave this office immediately. - Now either you stop-- - Oh, he might be
trespassing at this point. - Straight to Mr. Macy and tell him what a malicious, contemptible fraud you are! - Get out before I'll have you thrown out! - There's only one way
to handle a man like you. You won't listen to reason. You're heartless. You have no humanity. - Are you going to leave? - Yes. (umbrella smacking forehead)
- Oh! - Oh boy! I thought if you were naughty
you got a lump of coal in your stocking, not bashed in the head with a cudgel. I think Santa might be
in some trouble here, because he has committed a
clear-cut case of battery. Battery is a simple tort
that only has two elements. Number one, you have to have intentional contact with a plaintiff's body. And number two, that intentional contact must
produce some sort of injury. But in New York, where
this movie takes place, there are several
different kinds of battery, including aggravated battery. So, to figure out which
particular variety of battery Kris Kringle has committed here, we need to think like a lawyer. (upbeat tones) New York has several different varieties of assault and battery, the first of which is the least severe, which is assault in the third degree, or commonly called simple assault, which is causing someone harm
with the intent to do so. It doesn't matter how
severe the injury is, so long as you have caused pain, you have made physical
contact with another person, without consent. That is a misdemeanor charge, which is punishable by
up to a year in jail. Now, the next type of assault is assault in the second degree, which generally you do by, again, making physical contact with someone, but with the intent to
do serious bodily harm, and actually committing
serious bodily harm; causing serious bodily harm in the victim. Not surprisingly, if you
commit second degree assault, because it is so much more severe, it carries with it a
much more severe penalty. Assault in the second
degree is a class D felony, and carries with it a
mandatory jail sentence. And then, finally, there is
assault in the first degree, which is the most severe form of assault, which is committed with the intent to disfigure or amputate the victim here. So it's a very, very serious
penalty that carries with it a mandatory, multi-year sentence. So it is a big deal. But let's put that aside for the moment, and just focus on the simple assault and potential second
degree assault charges against Santa Claus, Kris Kringle. Kris Kringle got into a heated argument with the fake psychiatrist. After basically yelling at each other, he picked up an umbrella, a hard object, and hit this psychiatrist
over the head with it. Under those circumstances, you might be able to conclude that he intended to
inflict serious bodily harm on the fake psychiatrist. On the other hand you might argue that since this is
ostensibly Santa Claus here, he did not intend to
seriously injure the man, but just to ring his bell and to cause him temporary suffering for what he has caused
the other little boy here. And you can see that the psychiatrist is not permanently harmed, and in fact malingers
and fakes the seriousness of his injury to get
sympathy from his coworkers. Which might militate in favor of it being a non-serious bodily injury, and really just being
unwanted physical contact, rather than the more severe penalties associated with assault
in the second degree. However, there is a complication here, because in New York, if you use a weapon, it is an automatic aggravation, from simple assault to
assault in the second degree. I think there is a reasonable argument that an umbrella, especially
the hard end of an umbrella, constitutes a weapon, and might take the simple assault from being unwanted physical conduct into the realm of second degree assault, which is a class D felony. So within the world of this movie, Kris Kringle has committed assault, and may be guilty of
felony aggravated assault in bopping the psychiatrist on the head with an umbrella. (umbrella smacking forehead)
- Oh! - Merry Christmas. - Henry, listen, I'm no legal brain trust. I don't know a habeas from a corpus. But I do know politics. That's my racket. I got ya elected, didn't I? And I'm gonna try to get ya reelected. - I know Charley. - Judges are elected in
a lot of jurisdictions. It's a big problem actually. - And I'm telling ya, get off this case. - Buy why? - Because you're a regular Pontius Pilate the minute you start, that's why. - Oh I don't believe it! I'm an honest man, and nobody's going to hold it against me for doing my duty as I see it. - This sort of does highlight
the problems that judges have in staying objective. There are a lot of political consequences associated with different outcomes, and it's really difficult
to stay objective in these circumstances. - Hey.
(courtroom chatter) - Taking a cigar into court. Boy, those were the bad old days. - [Bailiff] Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All person having business
with the special term part three of the Supreme Court held in and for the county of New York. Draw near and give your
attendance and ye shall be heard. - So what's happening here
is a motion by the state to involuntary commit someone, an elderly gentleman named Kris Kringle, to a mental institution. I actually had to look this up, because mental illness
law is not something that I practice with any frequency. And I thought it actually
might be a trope in movies that looks good but isn't true, like quicksand, for example. However, what I found is that
there is actually a procedure in New York law, to be able to involuntary commit someone for a mental illness, both in the present day, and in 1947 when this movie came out. And, in fact, what it requires
is that the state prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the individual in question suffers from a mental illness that requires immediate inpatient care, without which it's likely
to result in serious harm to that person or others around them. So, if those requirements are met, it is possible for the state of New York to involuntarily commit
someone to a mental institution for treatment. Now you know. Get out of the well, man! The bailiff will tackle you! - I said before you. Your honor, please, I should like to call the first witness. Mr. Kringle, will you take the stand? - His first witness is the defendant? - Mr. Kringle, you don't have to answer any
questions against your wishes, or even testify at all. - We have no objection your honor. - Oh, I'll be glad to answer
any question that I can. - So that was a huge strategic mistake. Kris Kringle here has
a fifth amendment right not to testify. And it's common for a
lot of people to think, well, if you don't have anything to hide, then you might as well take the stand. But that is the wrong way to look at it, because everyone has testimony that may come back to haunt them. And bad things can happen, based on your own testimony. So it is especially important where the state bears the burden of proof, not to give them ammunition. And here, we know that there
are skeletons in the closet, because Kris Kringle has
bashed someone over the head with the blunt end of an umbrella. He has committed assault. And, it's possible he
committed felony assault against the fake psychiatrist. And in a hearing over whether
you present an immediate danger to yourself or others, that kind of testimony is going
to be very, very important, and in fact, that testimony alone might be enough to meet
the state's burden here to show that he needs to
be committed involuntarily to a mental institution. - Where do you live? - That's what this hearing will decide. (courtroom laughing) (gavel banging) - A very sound answer, Mr. Kringle. - The judge should not
be opining at this point. - You believe that you're Santa Claus? - Of course. (chuckling) - But what does it mean to be Santa Claus? (upbeat tones) In a Cartesian way, the fact that he actually
thinks he is Santa Claus is a form of being Santa Claus. And, in fact, one who plays Santa Claus is a type of Santa Claus, perhaps a transitory or
temporary Santa Claus. I don't know that this state
has made it's burden here. I think it has a long way to go in arguing both the philosophical
and legal questions here. - State rests your honor. - Ooh. So at this point, what that means is that the state is not going to put on any more witnesses, and it's not going to put
forward any more evidence. The only testimony that has come out is the testimony that's come
by way of Kris Kringle himself. Which is crazy considering he could have put the fake
psychiatrist on the stand, to explain that he actually
was physically assaulted by Kris Kringle. That would've gone a long way
towards meeting his burden. All he is done is asked a few questions, which are ambiguous at best, to establish the mental state
of this individual person, and hasn't had any testimony that goes to whether
he is a physical danger to himself or others. So at this point, I don't think there's any argument that the state has not made its burden. I think that many be intentional. The prosecutor (chuckling) probably doesn't wanna ruin Christmas, the judge doesn't wanna ruin Christmas, and face the ire of his grandchildren. So I think that he is
intentionally tanking this case to not go forward. - I believe he was employed
to play Santa Claus, perhaps he didn't understand
the question correctly. - Oh, I understood the
question perfectly, your honor. (chuckling) - That doesn't actually
solve anything though. He can understand it and the question can
still mean different things. - No further questions at this time. - Yeah, there should definitely not be any cross examination. - Thank you. (laughing) In view of this statement, do you still wish to put
in a defense, young man? - I do, your honor. - Ooh. So what the judge is
hinting at there (chuckling) is that the defense should not go forward, because the state has not made its burden. Instead, what the defense
really should have done here is filed for a directed verdict or a motion for judgment
as a matter of law, a JMOL. What those motions do is they signal to the
court that the person or entity that has the burden, in this case the State of New York, has not met their burden. Taking the evidence in
a light most favorable to the moving party, it doesn't rise to the level of the thing that they have to prove. The state has the burden of proof. They have to prove that Kris
Kringle has a mental illness that is a danger to himself and others. They have not met their burden. It was a big mistake
by the self-proclaimed greatest lawyer in the world, to not stop this trial right here, because there's no reason
this trial should continue. - Anyone who thinks he's
Santa Claus is not sane! - Not necessarily. You believe yourself to be Judge Harper. Yet no one questions your sanity, because you are Judge Harper. - I know all about myself young man. (laughing) Mr. Kringle is the
subject of this hearing. - Yes, your honor. - All right, getting metaphysical. - And if he is the person
he believes himself to be, just as you are, then he's just as sane. - Granted, but he isn't. - Oh, but he is, your honor. - Is what? - I intend to prove that
Mr. Kringle is Santa Claus. (murmuring from courtroom) (laughing) - That's very, very amusing, but a terrible defense strategy. He has now taken on an affirmative burden, which the law doesn't put on him, and he has decided not to end this trial when it should have been ended, and decided to prove something that he doesn't actually have to prove. Not a good strategy, when you're sitting in a
winning position as a defense when the prosecution
hasn't made their case. - Go in and get mother's
scissors, will you? They're in the bedroom. That's a good boy. I don't want you to discuss
this case in front of him. It would break his heart. And while we on the subject, I agree with the reporters. Mr. Kringle seems to be a nice old man, and I don't see why you have
to keep persecuting him. Firstly, I am not persecuting him, I am prosecuting him. And secondly, I like the old man too! Wish I had never gotten into this. But it's too late now and there's
nothing I can do about it. It's up to the State of New York, and I'm just their duly
appointed legal representative. Kringle has been declared
a menace to society by competent doctors, and it's my duty to protect
the State of New York and see that he's put away. No matter what they may say about me, I've got to do it. - I think the prosecutor does
have an ethical obligation to go forward with his
case as a zealous advocate for the State of New York, but on the other hand, he also has the ability to
dismiss this case entirely, and to drop the case. I don't think the DA has to proceed. So that's an interesting ethical quandary. I'm not sure which way that comes out in favor of the prosecutor here. I think he probably could
drop it if he wanted to. (courtroom muttering) - Psychologist. Where'd you graduate from, a correspondence school? You're fired. - Ooh. And now he has a claim for retaliation. - Mr. Marrah seems to have
appointed himself to judge here, your honor. He's now ruling on what
testimony I may introduce. - Your honor, we request an immediate
ruling from this court. Is there, or is there not, a Santa Claus? - So I actually think that this court may be constitutionally prohibited from weighing in on that question. Because remember, Santa
Claus is a religious figure, Saint Nicholas. And under the first amendment, courts cannot weight in
on religious decisions. Under the United States
Supreme Court Jurisprudence, specifically the US versus. Ballard case that came out in 1944, just three years before this movie did, courts are prohibited
under the first amendment from deciding religious questions. In other words, they cannot
decide the truth or falsity of any particular religious tenent. - And what about the Salvation Army? Why, they've got a Santa
Claus on every corner, and they take in a fortune. But you go ahead Henry, you do it your way. You go on back in there and tell 'em that your rule there's no Santy Claus. Go on! But if you do, remember this: you can count on getting just two votes. Your own, and that district
attorney's out there. - The judge really shouldn't
be in this situation at all. Because most judges ascribe
to the judicial canon that the court should only
decide the minimum number of questions that are absolutely necessary for the resolution of the case at hand. And here, the judge doesn't
actually have to weigh in on this question. The court, really, should just say that the prosection
has not met its burden, not weigh in on the larger question of whether there is a Santa Claus or not. - Can he produce any evidence
to support his views? - If, your honor, please, I can. Will Thomas Marrah please take the stand. - Who, me? - Thomas Marrah junior.
(courtroom muttering) - They gave him a subpoena (laughing). Well, if you're going to
call the prosecutor's son, you have to subpoena them. - Do you believe in Santa Claus, Tommy? - Sure I do. He gave me a brand new
flexible flyer sled last year. And this year-- - And what does he look like? - There is he, sitting there!
(courtroom laughing) - Your honor, I protest! - He has a positive ID. - Overruled. - Overruled. - Tell me, Tommy, why are you so sure this is Santa Claus? - Because my daddy told me so. (courtroom laughing) Didn't you daddy? - Hearsay. - And you believe your
daddy, don't you Tommy? - Should be objecting here. Also, he should be fighting like hell to prevent his son from testifying here. That's totally improper. But, adorable. - He's a very honest man. - 'Course he is. My daddy wouldn't tell me
anything that wasn't so. Would you daddy? (courtroom laughing) - Thank you Tommy. - No cross-examination? - Goodbye daddy. (laughing) - Your honor, the State of New York concedes the existence of Santa Claus. (laughing) - Oh, that may be an ethical
issue for him right there. But he shouldn't have conceded, he should have just dropped the case. There wouldn't have been
any precedential value in this particular trial, if the DA just gave up prosecuting it and withdrew the motion to
commit the defendant here. This is a problem of their own creation. - I therefore request
that Mr. Gailey now submit authoritative proof, that Mr. Kringle is the
one and only Santa Claus. - That's not a legal standard. There's no such thing
as authoritative proof. There is proof, and you
have to meet your burden, generally speaking here, proof by preponderance of the evidence. But there's no such thing as
quote, authoritative proof. - Your honor, I'm sure we're all gratified to know that the post office
department is doing so nicely, but it hardly has any
bearing on this case. - It has a great deal, your honor, if I may be allowed to proceed. - By all means, Mr. Gailey. - Your honor, the figures I have just quoted indicate an efficiently run organization. Furthermore, the United States
postal laws and regulations make it a criminal offense
to wailfully misdirect mail, or intentionally deliver
it to the wrong party. - So there is something
called the supremacy clause in the US constitution, that requires that where the
federal government has acted that preempts state law
contradictory action on that particular point. But, on the other hand, it
does create a precedence. State laws and courts rely on regulations from the federal government, not for their preclusive effect, but often for their authority
in very different cases. For example, if a state
court is deciding a matter or first impression, it will often rely on
federal court decisions, or administrative decisions
of the federal government, in crafting its opinion, because while it's not
bound by those decisions, it can use those opinions
and decisions and regulations as persuasive authority. If the federal government
has decided something, it lends a great deal
of credence to the idea that that is what should actually happen in a matter of first impression before the state court. So what's happening here, relying on the post office, presumably the administrative
decision of the post office, has a ring of truth to it. State court judges to that all the time. - I have further exhibits your honor, but I hesitate to produce them. - Oh, I'm sure we'll be
very happy to see them. - Yes, yes, yes. Produce them Mr. Gailey. Put them here on my desk. - But your honor-- - Put them here on the desk. Put them. - [Mr. Gailey] Yes, your honor. (courtroom muttering) - That's what we call the
overwhelming weight of authority. (comedic drums) (dog whimpering) (upbeat music) All right, now it's time to
give this holiday classic a grade for legal realism. (gavel banging) It's been a long time
since I've seen this movie, and I'm delighted to see
all the legal accuracies. The hearing, regarding mental commitment is both based in law and
largely factually correct. The legal arguments are
inventive, but somewhat realistic. However, on the other side,
they gloss over the fact that Santa Claus committed assault, that he waived his fifth amendment rights, and kinda screwed up some of
the constitutional arguments. But this is a clear holiday classic, so I'm going to give this
wonderful holiday movie three candy canes. It's so wonderful, I don't
see how I can give it anything less than that. And on the question of whether there really
is a Santa Claus or not. Well, as an officer of the court, I am bound by Supreme Court precedence, and I can't lose my impartiality. But I will say this, if the real Santa Claus is out there, and you're looking for the
best attorney in the world, I will represent you pro bono. So happy holidays legal eagles. And until next time, I'll see you in court.
