- If Jack McCoy said it
then it's probably true. (upbeat music) Hey Legal Eagles, D.
James Stone here teaching you how to think like a lawyer so you can crush law school. When I was growing up, my
parents only let me watch a very small amount of TV. However, they let me watch an unlimited amount of educational TV. So once I decided that
I wanted to be a lawyer when I grew up, I convinced
them that legal TV shows like Law and Order were educational because they would help me
with my future practice. So I grew up watching lots
and lots of Law and Order. But to this day, I still like watching legal procedurals on TV. Last time around, I analyzed a few of my favorite courtroom dramas on TV, this time around, I am reacting to some of the TV shows that you
suggested that I watch. And if you have other suggestions, please let me know in the comments, I'll try to get to them,
including by popular demand, an entire episode about Suits. But, without further ado, let's get to the first drama, L.A. Law. - Fergus and Associates at the time of your discharge, Mr. Cowen? - Six years. Oh boy (whoops). - [Lawyer] Why did you
just make that sound? - I have Tourette's syndrome. - Would you tell the court what that is? - It's a neurological disorder. It causes me to make sounds or say words or twitch in different ways. Sometimes I do it more,
sometimes I do it less. - [Lawyer] Can you control it? - No, not for any length of time. - What reason were you given
for being discharged, Noah? - They said I was disruptive. - [Lawyer] Were you disruptive? - I do market research
and the office I work in, oh boy, is in the back, and there are only a few coworkers around to hear me. - So far, I really like the tone that the attorney is
using with this witness. He's conducting what's
called a direct examination. So, it's his witness, and
he's asking the questions that he wants of his own
witness, and he's trying to lay the factual foundation for why this particular individual
was let go for health reasons, as opposed to some other pretense reason. And the questions he's
using are a great example of what you're supposed to
do on direct examination. He's asking open-ended questions. He's asking, where do you work? Were you disruptive? The kind of questions that
are like, what happens next? Those are the classic
direct examination questions that you're not leading the witness, you're simply allowing the witness to tell the story, and
you're just simply asking the next question in a
sequence that allows him to go down the line of facts
that you need to illicit. So, so far, the attorney's doing a great job on direct examination. It's a little unrealistic
that he's literally putting his hands on the
wall in front of the jury, not allowed to do that, but so far, the content of the questions is very good. - Did they consider you disruptive? - I don't believe so, no. Nigger, nigger! (people murmuring) - Why'd you say that, sir? - It's all part of Tourette's. - Noah, would you tell the court what it's like to have Tourette's? - [Noah] What it's like? - Yeah. - So that might sound like
unnecessarily emotional, woo woo question, what is it
like to have Tourette syndrome? But that is a great way to build a bond between your witness and the jury. It might not be strictly necessary, but it adds color to the story, and creating a rapport
between your witness and garnering sympathy in a way that is probative of the question at hand, specifically, was he let
go for health reasons or for some pretextual reason, is really important in a case like this. So that's just a textbook good example of a good direct examination in an employment case like this. - Well, the tics and
grimaces start pretty soon after you wake up in the morning, oh boy. And then you go about your
business when you're alone, hollering and spitting, barking. Oh boy, bitch! It's pretty weird if you're
not used to it, I guess. Oh boy, anyway Tourette's is part of me and there's nothing I can do about that. About that, whoop! (sighs) - Nothing further. - Nothing you can do about that? Tell me, Mr. Cowen, have you ever heard of the drug haloperidol? - Of course I've heard of it. - [Female Attorney] How
about the drug clonidine? - I prefer not to take either of them. - Why? They're both frequently used in the treatment of Tourette's. - Haloperidol, it makes me forget things. It makes me feel totally spaced out. And clonidine, it doesn't
work too well with me. Whore, slut, bitch! - Tell me, Mr. Cowen, did you ever call any of your female coworkers bitch? - I wasn't calling them
bitch, I was saying bitch. - How do they know the difference, sir? - If they know me, they
know the difference. - So the burden of your behavior should be on them, not on you? - Objection. - Burden, bitch! Let me tell you about burden. A burden is not being able
to go into a restaurant or a movie, a burden is (sighs), is not being able to
find a woman to love you or an employer to hire you. - Mr. Cowen, your attorney
has made an objection. - A burden is being the kid in class who everyone point at,
the nut, the weirdo. - [Judge] Mr. Cowen. - I am the guy with the
funny disease, all right? That's all it is, so stop pointing at me. And stop treating me like I am crazy. Oh boy, oh boy, just stop it! - The attorney on cross examination
made the classic mistake of asking a question that she
doesn't know the answer to. The first set of questions that she has about his medication, she
knows how he's going to answer, that he either has tried them in the past and refuses to use them, or
that there's some other reason why he will not use the medication, and that's part of her case. However, she then went beyond that to ask an open-ended question about, and try to make a legal point
about where the burden lies. Now, that is not a
question for the witness. That's a question for
the judge to determine whether or not there is a legal basis for this employee to use medication or not, and the judge would
solve that legal question before the question
gets posed to the jury. However, because she has opened the door, and because she can't close that door, she allows this witness to go off on this narrative about the burden that he faces everyday as
a result of his ailment. So, that's exactly how you
let a cross examination go off the rails and that's
why you make the points that you need to make, in
this case, about medication, and you stop, and then you
make those argumentative points in your closing argument
at the end of the case. And when the witness doesn't
have an opportunity to go off and again, show his despair
in front of the jury. Bad move on cross. All right, the next clip
comes from Law and Order. (pills clacking) - That's a lot of pills, isn't it? Precisely the amount that Gregory Loomis took over his two years on centinol. - This appears to be a closing argument in a case that involves pharmaceuticals. And one of the hardest
things to do as an attorney when you're giving a closing argument is, since you're dealing with
these abstract subjects, it's so hard to create
these visual metaphors that will resonate with the jury because so much of the trial
is just dry facts and figures, and I'm sure at some point in this case, it came out that this
individual consumed X number of pills, but by taking all of those pills or representatives of
those pills in a pitcher and then pouring them into another beaker, you just get this striking visual metaphor that this jury is not going to forget. So, that's the kind of thing
that a good trial attorney will do to come up with these things that will stick with the jury's mind, so that even if they forget the facts, or forget other portions of the law, they will remember that
person pouring thousands of pills into a beaker,
that's gonna stick with them. So that's A-plus lawyering right there. - It was supposed to help him study and achieve his full potential. But what he didn't know, and
what his parents didn't know, and what the doctor didn't know was that every one of these pills could be as lethal as a bullet. No one knew because the
manufacturing drug company never told anyone about
possible side effects, of suicide, or murder. Tragically, one of these bullets went off. - That's really great. So, what she's done is,
this is a case involving a warning label, which can be very dry. You're dealing with this prose that's fit on to warning label of a
canister of medication. And yet, the only thing
that this jury is going to be thinking about is
this metaphor of a beaker of bullets, each one that can go off. And just this mountain of
medicine that's in front of them. I mean, that's a great
way to really bring home the facts and to create
something that's gonna stick with this jury, so well
done by this attorney in this closing argument. - And killed Alex Garcia. Now, Gregory is not a criminal. He didn't volunteer to take these pills, it was not his choice, he's a child. And he did as his parents told him. And his parents did what
the doctor told them. And the doctor prescribed this medication because he had been
assured by the manufacturer that it was safe. Now, follow that line and you'll find where the blame lies. It does not stop at Gregory. He is not responsible for this tragedy. - So what's going on here
is really interesting from my standpoint,
because so often you have an individual who takes an act, but the plaintiffs are
not going to go after that individual because often that individual doesn't have any money. And so, if you're trying
to get compensation for some injury that has happened, often what you have to do is
to go after the bigger pockets. And in many jurisdictions, even if the, say the manufacturer
of the pharmaceuticals or the manufacturer of some product that was purchased is only
a fraction responsible, they can be responsible
for 100% of the damages. And even if that party
is not 100% responsible, in a lot of jurisdictions, you are allowed to get 100% of your compensation from any one of those defendants and then the defendant is entitled to what's called indemnity, where they're allowed to recoup the rest of the damages from the other defendants. So, say a company was
only 10% responsible, they might have to pay the plaintiff 100% and then go after that
90% from the other people. And if those people don't have any money, that's what's call being judgment-proof, which is that no one's gonna go after you because you'll simply declare bankruptcy. So, it's a real problem in America where you have people
going after the big pockets who are potentially not 100% responsible, and it's also a big problem that if you have the person who is mainly responsible, who doesn't have the funds
to compensate the victim, then the victim may not
receive compensation. It's a big problem, that's
why you often have insurance, is to bridge that gap,
but that's a real issue that people run into in the legal system. - No doubt about it, Rebecca Shane and her team have put
on a dazzling defense. To hear her tell it,
you could almost think that no one is responsible for
what happened to Alex Garcia. We're counting on your good sense to remember that behind
the impressive display, the facts remain the facts. Greg Loomis is an uncommonly
privileged young man with a history of violent
reactions to not getting his way. His family's wealth has
allowed him to escape all the more unpleasant
consequences of his past explosions. They placed him in new schools, and gave him money to avoid hard work, and to buy his way out of tough spots. So, based on past experience, he expects to evade responsibility
for Alex Garcia's murder and to get another free pass. This time from you. Who did this, centinol or Greg Loomis? And how did centinol give Greg Loomis his pattern of violent behavior, his motive, and the sense of entitlement that made him think he
could wrap a garrote around Alex Garcia's throat
and get away with it? - Oh boy, okay, so this
is a criminal prosecution and apparently the
defendants are using the argument of an intervening cause. And this harkens back to a debate that lawyers and philosophers have had for centuries, if not millennia, which is, who's responsible when
there's more than one cause? You know, an individual is responsible for their own actions, but
there can be intervening causes as well, and that's
what the defense is saying. They're saying that but for the drugs that this individual was
consuming, he would not have conducted these particular acts, and therefore that should be a defense. And this debate goes on
in the law all the time. There is a debate between what's
called the proximate cause and what is the legal cause. There can be more than one
reason why something happens and it's a hard decision
for the law to make, to ultimately say who's responsible and in what proportion. So, law students deal with
these questions all the time. - How do we survive as a society if no one is accountable
for their actions? We don't. No one here is willing
to take responsibility. So the task falls on you. The law says he must be held
accountable for his actions. Uphold the law. There isn't an excuse for everything. - Now, in real life,
the jury would not just come up with whatever rule is responsible in apportioning the blame here, the judge will debate that
with the other attorneys and they will come up
with jury instructions. Both sides will be
responsible for writing down the instructions that
they want the jury to get from the judge, and the
judge will then choose a set or write their own, and then give those instructions to the jury. And you have to give
very clear instructions so that the jury knows what
standard they're applying. Because the jurors are
just like you and me, they're laypeople, who are not familiar with the mountains of of legal jurisprudence that are out there. So they're going to have to be given very specific instructions and this debate about who is ultimately responsible, there will be a very specific instruction about whether it is proper to hold the individual responsible or whether there can be an intervening cause. (dramatic music) Dramatic music. - In the matter of The
People v. Gregory Loomis, on the count of murder
in the second degree, how do you find? - We find the defendant,
Gregory Loomis, guilty. - [Judge] The jury is dismissed with the thanks of the court. - Man, they left out
the jury instructions. I really would have liked to have seen what the instructions
the judge gave the jury so that they could make that decision. (dramatic music) Jack McCoy said that the law requires them to find that individual guilty. So if Jack McCoy said it,
then it's probably true. All right, the next scene
comes from the TV show Suits. - Mr. Evans, is it true that you were living with Mr. Ross
in and around the time he claims to have attended Harvard? - Yes, we shared an apartment at 5307 Huntington Boulevard in Brooklyn. - And how exactly did he pay his rent? - He worked as a bike messenger and made money on the side
taking the LSAT's for people. - Oh wait, I'm confused. Why would he have to resort to that if he were a college graduate? - Because he wasn't a college graduate. - What, you mean he never
graduated from college? - No, he was kicked out of college for cheating on a test. - Unclear how this witness would know that information, he could
be relying on hearsay or he could be relying on things that are outside of
his personal knowledge. I think a good objection
here would have been either lack of foundation,
that he hasn't shown how he knows this information, or an objection to speculation or lack of personal
knowledge if he has no basis for knowing that information. - Well, isn't it possible that
while he was living with-- - And this attorney
makes the classic TV move of walking right into
the well of the court. The area between counsel
table and the judge. The reason that there are bailiffs is to protect the judge
and possibly the jury, and if you walk into the well unannounced, you are going to get
tackled by that bailiff. You have to ask permission
to enter that space for the protection of the jury, and for the protection of the judge. It happens on TV all the time. It never happens in real life. Also, there's usually a bunch of clutter and stuff in that area. But, do not make the mistake of walking into the well of the
court without permission, that is a recipe for
being found in contempt or pissing off the
judge, and you don't want to do either of those things. - Living with you, he went back to school and completed his degree? - Well, I don't see how since
most of his spare time's spent sitting around smoking weed with me. - Well let me get this straight. Before he was employed at Pearson Spector, to the best of your knowledge, he worked as a bike messenger and a part-time LSAT imposter? - Apart from the attorney
putting her elbow on the witness stand, it's a good question to narrow things to his
personal recollection and only testifying to
things that he observed in the presence of the
defendant in this case. There should have been some objections. You want to break up the
flow of the other side if they're making some really good points. And also, you may prevent them
from getting certain evidence into the court if you're able to show that they haven't met
the evidentiary burden. In this case, personal
knowledge or foundation. You don't want to let
the other side go off and get momentum in their questioning, especially when they're
making big points against you. - [Mr. Evans] Yes. - One last question Mr. Evans. Is it at all possible that Mike Ross ever attended Harvard Law School? - Not unless they have a satellite campus at 5307 Hunting Boulevard in Brooklyn. - Unclear that this witness would know what kind of time constraints
are on law students or how he could know whether anyone could possibly go to law school. I mean, he doesn't have
any knowledge about what the schedule of a law student is. So that, again, would
be a good opportunity to object and to prevent that testimony from coming in because it
doesn't sound proper to me based on that foundation. All right, so those are some
of my favorite legal TV shows. If you enjoyed this video
and would like to see more lawyer reacts videos or hear about my law school experience, click on this short playlist
that I put together. It includes my reaction to some of the most famous legal
scenes in the movies. And please subscribe so you don't miss out on the next video. Otherwise, I'll see you in the next one. (upbeat music)
fuck that was boring