- Thanks to Indochino
for keeping Legal Eagle in the air and helping me look fly. (eagle screeches) - They can have visions of the future or see the dead and sometimes
be uniquely susceptible to invasion by an entity
that is alien to them. - Objection. - Finally, geez. - [Judge] On what grounds? (hands slamming on table) - How about silliness, your Honor? - No, silliness is not a valid objection. Object to relevance or
object to improper opinion. Silliness is not in the
Federal Rules of Evidence. (bright upbeat music) Hey, Legal Eagles, it's
time to think like a lawyer. And today, in a special Halloween episode, we are covering The
Exorcism of Emily Rose. Now I'd like to apologize ahead of time. We're having some technical
difficulties here in my office, and I didn't get a whole
lot of sleep last night. I woke up at three o'clock in the morning and couldn't get back to sleep, and-- (slow creepy music)
(girls laughing) - [Man] Indochino. - Yeah, so anyway, be sure
to comment in the form of an objection, which I will
either sustain or overrule, and stick around until
the end of the video where I give The Exorcism
of Emily Rose a grade for legal realism. So
(lights buzzing) (woman cackling evilly) I guess without further ado, let's dig into The Exorcism of Emily Rose. (bright jaunty music) So apparently, this movie is
based on a real-life story where a woman who suffered
from severe epilepsy had her family call in a priest who administered an
exorcism on her believing that she was possessed by
demons or ghosts or something. And during the course of the exorcism, she died potentially of
neglect, potentially of abuse. The priest was then put on trial, and this trial is a mishmash
of the things happening at the criminal trial
for negligent homicide as well as what may or may
not have happened depending on who you talk to during the course of this supposed exorcism. - In the case before you,
the evidence will show that the victim had a
serious medical condition. - Oh, wow.
- that demanded medical treatment. We will prove that the victim's condition rendered her physically and
psychologically incapable of caring for herself. - Wow, so there's a lot of stuff going on in the prosecution's opening statement that is just, it's perfectly realistic in a way that you rarely ever
see in movies and television. First, the prosecutor is
standing at the lectern, which was set up specifically
for the arguments to the jury. He's using notes. Often, we get this idea that lawyers should be talking extemporaneously and yelling in front of the jury when, really, it's more
likely to be like this. He's just telling the facts. And, in fact, the specific
wording that he used is "the facts will show"
or "we will prove." An opening statement is not argument. You're just showing the jury
or you're telling the jury what you think the facts are
going to show in the future. And the tone that he's
using is right, too. This is a somber occasion. This is not the time for yelling. You're not going to put
yourself out on a limb. You're just gonna talk about the dry facts that are going to be
elicited in a persuasive way. So this actually might be
the most realistic portrayal of a district attorney's
opening statement I have ever seen in a movie; it's amazing. - This is what she looked like before the defendant began
his religious treatment. This is a photograph taken of
her on the day that she died. (jurors gasp) - This is also pretty realistic as well. There's no reason to pound
the table and yell and scream when you have just a very,
very powerful visual image. And so a real-life prosecutor
would absolutely want to use the strength of
that particular evidence without trying to beat the
jury over the head with it. - [Dr. Vogel] I've known
Emily her entire life. I took care of all of the Rose girls. - [Ethan] Can you describe Emily
as you knew her growing up? - Okay, so this is, I
guess, a family physician. This could be a really tricky witness because, on the one hand,
they're a medical professional. But on the other hand,
they're a lay witness. They've seen the, in
this case, the victim, so they have firsthand knowledge. And it's a question of whether
you're calling this person as an expert witness
or are you calling them as a percipient lay witness. You can get into a little bit of trouble when you go past the percipient witness into asking them to opine based on their medical testimony. Let's see what happens here. - She was a bit sickly in her early years. She stayed inside a lot,
reading, learning music. - How did she feel about
going away to school? - Objection, speculation. The witness is not a psychiatrist. - Well, even if the
witness was a psychiatrist, there's no way that she can
know the internal mental state of the victim. You can find out about what they said or how they manifested themselves, which might lead to an
inference of what they felt. But you can't ask the actual question how did someone feel or
what did someone think? That's totally improper. (Emily screaming and crying) - [Ethan] Dr. Mueller,
what's your position at the university hospital? - I am chairman of the
Department of Neurology. - And after you heard about
the dorm room incident, what were your initial thoughts? - Oh, boy. So for an expert witness,
especially a doctor, you would spend a really,
really long time building up their bona fides and their credibility and their past CV, their
accolades, their education. You wouldn't just say what's your position at this hospital and then dig
into their expert opinion. You've gotta lay the foundation that, number one, this person is
qualified to give testimony in court, so you satisfy the judge. But also, you want the jury to
actually believe this person. So you wanna build them up
so they believe your expert instead of the defense's expert. So both for legal reasons
and for persuasive reasons, you really have to spend
a lot of time building up your experts, not like this. - So suspecting that Emily was epileptic, how did you proceed? - I administered an electroencephalograph. - [Ethan] What did the EEG reveal? - It showed a possible epileptic focus in the patient's left temporal lobe. - [Ethan] Did this require
a specific treatment? - Yes, I began a medication schedule for Emily with the drug Gambutrol. I also advised regular
followup examinations and further tests, but Emily failed to keep her followup appointments with me. - Did she give any reason for discontinuing these appointments? - Yes, she told me she was convinced that her condition was a spiritual one. - Okay, here you have some
really interesting testimony that I think most people
would misconstrue. Most people hear an
out-of-court statement. This doctor is saying
that Emily Rose said this. Well, Emily Rose is not
the one who is testifying, and, in fact, Emily Rose is
also conveying the things that her priest told her as well. All of these things would
normally seem like hearsay. They are out-of-court statements. That's absolutely true,
and we can't cross examine, necessarily, these particular witnesses. However, I don't think
this is actually hearsay because hearsay has to be an
out-of-court statement used for the truth of the matter asserted. The truth of the matter asserted is that Emily Rose was
feeling some sort of spiritual encounter. Whether or not that is
true is not the point of the statement being used. The point of the statement is to explain why Emily did not go back to this doctor and receive more medical treatment. And the point of the statement is to show why Emily Rose went to her priest instead of
going back to a doctor. So whether or not she was actually having a spiritual
encounter is irrelevant. The point of the statement
is to explain the actions of both the victim and the actions of the defendant in this case. So I think that, under
these circumstances, it actually doesn't meet the
legal definition of hearsay. - Did you ask Emily why she had stopped filling her
Gambutrol prescriptions? - Yes. She said that Father Moore had suggested she stop taking the drug. - And what, in your medical opinion, was the direct result of
Father Moore's suggestion? - I firmly believe that Father Moore's suggestion killed her. - Objection, your Honor.
- Stopping the treatment - The witness is asserting
- led directly to her death! - outrageous conclusions based
on pure hearsay evidence. - Technically correct, but I'll allow it as part of his expert opinion testimony. - Oh, boy, that was the wrong objection. The problem is not an
expert relying on hearsay. Experts are allowed to rely on hearsay. Experts are allowed to rely on otherwise inadmissible testimony to form their expert conclusions. However, this witness probably
doesn't have the expertise to be able to testify
to the cause of death, and this witness certainly
doesn't have the expertise to be able to talk about
the legal causation here, which is even separate, potentially, from the medical reasoning
for why Emily Rose died. So that was totally improper testimony. The defense lawyer was right to object, but the defense lawyer
made the wrong objection and, as a result, was overruled. - Mr. Thomas has contended
that Emily Rose suffered from a serious medical condition that required medical
treatment, nothing more. He has asserted that any attempt
by my client to help Emily by anything other than medical means was not only inappropriate
but criminally negligent. - Well, yeah, generally helping people with health conditions involves
actually using medical means so that is a reasonable standard for a prosecution to put out there. - Emily Rose's condition, in
fact, was demonic possession. An exorcism was her only hope for a cure. Some of you may find yourself unable to reconcile Emily's beliefs or those of the defendant with your own. You may not believe demons exist. You won't have to because you will see that after the utter
failure of the doctors to help Emily, Father Moore
simply tried to help Emily in a different way using an approach that he, Emily, and her
family firmly believed was her only chance for relief. - Yeah, I don't actually think a judge would let that come in. Effectively, you could
argue that the mental state of the defendant is relevant,
that he legitimately believed that the victim was in some
sort of demonic possession. But the thing is, the court is not going to recognize the existence of demons. - [Man] Indochino. - Huh. In reality, I think what would happen is that the judge would call a sidebar, she would specifically tell the attorney that she's not allowed
to make the argument that the demons were
actually responsible here. And if the lawyer insisted on doing it, then they would get an
instruction at the end that says the jury absolutely
cannot make that a basis for their particular decision. It's a weird situation. - Where did you receive your education? - At Yale and then at Cambridge. - And what is your
specific area of expertise? - I study the spiritual experiences of people in various cultures
and the physiological and psychological changes they undergo during these experiences. - Would it be accurate to
say that you specialize in the scientific study of possession? - Yes. Possession is one term for a
basic human experience reported by a great number of people
all around the world. In my fieldwork, I've seen many people who experienced a sense of being invaded by an entity from the supernatural realm. - Okay, so despite the qualifications of this supposed expert,
there are many reasons why this testimony doesn't come in. Number one, I think it's
an improper expert opinion. There is certain scientific
rigor that is required to be able to testify
as an expert in court. And number two, it's more
prejudicial than it is probative. It's more likely to cause confusion and unfair prejudice than it is to actually clarify anything here. This sounds like total nonsense to me. - I believe that Emily Rose
was a hypersensitive person with an unusual connection to what Carlos Castaneda
called the separate reality. Hypersensitives are born
different from everyone else. - Yeah, at this point, the prosecution should really be objecting to relevance. Even if the judge lets it in, you need to preserve these
kind of things for appeal because this is a total nonsense argument. - They can have visions of the future or see the dead and sometimes
be uniquely susceptible to invasion by an entity
that is alien to them. - Objection. - Finally, geez. - [Judge] On what grounds? (hands slamming on desk) - How about silliness, your Honor? - No, silliness is not a valid objection. Object to relevance or
object to improper opinion. Silliness is not in the
Federal Rules of Evidence. - How do you know him? - Well, I've known him
ever since parishioner at St. Vincent's Church
about 15 years ago. I hadn't seen or heard of him for years when he called me last fall. He needed help, so. - What kind of help, Doctor? - He wanted a medical perspective from a psychiatrist, one
that he knew and trusted, to observe Emily's
physical and mental state. - So this would be
incredibly important evidence to put forward to say that the priest called
a medical professional to supervise everything to make sure that, from a medical perspective, that the exorcism didn't
endanger the patient and that she was taken
care of during this time. Being able to say that you called a doctor in to supervise everything would probably be the most
important evidence you could possibly put on in
support of the defendant here. You would not wanna wait for that. - Before he was arrested,
Father Moore sent this to me, asked me to take care of it. - Oh! Now remember, audio
recordings can be hearsay. If you are recording another person, you are probably recording hearsay, and the tape itself is
also considered hearsay. It's a common misconception
that things like videotapes or audiotapes or even
written documents themselves are just, per se, admissible,
but on the contrary. Most of the time, those
things are considered hearsay, and you have to have a specific exception to the hearsay rule in order
to get those things in. But you also have a chain of custody and authentication issue here to make sure that this tape has not been tampered with and it is what it purports to be. So you could have a really
hard time bringing in things like audiotapes into court sometimes. - [Erin] Father Moore, before you could actually perform the exorcism, you had to get the sanction
of the church, correct? - Yes, on October the 27th last year, I presented my assessment
and recommendations to the archbishop, and he
authorized the exorcism that day before I left the office. - So contrary to what you
see in movies and on TV, having the defendant testify in court is actually very, very
rare, mainly because people are really afraid of what might come out on cross examination. And frankly, the testimony of the accused is probably not going to
be particularly helpful. (dark terrifying music)
(rain pattering) - [Ethan] What do you
make of this gesture, this nod in your direction? - What? - I don't know.
(scoffs) Some kind of - Well that's not right.
- acknowledgement, I guess, that the game is on. - (laughs) It is totally
improper for the prosecutor to be questioning the defendant right now. Assuming we saw everything that we were gonna see from the defense, it's crazy that they didn't actually ask about the exorcism itself. You are sometimes allowed
to ask new questions of your witness; it's called redirect, which happens after cross examination. But the redirect is only limited to what is brought up in cross examination. And once you redirect, then, again, the prosecutor can
recross, but that recross is limited to whatever was
brought up during the redirect. So it's crazy malpractice
that they put this guy on the stand, made him subject
to whatever cross examination is happening here, but they didn't ask about the crucial thing that
they wanted to talk about here. - So this night, when you began
to prepare Emily's exorcism, was it your first encounter
with this demon ghost? - Yes. - Have you seen it again? - I've seen it ever since. (people murmuring) - [Ethan] No further
questions at this time. - There are so many more questions that you would ask at cross examination. - Redirect, your Honor. (scoffs) Father Moore,
- Okay. - after you received the
bishop's authorization, when did you proceed with an exorcism? - October 31st. - On Halloween. Is that a bit dramatic? - The Halloween tradition is based on legends throughout history
that indicate a real increase in spiritual activity on that night, and I thought we could use the occasion to draw them into the open. - Yeah, okay, so this is
totally improper for redirect because these are questions
that you would ask on the original direct examination. So you don't get a
second bite at the apple to go into redirect into these subjects that you didn't bring out the first time. - I offer into evidence
this cassette recorder and audiotape - this defense
- Objection, - if it's A and B.
- Your Honor. People were not made aware
of the existence of this tape until late last night.
- Neither were we, your Honor. This tape is new evidence that just came into our possession yesterday evening. We have provided counsel for the people with the transcript of its contents. - You mean this tape was not
given to you by your client? - No, your Honor. We received it from a reluctant witness, Dr. Graham Cartwright,
who will also be called to testify to its authenticity. - Your Honor-- - The people will find his name on the updated witness list we provided to them this morning. - Yeah, okay, so there are
a couple big problems here. Judges hate being
blindsided, and, presumably, there have been months since the start of this particular trial. The odds of this evidence being
authentic are pretty slim, and to not call the person
who provided the audiotape and when it's not the defendant, those are just huge red flags that this is inauthentic,
it's something that's fake, it didn't come from the
defendant who allegedly made it. There are chain of custody problems. It's being sprung on the
prosecution in the middle of trial. I think all of this means that the judge would probably not allow
this audiotape to come in. (dramatic music) - [Judge] Is the defense ready to proceed? - Yes, your Honor. The defense recalls Father Richard Moore. - Ugh. You don't get to just recall a witness whenever you feel like it. This defense attorney is getting
three bites of the apple. They called the defendant once. Then they didn't ask all the questions that they should have. And then they called the defendant again to do a redirect examination,
which went into topics that were not proper at all to talk about because they didn't bring
'em up the first time. Then that witness was excused, and they brought the witness back again to testify for a third time. This is the kind of thing
that judges refer to as a circus, and all of
this would be improper. - When did you last see Emily alive? - The night before she died. Her mother, Maria, called me and said that Emily had asked for me. - Why did she ask to see you? - Why didn't you ask him about
this the first time around? Ugh, man. - To give me this. - Did Emily explain to you
the letter's significance? - Yes, she said she'd
written it the morning after the failed exorcism and that it was important for me to share. - Boo. So apparently, the victim wrote a letter to the defendant before she died. This feels like there's some
major hearsay problems here, but let me think about this. (upbeat rock music) I guess, conceivably, it doesn't
really matter necessarily about the truth of what's in the letter, but I guess it can go to the state of mind of the priest in terms of
the actions that he took or the actions that he didn't take. Yeah, arguably, you're not using the truth in the matter asserted,
but you're using it for the effect on the
listener and the effect on the mental state of
the victim in this case. I think maybe that letter does come in as non hearsay 'cause it's not being used for the truth of the matter asserted. - [Judge] Please read
the verdict out loud. - In my experience, most times, the judges don't make the
foreman actually read the verdict because that's a lot of
pressure to put on one person. So usually, the judge reads
the verdict of the jury, and they don't put the poor foreperson on the spotlight like
this, but it's dramatic. So it's not surprising
you see it like this. - In the case of the people
versus Father Richard Moore, we the jury find the defendant
guilty of negligent homicide. - Makes sense. - The court thank the
jury for its service. Sentencing for this case
will be set for April 3rd. - That's also good. You don't see that often in movies. Usually, the sentencing is right away, but sentencing is almost
always at a later time after some briefing to make sure that they get the sentencing right because sentencing is
totally separate from whether they establish guilt
or not, generally speaking. - Your Honor, if it pleases the court, Father Moore requested at
the start of trial that, if found guilty, he would
be sentenced immediately. - So what? It doesn't matter what he requests. - [Judge] Does the
prosecution have any objection to expedited sentencing? - They should. - Very well.
(laughs) - Sentencing is a complicated thing, and many states and the federal system have complicated calculations
you have to go through to make sure that the
sentence fits the crime. And you don't want wild
discrepancies between people who have committed the
exactly the same crime. - Are there any statements
you would like to make before I impose this sentence? - No, your Honor. - Very well.
- Excuse me, your Honor, but the jury would like
to make a recommendation regarding the sentence.
- Objection. - That's totally improper. - Sit down, Counselor. It's only a recommendation,
and I would like to hear it. - Ugh, still. - We recommend a sentence of time served. (people murmuring) - Yeah, that is not correct. - I'll accept that.
(laughs) (bright jaunty music) - All right, that is The
Exorcism of Emily Rose, and now it's time to give it
a grade for legal realism. (gavel banging) One the one hand, you have some aspects of the trial that were totally spot on. The prosecutor was using the lectern, they were making pretty
reasonable arguments. There weren't a whole lot
of histrionics going on. People weren't yelling and shouting and saying you can't handle the truth. So the way that this homicide trial was handled was actually
very, very realistic. On the other hand, you have
the admission of a whole bunch of totally improper evidence,
improper expert opinions, and they completely
mangled the way that you would actually have the
examination of a defendant being recalled three or
four times in the trial. So all in all, I give The
Exorcism of Emily Rose a solid B. Not bad, but I'd really
like to exorcize some of the demons, some of the legal demons. (light buzzing)
(woman cackling evilly) (laughing deeply and distortedly) Now there's no such thing as ghosts, but getting a suit that doesn't fit right will haunt you for the rest of your life. If you're looking for
a custom slim-cut suit that is shockingly affordable, I can't recommend Indochino highly enough. All of my suits are now made by Indochino, including this blue two button
that I'm wearing right now. It was custom made just for me. See, the secret to a great
suit is all about the fit. I'm a reasonably athletic guy, and I can never buy suits off the rack because they just simply never fit right. I've actually spent more than the cost of an Indochino suit
trying to get a tailor to fix an off-the-rack suit before. But with Indochino, you can
send in your measurements online or you can go to one of
their stores in person to have a stylist take your measurements. For me, I made an appointment,
I went to the store in person and had a stylist work
with me for over 90 minutes when I went in for the first time. My personal stylist took my measurements, and a couple weeks later,
I got the best-fitting suit of my entire life. It was perfect right out of the box. And if it hadn't been perfect, their tailors would've
fixed it for me at no cost. Indochino will make
you a fully custom suit tailored specifically for
you for less than $400. And the best part is they
still use the best materials like Super 140s wool. I will never get an
off-the-rack suit again, and once you try it, neither will you. Legal Eagles can get any
premium Indochino suit for just $359 when you enter
the promo code LegalEagle at checkout or use the
link in the description. Clicking on the link really
helps out this channel. That's indochino.com,
promo code LegalEagle for the best custom suit
of your entire life. So do you agree with my grade? Leave your objections in the comments, and check out this playlist of all of my other real lawyer
reactions over here where I will see you in court.
