- I bet the judge is gonna
say, "I'll allow it," at some point in this hearing. I guarantee it.
- Friendly even, but after the last custody hearing, Michael was pretty worried about-- - Objection, Your Honor.
- On what grounds? - Hearsay. - Nice try, Mrs. Florrick. I'll allow it. Go ahead, Mrs. Lewis.
- Ah, called it! (bright music) Hey, Legal Eagles, D. James Stone here, teaching you how to think like a lawyer. Today, we're gonna tackle one of the most requested TV shows out there, and that's The Good Wife. As one subscriber put it, it is the most highly rated legal TV show on Rotten Tomatoes. So that should stand for something. And fun fact, this is the most highly
requested legal TV show from my mom. So Mom, I'm finally getting around to watching The Good Wife. I'm doing it for you. And be sure to stick around until the end, where I give this episode
of The Good Wife a grade for legal realism and how accurate it is to real life lawyering. So without any further
ado, let's get started and dig right into The Good Wife. (associates laughing) - So we'll need some of you to help out with the lower-profile client work to free up our top litigators. - Ed, you take the witness
prep on highway redistribution. Don, you take the Brighton criminal. And Alicia will take the pro bono. (Alicia sighs)
Everyone else, your task is to show Sheffrin-Marks our A game, okay? - Okay, so the main
character is being assigned with pro bono work. It's not uncommon for large
law firms to get a huge case. It's all hands on deck,
so they really pull in all the bodies they can. And as the lawyer mentioned, it does tend to help
with year-end bonuses. If you work a lot of billable hours, then you'll get a lot of year-end bonuses. But the main character is
getting assigned pro bono. Now pro bono, as you may
know, is work that's provided by a law firm for free. Usually, it's for indigent clients. But generally, law firms,
and sometimes it's mandated by the State, have to do a certain number of pro bono hours per year. It's a way for the law firm to give back, and it's a way to help those who can't afford really expensive lawyers and legal services. The lawyers will provide that for free, and that's called pro bono. So it looks like everybody
else is being thrown on this huge class action, whereas the main character is being given the leftover pro bono work,
which is not uncommon. - [Receptionist] Lockhart and Gardner. - So Will speaks highly of you. He says you graduated top
of your class at Georgetown. When was this? - 15 years ago.
- Uh-huh. And you spent two years at-- - Crozier, Abrams and Abbott.
- Good firm. Will says you clocked the
highest billable hours there. Why'd you leave? - Okay, that's a funny throwaway line. They're trying to imply that the main character is
a really diligent worker. The way it works at
really big law firms is that the lawyers are all on salaries. So at the end of the year, they'll all take home the same amount, except if there's a big bonus. And the way that you get a big bonus is by clocking a large number of hours. Not every hour that you work
at a law firm brings in money to the law firm or to you
personally as a lawyer. And it's only when you're in a much smaller firm does every hour that you bill go directly
into your pocket. In large law firms, all the
attorneys billable hours go into a general pot that's
divided based on the salary. So they're saying that
she, back in the day, when she was in private
practice was billing more than anybody else, and in real
life, certainly someone has to bill more hours than everybody else, but those numbers can be very, very high, somewhere between 2,500 and
3,000 billable hours per year. I would say for every three
to four billable hours you're in the office, you're probably not billing at least one of those hours. Whether you're eating lunch,
or you're eating dinner, if you're really staying late, or you're just taking
a break, there are lots of times you're when in the
office, and you're not billing. So to bill the highest
number of billable hours in a firm is both a badge of honor and sort of a dubious mark that she's just a really,
really hard worker and good for the firm
but not necessarily good for her personal life. So that's an interesting little tidbit that they threw in there. - Jennifer Lewis, 26 years old, taught second-grade, accused
of killing her ex-husband. The prosecution thought it
was a slam dunk, 45 years, but the jury came back
last week deadlocked. Six jurors voted to convict, six not. I'm not even sure why the
state attorney is retrying, except he wants justice! (dog whimpers) He wants to prove himself. So stick with my strategy
from the first trial. The police focused on Jennifer so early in the investigation,
they never even looked for the carjacker. - What she's talking about there is that when in jury trial, you
generally have 12 jurors. That's why the famous movie
is called 12 Angry Men, because back in the
day, they were all men. Now that's obviously not the
case, which is a good thing. But to convict someone, you
have to get all 12 jurors to vote to convict. If any one of those people refuses to vote to convict the individual,
it's called a hung jury. Now that's different than if all 12 of the jurors say not
to convict or to acquit. Then the person just goes
free, and there's no way to retry them, generally speaking. Here, obviously, at least
one of the jurors found that they couldn't find her guilty. The jury hung, and in that situation, the prosecutor has the ability to retry that individual, at a later time. They go through the entire
trial all over again. So that's apparently what's going on. This woman is going to be
tried for a second time. - Where's Diane? - Diane asked me to step in for her. Jennifer, I'm Alicia Florrick. I'm one of the other
lawyers with the firm. - Step in? For how long? - For the retrial. (wood thuds) - Oh my god.
- All rise! Ma'am. The Criminal Court of Cook
County is now in session. The Honorable Judge
Richard Cuesta presiding. (gavel thuds)
- Be seated. Okay, let's hear it. - Your Honor, I just--
- Your Honor, just to refresh your memory, the accused was deemed a flight risk, due to an earlier custody hearing when she threatened to
run off with her daughter. - So that was a good tactic
by the prosecutor here, to take the lead and to educate the judge. Usually what happens when
you make an appearance in court is there's a huge docket, which means that there are
maybe a dozen or so cases that have hearings to discuss that morning or that afternoon. So number one, the judge has a lot of different cases to deal with. Number two, it may have
been weeks or months since you were last in the courthouse, especially if you're in state court where there are just lots and lots of cases, continually churning. So now the judge will probably take a look at the paperwork before taking the stand, but again, there may
be a dozen or so cases that he or she needs to
talk about, that morning. So it's always a good idea
to take the initiative and to err on the side of
providing more information to the judge than you
would necessarily give to someone who's very
familiar with the case, 'cause the judge might not remember that. But I think it's also to show that the prosecutor's just
kind of taking command and being a jerk, but we'll see. - Just last week, a jury deadlocked on these murder charges,
six to six, Mr. Brody. Now I know our new state's
attorney wants to look tough, but why are you fighting this? - In reality, if a jury hung
six members of the jury to six, meaning six wanted to vote for guilt, and six wanted to acquit, it's very unlikely the prosecutor
would try that case again. That means you have a really weak case. Usually, a hung jury is one or two people, which means that, with
a different jury pool, you have a much better
chance of conviction. But if you're hanging the jury six to six, your case is weak, and
you probably don't want to try that one again. It's just a waste of the
court's time, at that point. - If Mrs. Florrick is so intent
on getting her client out, why doesn't she agree to a speedy trial? - [Richard] Mrs. Florrick? - Yes, Your Honor. - The wife of the esteemed Peter Florrick? Your husband and I never
quite saw eye-to-eye, ma'am. - Your Honor.
- Mrs. Florrick, don't talk. But if the prosecution
thinks that this will in some way prejudice
me against your client, he is sorely mistaken. Nice try, Matan. So Ms. Lewis is granted pretrial release with electronic monitoring. She is restricted to temporary
housing, attorney's offices and transit in between, and
given that this is a rerun, I'll set the trial date for the 25th. Now are we all happy? Good. - Find out what she's doing.
- You just wait. We'll have to wait. - That's a little more terse and crotchety than most judges are gonna be. Judges know what's going
on, for the most part. And when they see a new
attorney, they're likely to be a little bit more
lenient than this judge here, although he is giving the
main character, Alicia, what she wants. He's sort of telling her,
you're gonna win this one, so just be quiet. Still, you want to command
respect from all the lawyers, and so you don't want to be coming off as a crotchety old person. And so that's a little unrealistic. This hearing would probably
take 10 to 15 minutes, not 30 seconds, but you know, the outcome and the interchange is not crazy. (dramatic music)
- A man came up to Michael. (gun clicks)
(crowbar clangs) I didn't see the gun until, (grunts) Michael!
(gun fires) Michael! And I saw Michael's face. It was, uh... (somber music) - Do you need to take a break? - Uh, no, just if there was some water. - Sure. (door clacks) Sonia, we need some water in here. - It's gonna be about five minutes, but then I've got to
do this depo upstairs. (Devin laughs) - That secretary should
definitely support an attorney who is conducting an interview
of a criminal defendant. That is going to trump whatever it is that she was working on, at the moment. And also, it's not unusual for secretaries to support three, four and
sometimes five attorneys in a major law firm. It's part of the cost-cutting measures that a lot of big firms use. It's actually not very difficult for assistants to provide support to two different attorneys,
at the same time. And also, I don't know
what she was supposed to do with the deposition. That's not something secretaries do. Anyway, all right, so
Alicia's underwater, I guess. - Can I ask you how many voted for conviction from the start, sir? - 11.
- What? - (sighs) There was only one holdout, juror number nine (chuckles). We argued with her for three days. - But the judge polled the jury, and they deadlocked six to six. - Yes, well, the judge would
only declare us deadlocked if we were evenly split. So some of us agreed to change our vote to not guilty, just to get out of there. If it hadn't been for juror number nine, we would've convicted. She didn't convince us. She exhausted us. - Ooh, that's interesting. I've never heard of that happening. But that does sound like
something that could happen. A judge has some discretion about when to declare a particular
case as deadlocked. So it's possible that,
under some circumstances, that the jury just wanted to go home, and so they would manipulate
some of their votes to make it seem like a deadlock, and everyone can get out of it. That wouldn't be a good thing for our judicial system,
but unfortunately, that sounds like something
that's plausible, because jurors are human beings, too. Oh and by the way, I don't
pretend to know the entire body of American jurisprudence,
off the top of my head. So I may get things
wrong from time to tome. If you see a legal or factual inaccuracy, please leave me a comment down below. But if you do, please leave me a comment in the form of an objection. If you leave an objection,
I will get to it, and I will either sustain
or overrule your objection. I look forward to seeing them. - Just so I'm clear, the
defense expert argued that the gunshot residue
on Jennifer's hands came from the struggle.
- Oh so sweet. - Is that why you held out? - Oh I don't know about that. (cat meows) I just tend to get a feeling. Don't I, Cyrus? (solemn music) - Okay, that sounds a little crazy, that a juror would base
her decision based only on a feeling, but a juror
can make their decision based on just about anything. And I remember when I served on a jury, when I was in law school,
in a criminal case, one of the jurors refused to convict, because she felt her
spirit wouldn't allow it. And she couldn't articulate
any other reasons. Now (chuckles), the other
jurors and I took a step back. We realized the woman was
doing the best that she could. And we talked it through, and
eventually, we all 12 decided on conviction on most
of the counts at issue. But people make different
decisions for different reasons. And that's part of the
benefit of the jury system, is that it's a
check-and-balance to make sure that the state doesn't overreach. But the downside is that
sometimes you can get some really strange
decision-making going on behind the curtain of the jury. - You know the new associate Cary? - The one in the Brioni? What? I'm observant. - Yes, the one in the Brioni. - Brioni is a type of suit.
- He said to me, "May the best man win." What exactly does he mean by that. - What he means is something I thought we weren't making public. - What? - Look, we only have one
associate position open. So we agreed to hire two applicants, and in six months, decide
which one to retain. - So this is a contest
between me and Cary? - It was either that or a cage match. - That would be highly
unusual, to hire two associates and then make them fight to the death, especially because associates
can be profit centers for large law firms. They work a lot of hours,
and their salary is high, compared to the national
average, but it's actually low, compared to the revenue that
they're bringing into the firm. So generally, there's no real reason to make associates fight
against each other. If you make an offer to
someone, at a large law firm, generally they can stick
around for quite some time, because they're good for the firm, and there's no reason to get rid of them. It would also be highly unusual
to tell the two associates that they're up against each other. You wouldn't want to create bad blood between those associates and all the other associates as well. So that's pretty unusual, to say that two associates are gonna fight to the death for their position. - See, the computer automatically
records the surveillance, marks it with date and time. - Is that the night of the murder? - Yeah, I mean, even if the
computer did mismark it, I make an hourly tour of the lot, and I didn't see no pickup truck. Look, that was me, 11:03,
just before the murder. - Uh, can we get copies of these? - Sure. Lanie? Lanie! - I like what these attorneys are doing, that they're going to the
scene of the accident, and they are personally investigating. Good attorneys conduct
written discovery very well. They'll ask questions on paper. They'll get a whole lot of documents. But a great attorney really digs in and checks all the things that they can to make sure that their case
is as strong as possible or that the opponent's case
is as weak as possible. And going to the scene of an accident or a crime is a great thing
for an attorney to do. Not everyone will do that. So I really like what these
attorneys are doing here, and they're really getting into all the details that they can. - [Matan] Please state your name. - [Cindy] Cindy Lewis. - [Matan] And you were
married to the victim for how long, Mrs. Lewis? - Two years, until (sighs)... - Get out of the well of the court! - Thank you.
- And how would you describe your husband's relationship with his first wife.
- I'll bet the judge is gonna say, "I'll
allow it," at some point in this hearing. I guarantee it.
- Friendly even, but after last the custody hearing, Michael was pretty worried about Jennifer.
- Objection, Your Honor. - On what grounds? - Hearsay. - Nice try, Mrs. Florrick. I'll allow it. Go ahead, Mrs. Lewis.
- Ah, called it! - He was worried Jennifer was intent on getting sole custody. - Thank you, Mrs. Lewis. Your witness. - Now, Mrs. Lewis, you stated
that Michael was worried about Jennifer, yet in
the week following-- - Objection, Your Honor.
- Sustained. - Yeah, that was an
argumentative question. - In your testimony, Mrs. Lewis, you claimed that Jennifer
wanted sole custody. But isn't it true-- - Objection.
- Sustained. - Yeah, argumentative again.
- Keep trying, Mrs. Florrick. You'll hit on it.
(Devin laughs) - It's cheeky of the judge,
but they're right to object and right to sustain the objections. - Mrs. Lewis, who's idea was it to have dinner, Jennifer's or Michael's? - Michael's. - So wouldn't that suggest
that his attitude had changed towards Jennifer.
- Objection. - Sustained. - That one calls for speculation about what someone else was thinking and also phrased in sort
of an argumentative way. She's combining two
different things together to try and create an argument
through the questioning. She can ask leading questions, because this is a cross-examination. So she can say, "Isn't it
true that," but the way that she's combining things
together is an argumentative way to phrase a question. It's a little ticky-tacky,
but they're right to object, and the judge is right to
sustain the objections. - So when an officer's
referring to dropping something in the pit or pitting
it, he refers to what? - Excluding it from the
crime scene narrative, but that only applies
to irrelevant details. We wouldn't exclude pertinent evidence. - Was anything pitted from the Lewis crimes?
- Your Honor, objection! Evidence is logged in all the time that proves irrelevant to the discovery. It's not an intent to deceive. It's an intent to decipher facts.
- We don't even know if it is anything.
- And to blame the prosecution for not coming up--
- She's trying to build a case on a staple.
- With every single possible detail.
- That staple can mean anything.
- Okay, okay, Mrs. Florrick, none of this was in the first trial. Is it your intention to
pursue a new defense? - Yes, Your Honor. - So it's possible, if a judge knows that there's gonna be
some contentious issues, that they bring the
counselors into their chambers to discuss them in person. However, it is highly unusual
for either the prosecutors or the defense attorneys
to yell at the judge, especially two lawyers yelling at the same time at the judge. You really don't want to piss off the judge in a criminal case where the judge is
presiding over your case. And you don't want to get on
the bad side of the judge. - We all know what's going on here. Peter Florrick was a corrupt
and convicted state's attorney. If evidence was buried, he buried it. And now, she's benefiting
from his knowledge. - Which still leaves you
with some pages missing here. I'll give you till Monday. - Yeah, if the prosecutors
have hidden evidence from the defense, that
is totally improper. If there's a missing
part of a police report or a coroner's report, that's
not ancillary evidence. That's not a tiny, small thing that may or may not be
relevant to the case. And also, the prosecutors are not the ones who are allowed to make the call as to what is relevant
and what isn't relevant. That's up to the judge. So they should hot have been
withholding this paperwork. That is Discovery 101,
where that information has to be turned over to the other side. You can't hide the ball
against the defense like that. That's crazy. - I interviewed the first jury, and they voted 11 to one to convict. - Excuse me, that's not true. It was evenly split. - No, half the jurors switched their votes when they couldn't get a
troubled juror to deliberate. So I used my judgment
to change strategies. - And was it your
judgment not to update us? (solemn music) - So usually, in a big firm,
you would have a senior counsel or senior partner
looking over the shoulder of a junior associate
handling a high-profile, high-stakes case like
this criminal case here. Here, the senior partners
don't seem to care, except that she didn't
check in, down the line. I mean, you can have it
one way or the other. You can either give your
associated free reign, or you can help her and make sure she doesn't make
horrible malpractice mistakes as she conducts this criminal defense. But, man, you got to choose one, I guess. - Could I have the monitors in, please? Thank you. - State's attorney here.
- Now, Mr. North. - They're worried she's getting this stuff from her husband. - There are three images. The middle is the image
of the surveillance from the 15th, the night of the murder. And the one over there,
on the left, is the image from the 14th, the
night before the murder. And the one on the right is from the 16th, the night after the murder. Can you see the dates on those? - Uh, yes, I can. - Generally, she wouldn't be
able to just tell the witness that that evidence is what it is. She would have to lay the foundation that she has some basis to
show that that is the case. She could ask him to read the date stamps, or I guess, get it
admitted through the judge and get it stipulated that
that evidence is what it says. But you can't just say this is this and this is another thing and get the witness to
take your word for it. - Either you have a plastic bag that blows across your
lot every night at 11:48, or these are duplicates of the same tape. (tense music) - That's technically an
argumentative question. I mean, it's actually not--
- No, it's not what it looks like.
- Really a question at all. - I understand, sir. You didn't willfully mislead the police. - Yeah, that's correct. - No, it's just that
it gets cold out there, and sometimes you don't
make the circuit of the lot. - Yes. - So on the nights that you don't go out, you don't record the
actual surveillance image. You set your computer up to
duplicate the night before, just in case your manager checks it. Is that correct? - Yes.
- Oh snap! You got lawyered, son!
- Just so I'm clear, there is not recording,
the night of the murder, and you were never there to see or not see the pickup
truck or the carjacker? (tense music) - I'm sorry, uh, yes. - So a classic Perry Mason moment where the witness recants on the stand. Here, it's not a criminal defendant, but it is the star witness, and he shows that the really important
evidence has been doctored, and it leads to the
defense showing their case. I mean, that's not very realistic,
just because it's so rare that people actually do
these kinds of actions that result in improper conviction. But the kind of investigation that Alicia has done here is good. She went to the particular crime scene. She interviewed all the
important witnesses. That's what a good lawyer does. It's like an investigation. So I think the outcome is unrealistic, but the underlying investigation is good. That's what a good attorney should do. (laughs) And it worked out in this case, but not gonna find too many of
those examples in real life. - So you're wondering whether demolishing the
key prosecution witness didn't just save your ass as first chair. Nice work, by the way. - Thanks. - But was it enough for reasonable doubt? - Yes! She didn't just demolish the
prosecution's main witness. She showed him to be an outright liar, that the jury can't trust
anything that man says, and she has removed a major impediment to her case, which is that the story about the red truck
couldn't be corroborated. Well, the reason it
couldn't be corroborated is because the prosecution's
main witness was a liar. So yeah, if you're the prosecution, you should be really worried, because if your star
witness has just been shown to be a liar and nothing
he says can be trusted, you should probably pick
up your ball and go home, because that should be
reasonable doubt right there. Reasonable doubt is a very high burden. And if your star witness has
just been shown to be a liar, and the prosecution might have been shown to be covering up evidence, well, that should be
reasonable doubt right there. So (chuckles), I think she did a good job, and she has created reasonable doubt. She shouldn't be too worried
about that, right now. (solemn music) - Mrs. Lewis, did you and the deceased sign
a prenuptial agreement? - Uh, yes, for tax purposes. - So if the deceased were
to divorce you, let say, in order to reunite with his first wife-- - Objection.
- Sustained. - If the deceased were to divorce you, you would be cut off from
his premarital savings, is that correct?
- Objection. - So I think that's relevant. She may not know that calls
for a legal conclusion, which a lay witness can't do. But I think that the
prosecutor's objecting on the basis of relevance, which, I mean, she's laying the foundation for motive, which makes it relevant, or a counter-motive of this other witness. So I don't think that's
the right objection here. Also, if that is Alicia's
goal here, to show that another witness has a
motive to commit this crime, she might as well just come out and argue against the objection, and say, "Your Honor, it is relevant, "because it goes to the
motive of this witness "who is a possible other
suspect in this case." And just come right out, and so she could plant those
seeds in the jury's mind, that all of these questions
that she's going to ask go to whether this witness could also have orchestrated this crime. So she might as well
just come out and say it, because the more time she
spends attacking this witness without the jury thinking that she's another suspect
makes her look like a monster. And you don't want to lose
that rapport with the jury. So she might as well
just make the argument and say she's another
suspect in this crime. - The previously unreleased
trace evidence is also admitted into evidence, the crime labs finding that these greyhound hairs recovered in a chemical compound
called Alco Ectolin. Have you heard of this? - Sorry, the chemical? No.
- No, neither had I. It is a lotion. It is a lotion that is
used at dog racing tracks to ease--
- Objection, not in evidence. - Sustained, and you might want
to stay standing, Mr. Brody. I have a feeling we're
nearing your smokescreen. - Mrs. Lewis, isn't it
a fact that a year ago, at the time of the murder,
your brother worked at a dog track?
- Objection! - Sustained. - No further questions. (piano music)
- So number one, the prosecutor's objection
shouldn't be sustained. That evidence should come in. Number two, Alicia should
come out and fight like hell so that evidence can come in, because if she doesn't
get that evidence in through another witness,
the jury is gonna be told to ignore everything that
was struck from the record, which in this case was most of what that woman just testified to. Also, I'm not sure why
she's testifying again, unless she was called
as a rebuttal witness. Usually, you have to ask
all of your questions for a particular witness, at one time. You don't get to call her back days after the first time,
you get to call her back. So there's a lot of
wonkiness going on here. (phone buzzes) - Hello. Yes. Thanks. - Jury's in? - Wait, so the (sighs), okay, so the jury came back. That's crazy, because if she knows that the brother of that
woman worked at the dog track and may have been the
reason why there was hair, you would follow that down. So all the good investigative work that she did at the beginning of this episode is
totally belied by the fact that she didn't follow up
on exculpatory evidence. It sounds like, I'm guessing, by the way, that they showed the police officer, that he's done their work for them. But holy crap, you have a possible reason why someone else has
committed this murder, and you're not following up on it. That is not good criminal defense work. - Chicago Homicide has decided
to reopen its investigation into the murder of Michael Lewis. Detective Briggs, doing
an admirable amount of due diligence, has confirmed that Cindy Lewis' brother Danny had access to his employer's pickup
truck, the week of the murder. And the dog hairs admitted
into evidence match those found at his workplace. So our state's attorney--
- Damn! - In his radiant wisdom, has decided to withdraw the
charges against your client and pursue a case against
Mrs. Lewis' brother. Isn't that right, Mr. Brody? All I need is a yes or no. - Yes. - Good. - So the judge's belligerence
aside, prosecutors and US attorneys are not out
there just to get convictions. They want the truth as
much as anybody else. And in real life, if, I think (laughs), maybe not in all cases, but
probably in a case like this, if the prosecutor learned
of true exculpatory evidence and strong evidence that
someone else was responsible for a crime as heinous as murder, they would have no problem
at all dropping the charges against this person and
pursuing those charges against the other suspect. Prosecutors have wide discretion as to what cases they bring,
when they end those cases, when they withdraw those cases and when they bring those
cases against somebody else. So it makes absolute sense that the prosecutor would drop their case against this poor woman
and then pursue the case against this brother figure who it seems actually
committed this murder. And there wouldn't be
this hemming and hawing by this prosecutor here. He would drop the case and
go against the other person. - Then we're done here. (bright music) - We're done here. Good job, Alicia. (bright music) (Jennifer sighs) - Thank you. Thank you so much. - All right, that was the good wife. That was pretty good. I enjoyed that a lot. They are better on objections
than most legal TV shows. The facts are totally unrealistic. This happens over the
span of like three days, when in reality, it probably
would've taken months for this trial to proceed. They were calling back witnesses when they had already been examined. However, a lot of the legal
argument that was made was good. The investigation that the main character
undertook was good. She was saved by the
sort of deus ex machina. But still, nonetheless, a
better than average legal drama. So I would give The Good
Wife a solid B for accuracy. (dramatic music) You're on the right track,
do better next time. So if you liked this
video, let me know about what show I should do
next, in the comments, and check out this playlist
that I put together which compiles a lot of
my other reaction videos. So check out this
playlist, and I'll see you in the next one.
(gentle music)
I wished he picked an episode from a later season
Such a weird video. He's addressing an audience that's presumably more knowledgeable about the law than The Good Wife's audience, but spends the first half of the video dumbing things down, as if the knowledge gradient were in the opposite direction. He only started explaining stuff that your average viewer wouldn't know when he got to the objection stuff.