- Thanks to Curiosity Stream for keeping Legal Eagle in the air. Get 26% off CuriosityStream and Nebula using the link in the description. (whooshing) Everyone knows
police can't lie to you. (buzzer buzzing) False. (dramatic music) If you ask a lawyer a legal question, the answer is usually, "It depends," because it usually depends. The law is a vast and complex thing. So it won't surprise any
of you that there are many misconceptions about
what is and is not illegal. The law is complicated and
it's easy to get confused if you have no legal experience. But the fun thing about law
is that people tend to believe that there are certain hard
and fast rules that are unfortunately, definitely wrong. So let's dispel some myths and
correct some misconceptions. And be honest, did you
believe any of these things? (whooshing) Like, everybody knows it's illegal to marry your cousin. (buzzer buzzing) False. You can marry your cousin
provided it's your first cousin and you live in one of the 21
American states that allow it. Cousin marriage has always
been popular around the world. Gross, but for hundreds of years, it was considered a relatively good bet for a long-lasting union. Think of all the family
that you already share. But things started to change
in America in the mid 1800s when states decided that
cousins marrying cousins was a bad idea, (whooshing)
and interestingly enough, cousin marriages weren't
ever outlawed in England and they are still allowed in Canada, largely because the practice was associated with the aristocracy. In America, the situation
was largely the opposite. Cousin marriage was
viewed negatively in part because it was practiced by people who didn't have lots of money, but let's get down to brass tacks. First cousin marriage is legal in Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia,
Florida, because of course, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, and North Carolina. In several other states it's
allowed with some restrictions. These states include Arizona,
Illinois, Indiana, Utah, and Wisconsin, where first
cousin marriage is allowed if the parties are above a certain age or one is unable to produce. Maine also permits it if a couple obtains a physician's certificate
of genetic counseling. Though, note, if you
do go through with it, Susan Collins may express her displeasure and furrow an eyebrow, but
then allow you to do it anyway. - This is disgraceful! - But I guess this so-called myth is actually true in certain states. If you live in Arkansas,
Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, hey,
Kentucky, way to go, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia, or Wyoming, you'll have to look outside
of the family reunion to find a spouse, which
brings us to the next myth. The reading of the will, (whooshing) because everyone knows when someone dies, you gather in a big ornate room, and then you wait silently
until the executor reads your portion of
the will and hopefully, explaining that your estranged uncle left you millions of dollars, or if you were expecting
millions of dollars, surprise, you get nothing or you're left
with just a haunted mansion. This is (buzzer buzzing) false. I'm willing to bet that no
one who is watching this video has ever been summoned
to a lawyer's office for the reading of a loved one's will. Nevertheless, many people still believe that when someone passes away, there will be a family gathering
where a lawyer officially breaks the news about who
will inherit money and assets. This is one of the most
reliable plot lines for a daytime and nighttime soap opera. - I'm left with 40%, they
are the major shareholders. How did Daddy do this to me? - The big event always takes
place in the lawyer's office or old-timey library and
involves the whole crazy family, all in one room together. It's led by a well-dressed
lawyer wearing Indochino, presumably, who gets to do the big reveal. You can't blame screenwriters for wanting a reading of the will to be a real thing. It's a great way to
create dramatic tension. And there's a lot riding on
this dead person's estate. - [Woman] I'm leaving you my keyboard. I'm going to keep it in
my room at the Q Mansion. Please give it to Leo. - Will someone walk away rich? Will someone be disinherited? Will someone unexpected show up? Will there be a fight? But here's the thing. There is no legal requirement
that a Last Will and Testament be read aloud to family members, or anyone else for that matter. All beneficiaries named in a will are entitled to receive a copy
so they can understand what they'll be receiving from the estate, and when those assets will be distributed, but there's no requirement
that the executor usher everyone into a
room where the contents of the will will be revealed. In fact, lawyers would
prefer not to do it this way since we aren't trained to break up fights like a bouncer at Scores. Lawyers prefer to fight with
our words, not our fists, and wound you with a pen
rather than the sword. (bell dinging) So if there's no requirement
for wills to be read out loud, where did this idea come from? Well, a hundred years ago, estate attorneys did
gather the family together to read the will because not everyone could actually read the will on their own. Nowadays, we sort of assume
that the beneficiaries of a will are actually literate. But the main conflict in movies
and TV shows involving wills is whether someone will be disinherited. And this is definitely
a source of conflict in the real world. And since most states usually have a very strict timeframe
for contesting a will, it could be to everyone's
advantage to start the clock by notifying disinherited heirs
earlier, rather than later. This is actually what happened when President Trump's father died because it's 2020 and everything involves Donald Trump these days. Fred Trump, (whooshing)
Donald Trump's father, amended his will to disinherit Mary Trump and Fred Trump III, the descendants of Fred Trump
Jr. who died when he was 46. Mary and Fred were cut out of a 20% share of their grandfather's estate
that they might have received had their father lived. The other Fred Trump grandchildren
are in line to inherit their parents' full shares
in Fred Trump's estate. Now the Trump children, including Donald, told tax authorities that Dad's properties were worth around $41 million
at the time of his death. The "New York Times"
reported that the true value was closer to $1 billion, which obviously is a lot of
money to be disinherited from. Fred III and Mary filed a will
contest nine months later, which brings us to the
next legal misconception because everyone knows, if you go into a casino and
you start counting cards, you can be arrested (whooshing) because counting cards is illegal. (buzzer buzzing) False. Counting cards while playing blackjack, though widely considered
to be illegal, is not. Really, you're just playing the game that the casino is offering at a much higher level
than they were expecting. There is no local state or federal law that makes counting cards against the law. Generally, the way it
works in blackjack is that it's more favorable for the player when there are more aces and cards that are valued at 10, the 10s, jacks, queens, and kings, remaining in the shoe. So card counting is simply using a system to keep track of the ratio
of low cards to high cards. And if you have a halfway decent memory, you can teach yourself to do this by tracking the changing imbalance of big and small cards
in a diminishing deck. And since you're just using your brain, this is perfectly fine. There's even a court case making it legal, at least in New Jersey, because everything is legal in New Jersey. The New Jersey Supreme Court (whooshing) has ruled that players can
not be discriminated against based on their playing skills, even if they are caught counting cards. Counting cards does not violate the New Jersey Casino Control Act. However, counting cards
becomes problematic if you're using a device to count cards, or you have friends who
are tipping you off. Though, if you're playing in Nevada, the rules are a bit different. There is no Nevada law
against counting cards, but the casinos also have free reign to remove people as they see fit. Casinos are private property. They can remove just about
anyone for any reason. So if you're caught
counting cards in Vegas, even with your brain, you can expect the pit
boss to pull you aside and prohibit you from playing blackjack, which takes us to the
next legal misconception (whooshing)because everybody
knows that you have to wait 24 hours to report a missing person, even if you know that
your loved one is missing. You were there when the dark van pulled up beside your loved one, the sliding door opened and some henchmen who were wearing black shirts
that said "Henchmen" on it, grabbed your loved one,
and threw 'em the van, (motor running) and drove off. And then of course, you go
to the local chief of police, who, of course, you
trust because he's been a long-time family friend, and you confide and say that you saw them abduct your loved one. And he says, "Look, I'm
sorry, I believe you, "but I can't do anything about it "because you have to wait 24 hours "before you can report a missing person." And it sounds reasonable. It sounds like a law that actually exists, but of course, your
long-time family friend has been in on the conspiracy
from the very beginning. So obviously then you have to take the law into your own hands
because you waited 24 hours to report a missing person, but that (buzzer buzzing) is false. (laughing) (popping) A lot of people think that
if a person is missing, you have to wait 24 hours to
report it to the authorities. But in reality, there is
no state or federal law requiring police
departments to wait 24 hours before investigating a
missing persons case. In fact, in 1990, the Crime
Control Act became law, which mandated that all law
enforcement agencies immediately report a missing child under the age of 18 to the National Crime Information Center at the Department of Justice. And in 2003, President George W. Bush signed the Protect Act, which included Suzanne's
Law raising the age to 21. So anyone under that age could be reported to the National Database immediately. Suzanne Lyall was a
19-year-old college student who disappeared in 1998. And when Lyall's disappearance was reported to campus police, officers told her parents
that brief absences were not uncommon for college students. So they shouldn't worry since
she would probably turn up. She was unfortunately never seen again. And as Suzanne's case demonstrates, there is some truth to the
myth that for missing adults, police departments once
had waiting periods before they would take a
missing persons report. The common belief was that most people who seemed to be missing
actually returned fairly quickly. Today most law enforcement agencies have reversed course, even for adults. This is partly because in
the age of the cell phone, most people are reachable
relatively quickly. And if they don't respond,
something is likely to be wrong. But to sum it up, when an
adult or child goes missing, it should be immediately reported. And under Suzanne's Law, federal, state and local law enforcement must report all missing
persons up to the age of 21 to the DOJ without delay, and the police are obligated
to investigate right away, which takes us to the
next legal misconception, which is that if you
are accused of a crime, (whooshing) everyone knows
that you can't be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone because everyone knows
circumstantial evidence is weak and can't lead to a conviction. (buzzer buzzing) False. Criminal defendants
often tell their lawyers, "All the prosecutors have on
me is circumstantial evidence. "And you can't convict on
circumstantial evidence alone." But the number one mistake people make about criminal law and frankly,
civil law for that matter, is that circumstantial evidence
is not enough to convict. But there's no law saying that. And in fact, the law says
the absolute opposite. The standard of proof
(whooshing) in criminal trials is beyond a reasonable doubt. And that means that the
prosecution must prove that the defendant is
guilty of a crime charged to the extent that no
reasonable person could have a reasonable doubt that
the defendant is guilty. And the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt by building a case through direct evidence,
circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both. Direct evidence directly
shows the defendant's guilt requiring no inference whatsoever. Direct evidence would be
a video showing someone is killing the victim or a witness testifying that they saw the person
murdering that victim. Circumstantial evidence on the other hand is indirect evidence that
may lead to the inference that the defendant committed a crime, even though there's no direct proof. That key word here is inference, since circumstantial evidence
allows jurors to infer facts that the prosecutors don't
have direct evidence to prove. But circumstantial evidence
can be extremely strong. Even DNA evidence, considered some of the
strongest evidence out there, is circumstantial. For example, if a criminal
defendant had traces of the victim's blood in their apartment, then you might make the inference that that person was in fact, the killer, though it's possible that that blood could have gotten there
under other circumstances. So that might be
extremely strong evidence, but there might be an explanation for it. That's circumstantial evidence. Of course, not all circumstantial
evidence is created equal. Some is stronger and weaker than others. And this is where jury
discretion comes in. It's up to the individual jurors to weigh the importance of each piece of evidence, and then decide together
whether the prosecution has proven his case. For example, there was no direct evidence that infamous Casey Anthony
killed her daughter Caylee, but the prosecution thought they had strong circumstantial evidence. Their theory was that
Casey used chloroform to suffocate her child. However, the child's body
was so badly decomposed that there was no definitive determination of the cause of death. The prosecution had evidence that someone in Anthony's household
had done internet searches for information on chloroform, and traces of chloroform were found in the trunk of Anthony's car. And the prosecution hoped
that the jury would draw an inference that the internet
search in chloroform traces, along with the fact that
Anthony didn't report her child was missing for a month, prove that she killed her child. And of course, a lot of
people believe that as well. However, the jury did not
think that that was enough to prove that Casey
Anthony killed her daughter beyond a reasonable doubt. If the same case was tried
to 10 different juries, it'd be interesting to
know how many of them would have drawn the same conclusion, but that's not how our system works. You can be convicted or found not guilty based on circumstantial evidence alone, but that brings us to the
next legal misconception, which is that everybody
knows that if you're doing something illegal and
you think you might be interacting with an undercover cop, you should ask them if
they are a police officer, (whooshing) because everyone
knows police can't lie to you. (buzzer buzzing) False. Our final misconception
is that police cannot lie to you during an interrogation. Actually, they absolutely
can use deception. There's actually a
Supreme Court case on it. (whooshing) In Frazier vs Cupp,
the Supreme Court affirmed the legality of deceptive
interrogation tactics. Police in that case got a
tip that Martin Frazier, a 20-year-old U.S.
Marine, might be involved in the murder of Russell Anton Marleau. Frazier, along with his
cousin, Jerry Lee Rawls, were seen at a bar with the
victim before the murder. During the interrogation, the police falsely informed
Frazier that Rawls had already confessed and
implicated him in the murder. Frazier denied any
involvement in the crime and suggested speaking with an attorney. But police continued to question him. Police got Frazier to confess. This confession was used
against him at trial, and he was convicted of murder. Rawls also pleaded guilty
to the same offense. The Supreme Court
rejected Frazier's appeal stating that although
police misrepresented Rawls's testimony, that did not make the
confession inadmissible. And later, case law has interpreted this as allowing deception
during interrogations. This includes lying about
evidence like fingerprints or DNA. However, there are some limits. Police, for example, can't misrepresent a
person's basic legal rights. So if you don't know, now you know. Now obviously, this is #NotLegalAdvice, but hopefully you know a little bit more about what isn't the law. And if you're the kind of person that likes to dispel legal myths, or at least lord them over
your unassuming friends, you can learn about one more legal myth over at Nebula because everyone knows, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. - [Man] Fire! - Sometimes even legal issues
are too hot for YouTube because YouTube's algorithm
can be capricious. Which is why my creator
friends and I teamed up to build our own platform where
creators don't need to worry about demonetization or
the dreaded algorithm. It's called Nebula. And we're thrilled to be
partnering with CuriosityStream, because Nebula is a place where creators can do what they do best, create. It's a place where we can both
house our content ad-free, and also experiment with original content and new series that probably
wouldn't work on YouTube. In fact, if you liked this episode, the version that I put up on
Nebula removes this ad entirely and replaces it with an
extended version that goes into the myth of yelling
fire in a crowded theater. And actually, due to popular demand, almost all of the videos
that I put up on Nebula are both ad-free and have
an extended discussion. They're also released early before the YouTube version goes live. Nebula features lots of YouTube's top educationalish creators like
Lindsay Ellis, Thomas Frank, and Charl The Coconut with
his sidekick Patrick Willems. - [Patrick] This is Charl, my new friend. - We also get to collaborate in ways that wouldn't work on YouTube. Like Tom Scott's amazing
game show "Money," where he pits a bunch of famous YouTubers against each other in
psychological experiments where they can either work
together or profit individually. It is ridiculously good. So what does this have to
do with CuriosityStream? Well, as the go to source for the best documentaries on the internet, they love educational content
and educational creators. And we worked out a deal
where if you sign up for CuriosityStream with
a link in the description, you also get a Nebula
subscription for free. And to be clear, that nebula
subscription is not a trial. It's free for as long as you're
a CuriosityStream member. And (whooshing) for a limited time, CuriosityStream is offering
26% off of their annual plans. That's less than (bell
dinging) $15 per year for both CuriosityStream and Nebula. And because I'm a lawyer, I made sure that 26% off is by contract, the best deal you will find
anywhere for this bundle. And since we've gotta stay inside anyway, I'm sure you'd love watching CuriosityStream's awesome documentaries, and watch Tom Scott torture your favorite YouTubers on Nebula. So if you click the
link in the description, you'll get both CuriosityStream
and Nebula for 26% off, or you can go to
CuriosityStream.com/LegalEagle. It's a great way to support this channel and educational content directly
for just $14.79 per year. Just click on the link in the description or go to CuriosityStream.com/LegalEagle. Clicking on that link really
helps out this channel. So do you agree with my
analysis about legal myths? Leave your objections in the comments, and check out this playlist with all of my other irreverent
discussions of the law, including crazy stuff
that's happening on Reddit, and my real lawyer reactions to a bunch of crazy movies about the law. So click on this link and
I'll see you in court.
I like this guy but I can never watch his videos till the end. He always just goes on a little too long when making a point.
Ha, I loved that shot at Susan Collins
The "wait 24 hours for a missing persons report" is such a dangerous one. I can't imagine how many people don't even bother reporting issues because they believe this. I wish TV and movies wouldn't propagate it so much.
He looks like a cartoon character.
Salon quality Jim Halpert
Hey that's 😎 cool who's agreed