Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Lawyers, what's your best "I rest my case" moment?
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 04. 2024
- Subscribe to ReallySparked!: @ReallySparked
We work extremely hard to serve you guys the highest quality story reading content. Each video takes a lot of effort when it comes to thinking of topics, ideation, editing, voice-acting, recording, etc. All the content in these videos are owned by us!
Our Work Process:
1. Come up with questions, research, script, come up with opinions/commentary, polish until ready for recording.
2. Record voice acting the stories/questions, sharing thoughts and opinions and performing it in a creative and transformative fashion for viewers to enjoy.
3. Record gameplay until there is enough interesting footage to use for the background
4. Throw the gameplay in the editing software and then begin typing up the captions, cutting/trimming the voice acting, adding SFX, color correction, removing/adding clips, etc.
5. Final review of the video, if video is not up to the quality desired for this channel. Either go back into the editing software, re-record some lines, change opinions/commentaries.
"Are you stupid or corrupt?" is pretty much a perfect mic drop moment.
So many times I've wanted to ask a politician "Are you corrupt or incompetent?"
@@Jutastre The answer is "Yes"
In most cases, the truth is both.
And not a question a real lawyer would be allowed to ask unchallenged
I read this just as the story started!!😂😂
Very refreshing to have stories like these that aren't just a text to speech. I listen to these while drawing and listening to an actual person talk and occasionally give input is infinitely better than the usual
Full agreement bc I do the same thing
This! Back in the day I started listening to TTS, never liked it, but got used to it somewhat. Then AI shit came out and now when a video uses it I almost always immediately leave cuz this crap pisses me off to no end.
@@V1G4M1I prefer the ai over TTS
I fully agree! Better than an AI voice any day!
M@@V1G4M1
5:25 Story 8: The officer just admitted to routinely falsifying his Log book. This has just brought into questin the validity of every single case he has been involved in.
Yeah that completely sucks, imagine all the innocent drivers he screwed with false DUIs
That is perjury as those are legally required and regulated lying on a police report is perjury and can result in jail time
Probably why the judge pulled the prosecutor and the officer into chambers...
@@kylejohns2288 AHAHAHAHAHA LIKE THAT EVER HAPPENS
The cop was probably put on a list of cops who can't testify because their credibility can be called into question every time they testify. Prosecutor probably got chewed out and ended up on the judge's shit list. Basically, they get no leeway for mistakes
5:09 “Ah- You smelled alcohol on the defendant’s breath? With that heavy wind, from that far away, through that level of rainfall, localized *entirely* through a three-inch crack!?”
“…Yes!”
In this skit the title could still be ‘Steamed Hams’ because that cop got cooked
He actually said that's just what he says on every dui case.
Fried Pork?
@@kinggoesgamingSteamed Pork
@@colintca0949 steamed hams.
well seymor i made it
dispite your directions
i cannot get steamed hams inc outa my head, its the definitive version of feel good inc and steamed hams.
Can I see it?
No
Love the Mexican Restaurant one most😂"Yeah, I- Oh." Yeah. OH.
But also love the lawyer that worked on the weekend to tear experts apart, the freakin EMPTY BINDERS, eight words, and arm wrestling. That arm wrestling one is WILD
best one😂😂
I work with preschoolers…”they argued 10 minutes with a 4 year old” made me unexpectedly cackle 😂😂
Same! If you argue with a baby for 10 minutes, you've somehow managed to lose even though you're probably right.
Story 10 was indeed badass lol
- Reads book
- Gets asked to put passage in his own words
- "these are my words. I wrote this book"
- Wears shades and Thug life plays in the background or something
The guy with a bunch of empty binders was great 😂😂 (story 23)
YES just said the same thing 😂
Great strategy!
Yeah, as a story sure, but if the Housing Attorney waited another minute OP would have been screwed. Public embarrassment in open court would have been one thing but this was also a disservice to they're client to bluff like that. Your telling me your okay with this guy billing out six associates pretend to have bring documents to court rather than actually find some thing legitimate to argue about.
He was defending a guilty person, there was nothing legitimate to find in defense of her innocents! The appointed defense attorney said that he was hoping to get her a 1 or 2 year denial of service outcome. Ended up with 6 months just by getting 6 Unpaid (probably college kids) assistants to carry empty folders😂!
Just the same as the scrawny arm wrestler, a bluffs a bluff! & If it works, the admiration, stories & ego boost can last a Long Time😊! (Not to mention the confidence you would incur🎉!
Strategy gaming 🎉🎉
Story 31 makes me think of when Megatron was yelling at Starscream saying "YOU ARE EITHER LYING OR YOU'RE STUPID!"
Starscream(to Megatron, ashamed): I'm stupid, I'm stupid, I'm stupid!
Gotta love Transformers G1! The comedy is hilarious!
@@elizabethcoenAw man, you beat me to it!
You're ugly when you lie dib!
I'm not lying!
Then why are you ugly!?
@@elizabethcoen Writing that good will never be a thing again :(
Story 31: The technique being mentioned here is probably the Reid technique. Essentially, they pull you into admitting it by acting like either you already did or there's just no question about it. It's really, REALLY easy to get a false confession using the Reid technique if you aren't REALLY careful.
They recently got a man to confess to a murder thay never happened that way. The worst part, the interrogating officers became aware that the supposed victim was not only alive, he was completely unharmed and was trying to figure out what happened to the guy they were interrogating.
Story 37 something happened similarly to me. Was driving a friend home from my house and had a moth hit my windshield and my wipers didnt clean the guts off so i pulled over and started cleaning it off with a napkin and a water bottle. A cop pulled up while i was cleaning the moth off and made me get into my car, ran my liscense, got us out of the car, searched my car, ran me through field sobriety tests, and eventually ticketed me for no seatbelt worn before telling me to leave and put my seatbelt on. Went to court had dashcam video (interior/exterior video dashcam) and my passenger's statement of events provided to the judge and my ticket was tossed out and judge didnt seem too pleased with the situation. (Seatbelts worn by both of us until i got out to clean the moth off after pulling over and parking which was before the office pulled up behind me. Then the camera shows the officer pull up and order me into my vehicle before he approached my car all while having his lights on.) Few years ago the whole department was closed as it was found after an investigation many officers pulled over high end or nice looking vehicles at night and searched them illegally always using the excuse the reason for the stop was "suspicious persons/vehicle matching the description" and drivers were being ticketed with things that would be dismissed pretty easily when the cops couldnt find anything to arrest the person on. Things looked normal until you dug into the various stops being performed and saw that there was an unusually high amount of times the generic "suspicious vehicle/person matching description" excuse was used for initiating a traffic stop.
story 16 they definitely threw him a bone for agreeing they were in the wrong and decided not to waste their time, show's that sometimes agreeing a hill isn't worth dying on will will get you some mercy
A big point of law is not to punish but to correct people. So if you agree that you did wrong,the half of punnishment is already done.
Story 6: There's a massive difference in the cost of the fine between a speeding ticket (usually up to 10mph over speed limit) and reckless driving (which you'll almost always get for 15+mph over the speed limit to the tune of about $300 in most states, so at least he got out of the reckless driving charge.
Yeah in Denmark it’s based on how many % over you were driving. So if the speed limit is 50km/h and you drive 55km/h it’s 10% over giving a specific fine but if you drive 65km/h it’s 30% over its a bigger fine and so on :)
So we going to ignore the fact that the officer was caught lying?
@@Moon_x_sun really? that's weird. So if you're driving 30mph in a 25mph zone, that's 20% over the speed limit, but if you're driving 85mph is a 70, that's only 21% over the speed limit. The same fine would go out to those two people, one going 15 over, and the other going 5 over?
For reference that's going 48 in a 40 as opposed to going 137 in an 113.
The same ticket goes out for going 8kmh over as it would for going 24kmh over?
@@randomguyontheinternet5030 yup :) thats how it Works also if you go over 30% you get a clip and you only have 3 clips (i Think 60% is wreckless driving and they Will take your vehicle)
@@randomguyontheinternet5030 well its technically the best method.
germany has fixed numbers for in rural area and out of rural area that are slightly different and its more of a practical middle ground.
but the reason is basically if you go 30 km/h and only barely stop in an emergency.
you would have hit it with roughly 20 km/h if you were going 35 km/h.
every tiny speeding could make huge life and death differences.
46:50 I get it. I hate drunk driving but the fault lies on the officer who abused his power. It's a lose - lose situation but a corrupt officer is way more dangerous than a drunk driver.
precisely, and if the cop had just waited a bit and saw the defendant driving erratically (cos of drunk), then the officer could have pulled the defendant over with no issue.
That’s why proper procedure is important. Even if the crime is real, screw ups like this can let criminals walk off on a technicality. And if it doesn’t, then you get innocent people in jail because it was decided they were guilty.
My favorite was my own as a pro se civil litigant. One of the lawyers for my adversary openly blurted out and admitted the exact fact that as THE dispositive fact under the law proved to be a slam-dunk for me. I quietly stated “I rest my case”, sat down and shut up. The transcript is a tour de force of a divorced single mom appearing pro se against her ex who was armed with 2 very high-profile, expensive lawyers and my prevailing against them in open court with a packed seated gallery, standing-room only remaining (full of lawyers packing the “pews” and lining the walls standing shoulder-to shoulder), on the record, and the judge telling my adversary and his lawyers that I was more competent and better prepared than any lawyer I could have retained had I had enough money to hire one. That as 39 years ago and still satisfies. I treasure that transcript.
You REST your CASE?
UH... it's a figure of speech, ma'am
The restaurant case has 2 issues, one: how the f*** is kitchen cleaning waste getting onto the shop floor? Either the building is not fit for purpose, or the staff need retraining. And 2: why do the company think they shouldnt need to pay the staff for the hours they work? If it takes 3 hours to clean the kitchen, then that needs to be included in wages.
Because corporations are psychopaths
It has a lot more than that. A
ton of details don’t add up. The company refusing to pay for more than an hour is actually one of the more realistic bits.
The last story is just really sad to me tho. The fact that she walked right by without even acknowledging her daughter is just so sad to me.
And notice how much effort it took to wrest custody away from the mother and the fact she is not paying child support that she absolutely owes.
46:50 Okay, but you have to understand one thing Undersparked, there are several ways of tripping a breathalyzer without having been driving under the influence, including using mouthwash within minutes of being pulled over. The information given in the post isn't enough to go on for if the person in Story 37 actually was drunk driving or not, only that the case had reason to be thrown out on Fourth Amendment grounds. As far as the lawyer in question may have known, his client could have been fully innocent anyway or been guilty as sin, but given it wasn't relevant to the case, they didn't bother arguing it, nor did they share that with us due to A) attorney-client privilege and B) it not being relevant to the story outside of that being what the cop put him away for after the traffic stop.
This right here! The rules are there for a reason because otherwise people could be pulled over, searched, detained, arrested, ect for any arbitrary reason. If the officer goes about it the wrong way unfortunately even if the person is entirely guilty it becomes irrelevant. Now that’s looking at things in just black and white but the reality of life is much more complex than that. As you even pointed out there are many things that can trip a breath test even if you haven’t been drinking. Just like there are many other examples of things just like that making it absolutely necessary for there to be more evidence and context. Although like I said before it all becomes irrelevant if the officer makes an illegal stop or search. Sadly most people don’t understand that bad police work isn’t just bad because innocent people get arrested but also because it invalidates a case even if it’s against someone who is entirely guilty. Unfortunately it has to go both ways or it doesn’t work at all.
Please do these hour long videos again! I understand they must take a lot of time but this was awesome.
In some places, 15 or more over the posted speed limit gets an additional reckless driving charge. If he argued the ticket down from 17 over to 5 over that's still a big win.
2:32 this guy was a real sport. Good for him for owning up and moving forward on a positive note.
Story 37: Drunk driving is definitely stupid and dangerous. Letting cops break the law is also stupid and dangerous. One of those pick-your-poison situations, I guess.
Yeah true. Idk. Personally I'd prefer to give more rights to the defendant because while letting someone go for drunk driving isnt right, it's a lot easier for cops to keep the general populous in check rather than for us to keep them in check. It's not impossible for us to do it, but it's quite literally their job to keep us in check, and they should be doing it properly as to not impede on the rights of the citizens. The options are: Letting some people go because you didnt follow proper procedure, or letting the cops search anyone for any reason. It's a choice, yes, but personally I'd go with the first option. The second sounds almost... germany circa 1940.
@@randomguyontheinternet5030kinda my point, actually
One is a poison that, once allowed in, can destroy families, lives, and the safety of everyone on the road through no fault of their own. The other is drunk driving.
"Saw a lawyer straighter up MURDER..."
:0
"a COP..."
:O
"with words"
:|
:|
:|
:|
😂😂😂such a cold-blooded thread!!
:I
13:42 Absolutely no chance you thought you were going to make that corner at that speed 😭
Ikr
With all these cops and other idiots lying on the witness stand, it makes me wonder whether perjury is no longer prosecuted.
Story 16; you'd be amazed how much leniency you get when you don't contest things that aren't overly major. I got a massive reduction in fine with the following exchange "how would you like to plead?" "well, I'd _like_ to plead not guilty, but..."
11:46 is a masterful gambit. Luring him into a false sense of security with the random weeks, not telling him the date but making him say it, not dropping the bombshell until he confirms the lie himself
aw yeah an hour long video right when I'm bored to death at work 🎉🎉 ty lol
If police body cam information is lost or deleted, it must be assumed that it would have proven corruption by the police.
Story 25 sounds like a case of a judge and the cop having solid rapport and knowing when to give a kid a break, not a cop not knowing what he’s doing.
7:30 it's an HOA. It deserves to lose every case in existance.
The line "These ARE my own words. I wrote it." is absolutely incredible.
Story 6: Going 5 over is cheaper in every way than going 17 over
As someone who works in the legal field (not a lawyer) I love these stories 😂 please do more.
Yessss, an hour long video from my favorite reddit answers yt channel about my favorite "x of reddit" subject, lawyers. I've been feeling sick since yesterday and slept until 3:45, so this was a nice improvement to my day :)
46:55 I don't like someone getting away with it, but at the end of the day the presumption of innocence and the rights of the parties involved must be the guiding forces of the court. Allowing police and prosecutors to overstep the law to get more convictions would put even more innocent people in jail.
I'm not American and found that story strange. To my knowledge at least here, the police can pull you over if you're driving for almost any reason, including to verify that you have a license/insurance/safety check. Is that not the case in the US?
The us has the fourth amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Stemming from some old English case about right to privacy and such.
For most searches you need a warrant but in traffic stops you only need probable cause. (The suspect has committed an offense or you have reasonable suspension of criminal activities)
In this case the only reason the officer pulled him over was something that happens frequently and had no connection to the suspicious activities they were looking for.
If the court would allow an officer to pull someone over for such a common action that would give the officers too much power to violate privacy.
Now had the officer followed the car and noticed it swerving across the road, speeding or whatever, that would have given them probable cause for the search.
@@Eradikateu Nope not in America. In the US an officer can only pull someone over if there is reasonable suspicion. This is guaranteed in the 4th amendment which lays out what "Unreasonable search and seizure" means. The amendment was included in the original ten by the founding fathers because under British rule at the time, police had a lot of power and often abused this power by doing completely unnecessary searches. "General warrants" were issued commonly for things like the perceived suspicion of being political enemies to the state and it gave them the ability to search anything that belonged to the person until the investigation was over. Another were writs of assistance which were mainly used in the colonies and gave royal officials the permission to preform warrantless searches for untaxed items. The founding fathers saw this as impeding the rights of a citizen in trying to lead an upstanding life and ultimately that someone is innocent until proven guilty, and that you cant invade the privacy of a citizen on a baseless assumption that they might be doing something wrong.
The bad Mexican restaurant owner case: Cinco de Mayo is actually celebrated more in America than in Mexico. It is somewhat like St Patrick’s Day - celebrated very differently in its home country than here. A good analogy would be an American holiday celebrating the Battle of New Orleans.
Mexico’s Independence Day is on September 16th. They actually celebrate for the entire month of September.
The Battle of Puebla (celebrated as Cinco de Mayo) happened literally years after Mexico achieved independence from Spain. It was actually a dispute over a debt Mexico owed to France.
So, it is true that a Mexican restaurant in the United States would need additional staffing on May 5th, a similar restaurant in, say, Cabo San Lucas or México City probably wouldn’t.
OK story 37. The guy being drunk may be bad and I say that with air quotes, but that is not the story here. That cop is pulling over random people simply for being in that location. If that sort of behavior is going to be acceptable then you are not safe in your personal possessions. That’s why it’s a fourth amendment violation. Put it this way if he spent five minutes watching the guy and observed anything that looks like drunken behavior. He would’ve had a reason to pull him over. He didn’t do that what he was doing was violating the guys rights end of story
#24 Absolutely got the memo but the corp probably still wasn't wanting to pay for the "closing down time" after close... so it continued
100% what happened since the corp is the typical no we don't pay past Time X but you still need to do YZ
yeah gotta love expectations that cant be met in the time they're willing to pay lol and then they think that's an employee problem not a them problem.
Story 15/2: while the state doesn't "own" the information itself, it sure has a responsibility to not hand it out to others the same way companies aren't allowed to either with information they got from eg customers
Story 37 feels like a perfect example of 2 wrongs don't make a right. The defendant was definitely guilty of driving over the limit, Wrong. The officer then did the worst possible thing and went after a rando for suspicion of doing something not illegal because he didn't seem to belong there... Yeah thats wrong 2 and that there kills the right.
Story 35 I would be visibly confused in mock trials for losing points on not calling an "asked and answered" objection. The point was not to say anything. It's better for your case to shut up and sit down. Someone who realizes that deserves the points the most.
Courtroom drama at its finest! The truth always finds a way to prevail, no matter how elaborate the lies. Bravo to the sharp attorneys and the courageous clients who stand up for justice. 🌟👩⚖
I'm not at all surprised the Jury gave the Restaurant 0% Liability for the injury to Kid B...
The Lawyer argued the Restaurant had a Duty to Protect it's Patron's (AKA Customer's)...and he's right, they do...
The problem with that argument is neither kid A nor Kid B were in fact a Customer of the Restaurant since neither kid bought anything from the Restaurant...
You can't be a Customer until you spend money to buy something...
Or at the very least go there for the purpose of buying something. They showed up just to fight.
@@athenarocks7657 Agreed
god i love law
Wow! Almost an hour! I love long videos
#31 - I was shocked but happy to hear someone else say what I've said for years, "You're either dumb or corrupt, neither is a good look for you." Applies to SOOO many situations!
Story 3: Of course he spoke to his attorney, what else is he supposed to do?
In the whacko world of that guy, be both willing to be told a story to say to the court provided by his lawyer (something present in the US and not unheard of, but not the most common thing in the world unless you're a vexatious litigant or a scummy lawyer) and be stupid enough to both regurgitate said story to the court *and* admit that said story came straight from his lawyer and not himself (even less common, as someone that's going to commit to such a story would likely have their story straight far in advance of meeting in court).
Ari Melber's answer: "When Peter Navarro confessed in an interview. On camera. I wasn't expecting that."
That cleaning the restaraunt early case... I really hope there was further malicious compliance, or there'd be huge grounds for wage theft!
Welp, after watching this - it's time to go watch "My Cousin Vinny" again. :)
The cinco de mayo one was PERFECT.
15:48 Story 16: this reads like a Dahr Mann video... "thank you for telling the truth... we will give you fewer charges"
Story 37: Agree driving under the influence isn't good, however what the officer did (my opinion) is worse. If what they did held up, it sets the example.
Story 16 just goes to show that it’s better to be honest. It really does pay (or at least cost less in the long run).
im sleeping good tonight
i like the longer videos!
And when Ben Chew had a “YES!” moment, when Amber mentioned Kate Moss. 🤣
In the UK, evidence obtained due to an officer's false testimony, which is a crime known as perjury, would be considered illegally obtained. If the officer had not lied in court or on a court document, the evidence would not have been provided. Therefore, the evidence is acquired through illegal means. Additionally, driving at 55 in a 50 zone falls within the UK's legal tolerance of 10% for speedometers, accounting for manufacturing variances and tire wear, as speedometers can over-read by up to 10%.
This is the right way to do a reddit compilation video
I love the long videos like this. I listen to them while driving.
The dude that just plead guilty got some balls. Congratz to them for stepping up.
youtubes recs been really bad lately, saw you pop up, gave the vid a chance. was not disappointed! Thanks for the new content rabbit hole :D
Absolutely fascinating! These "I rest my case" moments are always so dramatic. 😲
Story 16: Sometimes it pays to be honest.
Years ago we were commercially fishing in Alaska. It can get very competitive and a lot of the best fishing is right against the boundary line. We were very frustrated that the fisheries police were hassling people who were just barely legal instead of people who were very obviously and blatantly illlegaly fishing. So we said screw it. We went several miles inside of the boundary line. To our consternation, rather than ticket the obviously illegal fishermen we were boarded and ticketed with misdemeanor criminal charges. We had to fly back to Alaska during winter for the trial. The state trooper I testified that his current memory was better than the notes he took at the time. And we asked him why he wrote our coordinates both forwards and backwards. He said that he wasn't sure which was which. That barely got us an acquittal. Because the judge said he basically believed all fishermen were crooked and so he had to grudgingly give us the benefit of the doubt. That is part of why I'm a lawyer today. We couldn't have been more honest and the law hassle dust instead of the people who were blatantly fishing crooked. the cop contradicted himself and admitted on the stand that he didn't know the very basics of the law he was pretending to enforce.
Story 24: The restaurant is the only one at fault for the incident. There is no reason for workers to have to keep working hours that they would not be paid. If the restaurant refuses to compensate for all the hours needed to clean up then they could just as easily leave the work only a third finished and let the health inspector do the rest of the judgment.
6:50 "These are my own words. I wrote it." is really badass in that situation.
Story 20 is so good. LOVE that OP was so pissed that they simply had to do unpaid work to prove their point XD
I'm never this early to a video... ever. this is either a good omen or a very very bad one
I'm thinking a good omen!
🎉 Below 1 hours people 🎉
Psst...you okay dude *gulp😅😅
Lawyers almost always instruct witnesses that they MUST tell the truth. As an intern in the Attorney General's Office in law school, I saw my boss's boss's boss, one level below the AG, come in just for one conversation. When our star witness signed the immunity agreement, he explained to him that the only thing that would invalidate it is if he lies, so he cannot lie, especially on the stand. He then told him that he would be questioned about that conversation on the stand and he was pretty sure he knew which lawyer would he doing the questioning. And when he is, he should tell him what he said.
The Mock Trial stories.... oh boy. I was the mother of the alledged murderer in mock trial in high school, a high school boy who allegedly murdered his music teacher. I was asked, "Would you do anything for your son?" Wanting me to say yes because "anything" would include lying on the stand, and I'd have to be dismissed. I responded, "Anything that isn't illegal or immoral." They were so deflated that they didn't catch me that they responded."Oh, so you wouldn't do anything for your son?" Impling I'd do nothing for him. So befuddled by that question, I responded with, "I'd make him a sandwich if he asked me to!" They had no further questions for me.
Our judge was a teacher, and he put his hand over his face as if he was thinking deeply, but his shoulders were clearly shaking with the laughter he was holding in.
Dave have loved your videos. Started watching because my husband had worked for CFI and I rode along. Saw your leaving and returning videos. Watched a few of the camping videos and lost track. My feed brought me this one. Glad to see you making a happiness change for you. Look forward to seeing more from you. Best wishes and hoping for more. God bless.
In a case, opposing counsel accused me of coaching a witness.
I feel like destroying body cam footage would be a crime on it's own... But maybe the US is being weird
The Are you Stupid or Corrupt story: I suspect it was a combination of both Stupid and Corrupt...He didn't properly learn the Interrogation Technique 4 months ago (The Stupidity) and was too determined to "Catch the Killer" (The Corruption) to apply what he did remember of the Technique when Interrogating the Autistic Suspect...
Story 28. Wow, that ending just got worse, and worse for the criminal.
That reads like a woken up judge and lawyer from a monotonous day in spring break and actually LOOKING at what happened instead of just the charges (story 16)
ABT the story 24... I used to work on a famous chain restaurant that used those chemicals... The cook had shoes to prevent him from slipping... We, the rest of the staff, did not. In fact, we could use any shoe since they didn't provide us one, it only had to be black. Needless to say that I slipped on my first week, and now I have one of the bones of my knee scarred from a fracture :)
The trick to teach how to avoid fals confessions, is that it's basically telegraphing how to get the confessions you want by applying the opposite technique...
this video is extra funny cuz its so easy to tell who actually works in law and who thinks they know how things go and are just farming karma
Story 40: I'm convinced that lawyer is a huge spiderman fan.
Two courtroom stories: a defendant's outburst seals her fate, and a judge corrects an attorney's misinterpretation of the rules.
Gotta love a “My Cousin Vinny” reference!
I'm also currently facing a round of bogus charges for threats with obscenity where no threats were made whatsoever. What makes it a case that I think would be mentioned in this Reddit is the fact that the judge himself is the one who screwed the courts in this case. This is because at my bond reduction hearing the judge on the record speaks to the district attorney and tells them that he just read the criminal complaint and he could see plenty of profanity but he could not see a single threat made by me to anyone that I spoke to on the phone. The fact that the judge has even stated that there were no threats yet I'm charged with threats with obscenity means that the whole thing is bogus and anytime I have to deal with this after that statement which at this time is already one month after that statement was made by the judge it all counts against the courts and the district attorney not me
Story 30: Yes, I have a lot more questions! What were the calls about? What was said? What happened before and after? Context matters. You can’t assume someone made 70 calls in a few days just for funsies. What if those calls were, where’s my missing stuff I need? Or, Why is our child sobbing after that last visit to your home? What are those bruises from?
It’s hard to know one way or the other without more information. I’ve just read too many stories about trauma survivors not getting taken seriously because they were acting “weird” during a traumatic situation. “Weird” as defined by people who have never been through said situation.
I'm defending in a home invasion robbery case. The victim is on the stand:
Me on Cross: Are you sure it was my client? I mean it was dark, right?
Witness/Victim: I'm 80% sure.
Me: No further questions, Your Honor.
Verdict: Not guilty
Why? Only evidence was the eyewitness/victim's ID. Only 80% sure? Not proof beyond and reasonable doubt.
44:00 Typical lawyer behaviour stealing other people’s parking spots.
in one of the story's he was going on about doctors and said pulled... i then got an ad so it sounded like: i pulled mmmmaaazzzzaaaarrrreeeeellllaaaaa sticks XD
Story 41 is absolutely legendary.
4:40 Story 7: "Actually, I have many other questions, just none that are applicable here"
34:23 so this reminds me of when a friend of mine so this has yet to go to any kind of case or trial but pretty much me and a few friends were defending a victim of abuse whose abuser claimed they were the one being abused. the victim we were defending had an eating disorder caused by the abuser, years of screenshots of being mistreated, extensive text message records, photographic and audio evidence to many instances. to which the abuser's rebuttal was falsified audio that had since been deleted, theatrical screenshots from when she had sent messages from the victims phone to herself(including threats of incitement to harm the victim's friends), screenshots of proof she was verbally abusing the victim over text, and a screenshot of a notepad doc she made making incredibly detailed almost fetishes claims against the victim(every piece of "evidence" against the victim was taken in the span of a few months. whereas the victim's evidence spanned years.) also even tho she said she needed healing from the victim she had messages where she begged the victim to take her back.
So the 55 in the 50, most of the cops will just ignore it but if it's like end of the month need to reach the quota or they're just a huge asshole
I really hope the cooks who weren’t paid were actually paid instead of being fired. That’s on the company for refusing to pay them for their time. Honestly, hope they unionized.
About story 21. Police body cams are this weird kind of grey area when it comes to evidence. The cops can argue technology glitches, redacted information is displayed, thing is body cams are voluntary in most PD's. They can suppress the video due to it being evidence in an on going investigation. They have so many tricks to mislead and suppress that only when the commander is facing charges is the evidence released.
Story 7: Good! Maybe she’ll learn she can’t just throw around accusations of harassment to get her way, but I doubt it. Karens never learn
Story 10: It's not that they CAN'T be gone after, it's that with their resources, the juice isn't worth the squeeze, so they don't bother. It's actually the TOP reason people don't press charges.
Preliminary hearing on probable cause. Cross examination of a cop who said something stupid. I started to follow up and the judge said, “Counselor, do you want to quit while you re ahead?”
“Yes your honor, yes I do.”
story 41 is the best story i have ever heard
I'm weirded out by story 37, the one about a DUI being thrown out for the officer having no reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. I live in a country where it is normal for police to perform random spot checks in traffic. They just pull people over, perform a quick breathalyzer test, and send you on your way if you're clean. None of this theater about probable cause or field sobriety tests. It works with minimal disruption for law-abiding people, and we don't get stories about DUI arrests with 0 BAC, or police issuing tickets for profit. This is just one of those stories that makes me shake my head, why are they making such a simple thing so overly complicated? None of those extra hoops to jump through are making streets any safer, and they don't seem to keep innocent people out of jail either.