Prosecutor Deviously Misleads the Jury; Judge Immediately Grants a Mistrial
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 07. 2023
- DUI defense attorney Larry Forman objects to a prosecutor misleading the jury about Kentucky DUI law. Initially, an admonition is requested from the court, after the prosecution admits it made a mistake. However, upon realizing there may be no recovery from the situation, and the jury has already been tainted by the prosecution's words, a mistrial is requested by Mr. Forman and is immediately, and without hesitation, granted by the Court.
July 5, 2023
Whitley County, KY
Judge: Honorable Fred Franklin White, Whitley County District Court Division C
Defense attorney: Larry Forman, a.k.a. the DUI Guy
Prosecutor: John L. Reynolds
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theduiguyplus
NEED TO BEAT A DUI? I CAN BE YOUR LAWYER, TOO.
Call 502-931-6788 OR
Schedule an appointment with me: http:/www.meetme.so/larryforman
Let's work to get your DUI case resolved!
Connect With the DUI Guy:
Website: www.FormanAndAssociatesLaw.com/
Facebook: / theduiguyplus
Twitter: / theduiguyplus
Linkedin: / formanlarry
#criminaldefenseattorney #duidefenselawyer #duiattorney
I’m a KY lawyer and here’s what I think has been going on. This Assistant Commonwealth Attorney has been pulling this stunt forever and getting away with it - and finally a lawyer showed up who called him on it.
Bingo!
Would you mind explaining what happened? I couldn't really hear the bench conversation and what I did hear didn't make sense to me.
@@matttaylor817might need to increase volume - it's clear and audible.
Prosecutor misquoted the law defense attorney NAILED him!
@@matttaylor817the prosecutor was mis stating the law in a way that could make it easier to obtain a conviction, the defense called him out and the judge decided it would be better to issue a mistrial and restart with a fresh jury than to try and fix it with the current jury.
Mistrials caused by the State's side need to result in attorneys' fees being paid to the defense.
I would agree in principle but that would only mean that the people of that community are paying. Since it's the State bringing the charges it would be tax dollars that would be used to pay for the defense. So I would push more for stiff sanctions/contempt charges for the attorneys.
Most criminal trials have a Public Defender, he already gets paid by the state.
DREAMON !!! What should be will never be because of qualified immunity
@@1Findawg Until qualified immunity is abolished theyll keep doing it as it dont effect them personally
@1Findawg
Some people think that when a DA takes a case he is acting on behalf of those who would be victims, but the DA always represents all of the citizens of the city, county, state, or country.
It is up to the citizens to keep them honest, and to pay the bill when they are not.
That does not preclude sanctions against a DA for presenting false information to a judge or jury.
The concept of sovereign immunity has been extended to cover employees who should not, in principle, be covered.
Wow! I've never seen a mistrial happen that quickly, but man am I glad that the judge rightfully called it.
Trial never even started lol. They didn't do opening statements. Lol
I'm kind of surprised that the judge didn't immediately call it, but maybe technically under proceedings the judge needs an attorney to make a motion about it before he can call the mistrial.
@@MrGundawindy How the hell can you tell the jury to basically make up their own law. Lol
@@KNByam I know, right. That's why I'm surprised the judge didn't call it immediately.
The judge called it , but the judge didn’t catch it. The savvy defense attorney actually caught it 16:06
This should instantly trigger a review of the prosecutor's previews court cases transcripts to check if he misstate the law in them. Automatically overturn any conviction and open the state to civil liability for the defendants' legal fees.
i agree with everything you've stated but I'd go even farther....disbar him.
All that money should come out of his personal accounts
Of course that SHOULD happen, but its the government we're talking about here.
That's not how the judicial system works. Unless you object to something and appeal it, you lose the ability to review it. That's why you question everything and don't simply rely on your lawyer to coast through your case and handle everything. Because more often than not they will only do the bare minimum if you're lucky.
If they actually wanted to clear out the department of justice. But we know that's not the case
Given the fact that this defense lawyer objected perfectly and had the case law ready to go leads me to believe that he knew this prosecutor was going to use that incorrect statement and he was just waiting for him to say it. As for the prosecutor he should not only be incredibly embarrassed but he should also be reprimanded for this. Misstating law to a jury is beyond inexcusable and he should definitely be punished
100%, he didn't even have a witness list or any evidence for discovery. Knew he was going to mistrial without a doubt
He needs to be DISBARRED.
if that happens twice to a prosecutor its a misstrial with prejudice and his bar is at risk
Ya he he flat out stated that he was basically just guessing. Absolutely disgusting.
It’s the State, do you expect anything different?
I wonder how many times this prosecutor has believed, presented, and achieved convictions on the basis of this mistaken understanding...
I was going to comment that this prosecutor has probably misrepresented and mis-stated the law EVERY previous time he has prosecuted OWI/DUI charges. Counselor, make a report to the bar to get the prosecutor admonished by the KY Ethics committee. If you can get your hands on transcripts from previous OUI/DUI/DWI cases by this prosecutor. If he truly believes "may" is part of the law and no other defense attorney has caught him, there may be a BOATLOAD of cases that need to be examined and possibly have the verdict thrown out
Surely a FOIA would uncover his past missed deeds in court!?
@@CatBuchanan Does this state's laws define DUI by blood alcohol level? Or DWI? Wouldn't that eliminate the discussion over whether the driver was impaired or not? BAL is a measurable standard.
@@lorrainelamour7224 And BAL has little to do with actual impairment. A light drinker may be impaired well below the legal limit, and a heavy drinker may be functional above the legal limit.
That said, the law declares the level at which impairment is assumed.
"Mistaken Understanding", or out & out lies.. If it'd been a simple mistake he'd surely have been more receptive to the correction if he's honest about his career. Sounded to me like he wanted his way(conviction) & wasn't too fussy how he'd go about getting it ✌️
Prosecutors who get caught lying should suffer the worst consequences the justice system has to offer.
2nd worse, the worse should be reserved for cops who do illegal shit
When the defendant's a good ol' boy, anyway.
Death penalty?
Oh yeah I totally agree it's not like murderers pedos or r@pists are worse or anything
@@ek.74.914 show me on the doll where the cop touched you
Shocking that he genuinely believed, even after reading the law, that anyone who ever takes anything that "may" impair has broken the law!
Drinking water "may" impair, whether it's too much or too little, so is like, sugar, salt, pepper, spices in general, like having an allergic reaction is going to impair to some degree, or things like electrolyte imbalances caused by intaking the wrong amount of ordinarily safe substances.
"May" is clearly an overly broad definition that can be twisted and misinterpreted to fit a prejudiced narrative, and the prosecutor should be ashamed he even bothered to try to lie to get ahead.
Cops seem to have the impression that the law is what THEY want it to be.
@@user-wf4hy4ub7pbecause the Supreme Court told them they can make up the law if they really believe it’s a law.
"He has no caselaw" Larry recites the case cite. "I don't believe that's what the statute says..." Larry's partner pushes the book to him, "Subsection C". Just beautiful. Rarely is it ever that cinematic.
That is NOT case law. That was the State Statue, the LAW.
@@Asidebar ah yes, thank you.
absolute gold!!
@@Asidebar its both, first he sited the caselaw which is a case that pertains to the relevant law, that string of names and numbers, _then_ his partner looks up the law itself when the prosecutor ignored the citing.
Straight technicians!
Respect to the Judge not letting the guy get screwed off the jump. Better to start again and keep it fair.
Probably the easiest time for a judge to issue a mistrial. Unfortunate the prosecution gets to have another bite at the apple. Dishonesty from the state should be punished by letting the person walk.
@@cptn_chromo3189 Agreed. The wrong speak increases the burden on the defendant, not the state. He has to pay more for legal counsel and take more personal time to fight the wrong speak and the charges.
Sue for legal fees because of first mistrial?
@@fifiwoof1969 Sue who"?? Prosecutors have immunity .
@@yoyo762 for real? Ripe for prosecutors to be a bit lax - like THIS prosecutor!
I like how when the prosecutor's series of several excuses all get immediately shot down his "phone doesn't work" when needing to pull up the imaginary case law. Then a few moments later when the judge directly asks him his schedule, the phone magically works.
He doesn't have to prove that his phone doesn't work, he only has to prove that his phone may not work.
@@Neelo5000lmfao good one
Nor does a calendar require Internet
LMFAO....@@Neelo5000
🤣🤣
Man this guy is sharp! I'm glad there are defense lawyers like him who actually know the law. Its scary that DA's across the country might be misreading the law to juries and getting away with bogus convictions. Thank you DUI Guy for standing up for what's right!
If you think things are NOT rigged your a four word beginning with F and ending with a L. The government is allowed to LIE in court and when they get caught it is just a mistake they are not prefect but the preamble of Justice System requires beyond a reasonable doubt "beyond" how do you get there with lazy DA’s with God complexes without cheating?
Based on the way the prosecutor was emphasizing the word “may”, he knows he’s been wrong and getting away with it. He definitely should be investigated, and his prior cases reviewed.
Lmao good job exposing yourself as a child who doesn't know how the justice system works 😂
@@ppstorm_ I haven’t been referred to as “child” for decades. Where did you obtain your JD?
@@HelenLenox-pw6oq I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, being an adult who knows nothing about the justice system is way worse lmao
He knew the law. He just didn't think the other lawyer could state case law off the top of his head.
"We don't have to prove he was drunk, we only have to prove that he MAY be drunk?" A court room is not a place for theories or speculation, it should be a place for facts.
Wow!! Great job protecting your client to get a fair trial. Makes wonder as a prosecutor how many times he’s had people convicted on “May” 🧐??
Wow great catch Larry holy crap
All of those cases need to be reopened and charged dismissed.
There should be an IRS form, or way to pull all the securities monetized from the Solicicitpr pr something... I htink its called reversionary interest and you can collect on wrong doings of the court after the fact since they rules on a law not in existence.
source: bro scientist
Especially when "may" takes away the idea of proving something "beyond a reasonable doubt". All they'd have to do is prove he had a single drop of alcohol in his system... Because that "may" impair driving, meaning that the defendant is automatically guilty. That is absolutely terrifying.
I sincerely hope that someone goes back through that prosecutor's previous DUI convictions to see how many potentially innocent people have had their lives turned upside down for nothing. Don't get me wrong, I work in an ED/ER and so I'm massively against drink-driving - I've seen the harm it can do - but according to this prosecutor, if you have a sip of weak bucks fizz toasting a wedding, before driving to the reception, it "MAY" impede your driving, so you're getting a record and possibly going to jail. I mean, WTF?! 👀
From the UK 🇬🇧. Loved it when the prosecutor says that Larry doesn’t know the specific case law and Larry just spits the case law out. Well done DUI Guy ❤. Hats off.
That was hot
Yes, that was pretty funny. He named it immediately and made him look foolish in the process.
Seriously, a great moment.
I don't believe it was case law he spit out but rather the specific statute. He knew exactly how the statue was worded and knew that the prosecutor misrepresented the standard
@@maxpeck4154 Quite right. I’m British so there’s a difference in legal jargon. Thanks for the correction. 👍
Perfect demonstration of how important it is to have great representation in court. Great work sir
You were fast citing that case law! Great job Larry👏
Way to go, Larry❣️⚖️
That was impressive but also like a mma fighter- he knew this was coming and prepared 🤔
A serious investigation needs to be started on that Prosecutor. How many lives have been ruined, where he hasn't been caught out lying to the courts???
And then nothing happens due to the absolute immunity prosecutors enjoy. We have a messed up system, courtesy of the Supreme Court and their decision in 1982 granting absolute and qualified immunity to judges, prosecutors, police officers, and other state actors.
@@SynthMusicWorld Well this isn't accurate. He could still be disbarred.
@@stab74 that's separate from being held criminally responsible. His losing his law license wouldn't impact previous convictions.
@@SynthMusicWorld And the 2nd Amendment was put in place to ensure those at the top never have absolute rule over the citizens.
@@SynthMusicWorld You didn't say anything about him being held criminally responsible in your OP. You said "nothing happens" which is pretty vague, and inaccurate.
"I can't try it in August or September ".
The judge should have said.. "Then Dismiss all charges with Prejudice."
Yeah, what happened to the right to a speedy trial? Surely the prosecutor's office has other prosecutors in it.
@@thomasdalton1508maybe the right to a speedy trial had already been waived? I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case, a lot of attorneys waive that right at the beginning
@@Hidakaku56 Does waiving it make it completely disappear? I would have thought it was waived for a specific delay under discussion at the time, not for any and all future delays.
Defendant could have waived speedy trial. When a mistrial is declared there is a time frame deeding on tat state law how soon new Trial must be held. The attorney bth defense and the Court have many other cases so not being able to have a trial in August or September is not an issue. It benefits defense by delays.
I would be looking into full time line and seeing if it falls outside that outlined by right to speedy trial. The accused is not responsible for the Prosecutor deliberately misquoting the law to try and slam dunk a win. And retrials and delays are again not his problem.
Side note - Can't say I've ever seen a courtroom set up where both prosecution and defense tables have their backs to the Judge. Weird. Good on the defense for catching that mis-statement.
thay changed positions after the jury was seated---very strange
I was thinking the same thing
It's because they face the jury in the box / in the gallery. They're trying to seat a jury and there are something like 20-30 people in a typical misdemeanor trial. They want to be able to read the jury's faces and expressions and it doesn't make sense to sit with your back to the jury you're selecting. After the jury is selected, they'll move their chairs to the opposite side of the table and it will look "normal" for the rest of the trial.
The prosecutor should face criminal charges for lying under oath.
now THAT is a good lawyer. catching the district attorney misstating the law to the jury is a huge no no. so many other lawyers would have let that slide because they are not as good as this man is. the judge should have admonished the district attorney for his choice of language concerning the case evidence. so glad i decided to watch this video. GOOD JOB LAWYER MAN !!!!!!!!
Judges are usually close friends or at the very least very close acquaintances and coworkers with prosecutors.
Our system has devolved into a 2 against 1 adversarial system.
I've even seen prosecutors misstating the law during murder trials. So much so people watching have said that the defense didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt someone else did it.
Even telling the defense when they objected to the complete mischaracterization of the law that they've sent people to prison knowing they'd get out on appeal and they are willing to do it again. AKA to their client.
This prosecutor's game of oh golly geez I just don't know the law or have my phone is bullshit. They just got caught this time.
@@edwardscott3262 Remember, everyone in court is being paid to be there except the defendant.
I am Magine disclose lawyer read some court reports on this prosecutor on very similar cases, and of course he waited until court date, and when the prosecutor did what he has always done, he called him out. Good job there are many bad prosecutors. There are many bad judges, and there are many bad lawyers, at least in this case, you have a good judge and a good lawyer, I imagine this prosecutor has pulled us act before on many cases
Then he’s like “I can trial in August, I can’t trial in September!”
And the defense is like “Then let’s do it in October😅” … I could t hear but did he say he couldn’t in October and then someone said excuses or did I mishear?
Well they're picking a jury and the prosecution just misstated the law tainting the pool. That's a clear appeal should he be found guilty. And an embarrassment to the judge that allow the trial to continue.
Anyone who was convicted of DUI who had this same prosecutor needs to review their trial transcript to see if the lawyer pulled the same BS in their trial. It could get them a retrial.
Also: this prosecutor needs to be investigated asap!
And the worst part is that there is no free retrial, you just pay twice as much if your lawyer didn't catch it the first time.
Well now it is on YT I don’t doubt for a second they will be hahahaha
@@heynow01 It should come out of the judge, D.A. and your own lawyers paycheck! Unprofessional and dishonest of the D.A. then failure to maintain fair justice by the judge, and failure to give professional defense for the lawyer.
Kentucky has too many corrupt Republicans for that to happen.
@@heynow01and meanwhile the state has almost limitless funds at its disposal. It’s sickening how one sided things are for many people.
As defense attorney for 32 years, I wonder how many times this is not caught and remedied. Truly disgusting.
What? Court enoloyees misrepresenting the laws? Its so common its standard proceedure these days.
How often do you have a prosecutor even talking about the legal requirements to convict someone during voir dire? Thought that was super weird when he even started talking about the case at all.
thats right. there are more innocent people in prisons than guilty. you are not doing justice.
@@stevenloube6784 talking about the case is essential during voir dire. not specifics of the case but generalize. to insure no conflict of interest.
Isn't this what your clients pay you for?
Here's the scary part. How many prosecutors across the US have LIED like this??
Congrats Larry! Keep calling out lying prosecutors and love your content ❤
I truly respect this judge for doing the right thing
This time.
This judge is honorable, most will never state the common law requirement of innocent until proven guilty, and all courts in the U.S.
opperate as Admiralty courts and in Admiralty the rule is guilty until proven innocent (the opposite of common law).
But that's their job. It's literally the main requirement of a judge, to fairly judicate cases
But the judge should hv caught it I'm glad the lawyer did but the judge should hv stopped it way before the lawyer ask to approach so imo the judge is not that honorable 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
I also applaud the Defense lawyer for calling the Prosecution's argument into question in the first place
The prosecutor claimed that you had no case law on this point. Your response was to cite the case law. Really loved that. Hope your client did too.
😂😂😂yep! ❤'d that...BAM!
He cited the statute, the ACTUAL law not case law. The statute is 1000x more impactful than a case law.
he should've hit back that there's no law that says "may impair" driving.
@@Cerus98 Yes, But the prosecutor claimed that the defense had no case law that applied.
@@engineeringoyster6243 - He didn’t. He had the law itself which is far more important and impactful. Case law isn’t absolute and can be ignored.
The actual law is the law. Period.
The date says it's 2023 but the 480p footage captured on casset tape says otherwise.....
Government entities still prefer potato’s over 1080p or 4K.
Potato Cam
the courts are not funded well enough to be able to keep their equipment up to date and continually replace working equipment.
I thought this was out of 1998 or something 😂
I'm upset that the jury wasn't told that the prosecutor gave wrong information which caused a mistrial, and that the prosecutor wasn't admonished by the court, officially, or un-officially.
I imagine that being responsible for a mistrial won't be great for his career, even if he's not been officially reprimanded.
Not only did the prosecutor misstate the law, he said the defense lawyer was wrong, then fought to minimize his mistake. He said "I got that specifically from somewhere." And the prosecutor wants to make this go away by saying he doesn't have time to have a new trial...really?
I heard that as well .
I heard his statement as well. My thought was: "Well, wherever you got it is wrong. They just read you the law word for word right from judge's computer. Then, my first reaction to him stating that he didn't have time for a new trial, was to say: "Then drop the charges so we can all go home."
I know specifically where he got it from.
the prosecutor knows he's going to get his arse handed to him by this lawyer at every turn, pretty sure a sweet plea bargain or dropped charges is in the works.
yes? hes paid based on convictions. hes salty and confrontational about it because hes lost alot of money on this. hes a scumbag.
That is so incredibly unprofessional. He should be more prepared. If you don't even know the law you bring action against him for, you should not be a prosecutor. Disgraceful!
It’s more than unprofessional. Lawyers are paid to specifically focus on words like shall or should or may etc… it’s a complete misrepresentation of the law in an effort to undermine the court and the defendants right to a fair trial.
It isn't that they don't know the law, they do know the law, they cite it incorrectly on purpose, and have been for quite some time, as it makes it far easier to prosecute people if the jury think the laws requirements are less than they actually are.
That's why it's crazy, like our IRS codes, who knows evert single law that's been made and then how little some know or lookup for their cases. There's probably been thousands jailed over the voluminous case law! It's been done purposely to keep the plebes in check and under thumb.
I think it speaks more to how often the State gets it’s way without needing to be rigorous and thorough on the law.
@@rdizzy1 I've kind of lost faith in their competence and intelligence, so I'm not so sure that it's intentional. I've seen enough examples of idiot lawyers and judges that I think at least some of them are ill prepared or just unskilled.
Excellent work attorney Forman. Many defense attorneys would not have objected at all in this situation. Well done.
Yep, you can't un-ring a bell. Good call.
This lawyer is like the police. He THINKS he knows what the law says but he is wrong.
Worse yet, is they have even more immunity from prosecution. No matter how incompetent or malicious their case is, they have the protections of absolute immunity.
@@benweiser22yep, but let a civilian break a petty law, that they honestly didn’t know existed, and zero 🦊 are given, we’re held accountable.
LIARS INC. of The Blue Line Mafia of America
And I'm sure you are a foremost expert. 😂
@@willymaykit1482 Hell no i'm illiterate and Canadian eh!!
Excellent call Larry (The DUI Guy) that Prosecutor truly Blew this Trial right out the door. Bravo 👏🏼
Complete knowledge of the law is the minimum a citizen can ask for from a prosecutor or defense attorney, and a completely fair application of the law is the minimum a citizen can ask for from a judge. Glad to see the defense doing his job well, and the judge being true to the law.
I have a feeling that the prosecutor has taken that position before but wasn't called on it. He emphasized MAY too heavily for it to have been the first occurrence of that argument.
Thank you for catching and correcting his malfeasance.
His forced, lighthearted banter immediately after is a sure indication of his embarrassment. I would feel bad for him if he didn't have power over the fate of people's lives.
Don't misstate the law in a DUI case, against a DUI attorney.. 😂 maybe he learned his lesson! Nice work Larry.
Literally told the Jury "We don't have to Prove He's Drunk, We only have to Think He's Drunk."
Scary huh ?
It's not even that, it's "We only have to prove that he had taken something that might, at some time, potentially made him drunk."
It's actually true! The defense was wrong.
The law as written is defining the type of substance, "substance which impairs", it does not define the state of the accused as needing to be impaired.
It's a semantic bamboozle, and defense deserves applause for successfully running with it.
Doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
PS. They need to prove you were using that substance, that's the point.
Think about a alcohol breath test, some people are impaired BELOW the required impairment reading, those people are NOT guilty of dui, despite it sounding like they should be (due to impairment).
The law will reference what quantity of alcohol will be considered impaired, in Australia a blood alcohol reading of 0.05 or above is declared "impaired", regardless of if you are actually impaired at such a reading.
THAT is what the prosecutor is talking about. He needs to prove the accused is over some potential impairment threshold, not that the accused was Actually Impaired.
@@meateaw that means everyone is guilty 100% of the time
@@meateaw now imagine if this was a murder case the prosecution doesn't need to prove that you murdered someone.
So this doesn't count as their jury service and they have to come back? Man I'd be fed up with the prosecutions office to the point I wouldn't be able to fairly provide a judgement based on that alone!
14:32 “I got that specifically from somewhere.” Very helpful statement
The speed in which you shot the case law at him IMMEDIATELY AND PERFECTLY from memory caused me to cheer out loud!!!
😂 🙇🏻♀️ 👏🏻
I think it is more shocking the prosecutor wasn't clear on the statutes. Might just be me, but you want to be clear on the letter of the law of the case you are litigating at that moment.
🌩Larry stated the number of that statute FASTER than the prosecutor could BLINK! Like lightning ⚡️striking on a sunny day🌞.
As someone who sat on juries that returned verdicts, at best, even after being admonished, some person on the jury would have remembered it wrong and it would have cost half an hour discussing it before everyone "agrees" to the corrected instructions. Who knows how that would effect the discussion, and the quality of their memories of the proceedings.
This is one of the absolute best defense attorney actions Ive ever seen!! Perfect!
I started feeling a little weird when he stated that reasonable doubt was how a juror thought about it and not a set definition. I’ve watch tons of trials and true crime and do not claim to be an attorney but I’ve never heard that. Reasonable doubt is just what it sounds like.
I loved watching this one. Also I wanna say I would hate to think I wasn’t granted a mistrial based on the lack of availability in the prosecution’s calendar. 🤔
Right! Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean he “may” have been under the influence of a substance that “may” have impaired him. It means that he DID take a substance and it DEFINITELY DID impair his driving. It’s astounding that he tried to pull that crap.
I thought that claiming “beyond a reasonable doubt” can’t be defined was strange, too. I’m certain I’ve heard it explicitly defined in other courtrooms.
Excellent job on the mistrial, frankly the court should have dismissed the case with prejudice due to the incompetence of the prosecutor.
Not so much imcompetence as the prosecutor knew full well that he was twisting the law for his own benefit. I wonder how many times he managed to get a conviction by intentionally misstating the law in prior cases... All cases involving this prosecutor should be pulled up again and dismissed with prejudice if it shows that the prosecutor knowingly lied to the Jury.
NO the Judge should not dismiss the case. Did you even hear the defense motion for dismissal? NO!
Absolutely it should be dismissed with prejudice. That may not be the law, but it would be justice.
I absolutely love watching you work! Most attorneys wouldn’t have caught that. I probably won’t ever need an attorney for a DUI offense but if I do I’m certainly going to hire you.
I have never seen a courtroom set up where the council's tables has everybody seated with their backs to the judge. That seems weird. Is that common?
Great job Larry!
Other lawyers who have had DUI cases before this prosecutor should pull the transcripts to see if he made the same misstatement of law in their case. Judging by his demeanor, it was part of his routine.
💯
So look it up
Then call your client and tell them you might be able to get their case overturned
Do you have a few grand to spare for it? No?
Oh well.. never mind then
See ya
If only judges had the balls to do this in other cases. Almost every trials Nick has streamed has had prosecutors lying about facts and law, get caught and even acknowledged and then no punishment and sometimes (like tazer lady) the judge refuses to correct it and wont even let the defense do so
The first time I watched this I was wearing only my right ear bud and was so confused about how people were talking about what was said during the bench conference! I watched the short of it later and heard it just fine and it dawned on me that this video only plays it on the left channel...
Dude. That prosecutor clicking his damn pen. Stop! Jesus Christ man.
Surely if he has tainted the jury pool for this case, then this jury pool is tainted for any DUI case they are scheduled to hear.
This same group of people will never be called at the same time to hear another case. They all go back into the larger selection pool to be distributed randomly to other cases (or more likely, once people have sorted out the juries for any other upcoming cases, just told that they're no longer needed and they can go home). If any of them do end up sitting on another case, it's very unlikely to be another DUI case anyway. Even if it is, they will only be one member out of a much larger jury, none of the others of which have been told the wrong information, and they all will be explicitly instructed on the correct information as part of the next case anyway, so this is extremely unlikely to have any actual impact on any other cases, if you consider things realistically and rationally.
The jury selection process was actually already designed to account for this sort of problem, and arguably does so pretty well.
@@foogod4237 Thnks
@@paulmidsussex3409 I forgot exact time frame but once you are called for jury duty you won't get another for a set period of time. In state i live in you won't get another jury summons for at least 1 year. If the case is refiled then a new batch of juror's are selected
That is nonsense.
@@arbiter1 NOT TRUE. Those jurors were not selected nor sworn in for that trial. They were dismissed and could be told to go to another courtroom for another trial. However, they will be questioned and given instructions by a judge. What they heard in another case is of no merit.
Outstanding work Mr Forman! You are a Pro
Thank you thank you! I've been wanting longer eclipse from you, because I don't drive so I really struggle to keep up with the small and short clips and trials that you upload... I'll watch this multiple times with ads on thank you
You can’t tell the jury to un-hear something, they already heard!
Jury nullification, look it up, THE JURY DOES NOT HAVE TO TAKE DIRECTIONS, A (JUDGE!) YOUR ONLY, TRUE JUDGE IS GOD.
@@davedublin676what the hell are you on about? 😂
@@davedublin676wrong . Jury nullification is the principle that the law itself is faulty, regardless of actual guilt or not.
@@davedublin676 You believe too much that is not factual!
That clicking of the pen really annoys me and I might imagine the Jury also.
It definitely triggered me!!
Just don't say anything until you vote NOT GUILTY!
@@fifiwoof1969fuck justice amiright
Oh yes! I would have to say something or throw a screwed up tissue/paper at the offender! That would make me walk out tbf
@@chickenlittle5095 if you walk out you can't find "not guilty".
Mr. Foreman you are an excellent attorney. I wish I’d known you when I lived in Louisville, KY. Luckily for me I was able to move to another state that is closer to my family. Kentucky is lucky you are there to help clients who need smart, fearless representation.
That’s a prosecutor that has FINALLY been called out on his bullshxt!! Good on you! I bet a review of previous cases with this entire prosecutor’s office will reflect they’ve all been doing this!
Prosecutors take advantage of this all the time. They say things that they know they're not allowed to because the jury can't actually forget something that they've already heard, I've seen this before several times and I'm honestly surprised that it resulted in a mistrial here because prosecutors do this everywhere in america every single day. This is a good judge.
It is the job of the accused and defense attorney to call them on it not just let it ride and hope for the best. But a Judge that knows the prosecutor is lying can just step in and declare a mistrial. There is no law saying they do not have to prove anything to get a conviction lol. A prosecutor stating such is tainting the Jury in his favor lol.
@@RichardHeadGaming It should be the job of the 'justice system' to *SEVERELY* punish prosecutors who attempt to lie to, mislead, or confuse the jury in order to find a person guilty.
The fact that it's allowed in the first place says a lot about our 'justice system'. It indicates that the entire system is knowingly corrupt and willingly imprisons and punishes innocent people.
That's beyond unacceptable. It's abhorrent and it honestly is the very definition of "You're not a clown, you're the entire circus."
That’s a good judge and obviously a good defense attorney. Well done.
Good?
Not sure yet.
Fair?
In this circumstance, sure.
@@amorgan310 in terms of the duties of a Judge being fair is the same virtue as being good (at being a judge). They're the referees of the courtroom.
I love this one! I come back every now and then and watch this glorious moment!
Thank you DUI guy for fighting like hell for your clients
❤Larry, you are so on it! Immediate mistrial, you know your law!! Thank you for sharing, now I’ll have to find the new trial!
Every case this despicable prosecutor has a hand in needs to be reviewed. Much respect to the Judge & yourself.
I like how he says you have no case law, and then he can't find where he heard his from. The truth will set you free.
"However, even if a driver is below these legal limits, they can still be found guilty of DUI based on additional evidence of actual impairment." I like how the prosecutor wants to continue to lie.
He didn't actually lie about that. Everybody's chemistry is different. Someone could be impaired at 0.06 BAC. But again, he must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was impaired.
Anything substance "may" affect someone's ability to drive. The triple shot mocha I had this morning definitely effected my driving.
A mistrial does not mean that the accused was off the hook. It just means that they have to find a whole new jury and everybody else just has a real pain-in-the-ass on their hands to prepare for a new trial.
The prosecution can sometimes does just drop the case, especially if it ends up being a huge hassle for them because of a backlog of cases.
I'd rather have "a real pain-in-the-ass" for a few months and a fair trial, than be found guilty on a false interpretation of the law.
To determine if someone "may" be impaired is essentially saying "if we can prove there was one drop of alcohol in their system, then they're guilty" because "may" takes away the whole concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
So he's not off the hook, but he's not automatically guilty, either.
Depending on how long it took to rally the first jury, and the state's laws on speedy trial, there's also the opportunity to run the clock out while the court gets a new jury.
@@CurtisTheEngineer Especially since this looks like voir dire, which would mean the jury hasn't even been empaneled yet. I can't tell for certain, but given the conversational style and questioning of the jury, I would think that this is still in the selection stage.
@@DigimonFan814yes it was absolutely the voir dire stage.
That prosecutors demeanor, when you asked the judge to pull the statute, is very telling. No educating the jury on what the law really says is problematic as well.
Great work, sir. Hold ‘em accountable!!
Bravo to this defense attorney for calling out this prosecutor’s BS! This kind of behavior from prosecutors ruins lives and the families of those convicted on such bogus charges by outright LYING to the jury!! This is also the reason that you should ALWAYS hire a private defense attorney if you can afford it. Your freedom is priceless and public defenders are often over-worked, already thin, and FRIENDS with the prosecutors. If you want a lawyer who is willing to go to bat for you for REAL and risk their personal relationships with the prosecutors, pick a private defender!
They forget they’re playing with peoples lives, EVEN if they’re innocent. I’ve been found “not guilty” on a DUI, and it is STILL no picnic. It’s humiliating, expensive, and incredibly time consuming, regardless of the outcome. Jobs and marriages have been lost over less. And these guys are just fumbling about who is right about what code.
A marriage that crumbles over a single DUI was her excuse to win cash and prizes, move on to the next simp.
It costs money and time.
@@tarico4436if I was in a relationship and my partner got caught drinking and driving, something that is inarguably deadly. I'd leave them immediately, I'm not gonna be in a relationship with someone who thinks they can play God and are willing to risk not just their life but everyone's life around them for the sake of having fun. Get your moral compass straight incel.
With respect, "fumbling with the code" is a great way of having your case dismissed if you can show there's no evidence of an essential element of the crime. Understanding how to make your case and conform it to the statute, or in the defense case show how the pros case doesn't do that, is an essential part of litigation.
Let's not be overly dismissive of the process.
Prosecutors don't care. Their job is to put people in jail. Failing to do so is bad for their job reviews. The system is just broken.
Even I caught the "may" when he said it and thought "Wow. Kentucky has some fucked up law". Glad he was wrong and you called him out.
he also misled them by saying the only requirement is a substance being present there is a legal limit that it must be above it needs to be .08bac or higher and he didn't have that so he told them to ignore that part and convict anyways
You have to love the prosecutor's little "Guilty dance" when he is caught!
His sigh around 13.30 after he reads the law is so quick. Guarantee he's been getting away with this strategy multiple times.
The jury should have been told the correct law before the mistrial was announced. So they all leave there believing the "may impair" BS and end up later on some other defendants jury and hold him to that standard
They should do like Men in Black and just zap their brains clear of any memory going back 5mins
Won't future prosecutor present correct law, hopefully?
@@fifiwoof1969 well, I'm betting THIS guy does, anyway, after going through CZcams Embarrassment 101. I'm tending to think this was deliberate, and was no accident.....
@@dougbrown9574 I think this prosecutor says this same crap every dui he prosecutes and he probably always gets away with it and If the defendant has a public defender you know he gets away with it.
@@markwilliams7845if it ever goes to trial with a public pretender.
The key part is that he REALLY emphasized the "May impair" aspect... It was intentional and he wanted that burned into the jurors heads... Glad he got called on it...
Agreed. I'm not American, but as he said "MAY... impair", I thought "that can't be right!" - because if it's up to the jury to establish what impairment is, but they can't use his driving ability as proof of impairment, then what are they supposed to judge it on? Those field sobriety tests are notoriously difficult to do sober, especially if you have a health condition or just poor balance, etc.
It's frightening that the defence had to call him out and explain (& then prove!) the law to both the prosecution and the judge, when the judge should have been all over that misinterpretation of the law in his courtroom, and the prosecution should have known better.
Remind me never to visit Kentucky... 😬😂
@@t-and-pthe law doesn't specify that the person must be impaired.
Prosecutor was actually in the right.
He only needed to prove he was under the influence of a "substance which impairs".
The line of text defines the type of substance, not the impairment state of the accused.
Why? Because these things are always set arbitrarily. Here in Australia it's blood alcohol content of 0.05 or above, not everyone is impaired with such a reading. And some people are impaired BELOW such a reading.
But they only need to prove someone was at or above the threshold to be considered impaired.
So the law is written that they need to be under the effects of a substance defined as causing impairment.
Aka the prosecutor needs to prove that the defendant "may" be impaired (because they are over 0.05 or local equivalent) NOT that they ARE impaired.
The defence pulled off a wonderful semantic bamboozle, and in that short time no one realised the linguistic mistake, so he takes the W.
Note, I am not against the W, if the judge and prosecution miss things that's the way the world works, the defense gets the win as they should. Better 100 guilty go free to avoid 1 innocent being judged guilty and all that.
@@meateaw Sorry no cigar. Sounds like you are trying to come up with a semantic bamboozle yourself. Jury is the decider of the facts and the critical fact to decide is if the driver was impaired, not if the driver MAY be impaired.
@meateaw Ah yes, missquoting someone just to say they're right. Classic
@meateaw I would go through and point out the *many* flaws in your argument, but it looks like others have already done a great job of doing that (cheers, all! 👍).
I'll just add that the difference between "may impair" and "does impair" is not "semantics" - it's pretty much the definition of reasonable doubt, particularly when impairment is at the root of at least one of the charges he faced. Your argument only focuses on whether he was technically over the limit, but there were multiple charges here, so the blood alcohol level is only one factor and will, most likely, be considered separately. If it was just a case that he was over the limit, they would only need the blood alcohol level and it'd be a slam dunk (any defence argument would be over the validity of the blood alcohol reading, how it was taken, etc, not physical indicators of impairment), but it isn't. He faces multiple charges linked to the impairment of his ability to drive due to intoxication, meaning that proving that impairment is crucial for those other charges to stick. That makes the difference between "may be impaired" and "is impaired" the crux of the issue.
You mention you're Australian. With respect, maybe that's why the judge in Kentucky had a better understanding of the law in Kentucky than you do. Just a thought...
Perfection Larry..!!🙌
I’m glad you’re on our side.
WOW.
That has to be a new record on a Mistrial
Thanks for the video.
Caught in just less than 5 mins
This is why you need a good defense lawyer. How many state-appointed counsels would have picked this up?
To be fair, a lot of expensive lawyers might well not have either. And a lot of state-appointed counsels are actually really good lawyers too (but they're usually heavily overworked, and they have to defend all kinds of different cases under the sun, so they can't afford to spend all their time becoming experts in just one area of case law like more specialized lawyers can do)...
NONE!
Even if they had, would their job been in jeopardy if they had used it to get mistrial as happened here?
@@johnm.3279 why would it be? It's their job to advocate for the defendant as best they can. That would literally be doing their job (and doing a good job at it).
@@foogod4237 Are their paychecks not signed by the same person as the prosecutors? Most public defenders that I've seen act mostly as facilitators for plea deals. Not to diminish their legal skills, but I can't help feel that's by design.
Great job!!! Especially when you cited the case law. Loved it.
Larry i love what you do. You are brilliant.
If I were that judge, once the jury was gone I would explain to the prosecutor exactly what I thought of his wasting mine and the jury's time. This almost strikes me as a stalling tactic by the prosecutor.
That clicking is unacceptable by the prosecutor! What is he in school room!
I spotted that too. Can defense object to it?
I can’t stand it! They should’ve declared a mistrial just for the clicking. Lol
Is he the one that's clicking? What a crude fellow.
@@greyhoundmama2062 should've objected to that - cease and desist. FORTHWITH!
Brilliant!!! Finally, someone called this bozo on something he's been getting away with for way too long. Really loving it.
It should be more judges like this and this “prosecutor “ needs to be investigated
I was listening to all that, and I was just starting to think, "Well, that's a horrible law, you can be found guilty even if you're not actually impaired!" And BANG!
And this my friends is the difference of a lawyer and a highly educated and intelligent lawyer that actually listens and catches each and every word. It blows my mind to think just how many times this has happened and how many cases and jurors have been lead to believe an ideal that with one word can change someone’s life entirely. I had to laugh that they very obviously underestimated their opponent or overestimated their own skills. The sad reality is that you have to wonder how many people are really out there convicted when they should not be.
😅 Just Beautiful everytime! So compelling and intriguing Sir.
Great catch! Good for you Larry!
Doh. Incredible. A prosecutor that apparently doesn't know the statute and jurisprudence underlying the charge they are prosecuting.
It's kind of striking me right now how fucked and crazy our law system is when during the trial of a guy for a crime, the judge and all lawyers have to start talking and ask "Uhh... what does the actual law say?" Like how can this process even BEGIN without an understanding of exactly what the law is that the defendant is accused of? It's apparently written somewhere, but literally nobody had it handy at the start of the trial. It's just baffling to me that the lawyers AND judge would be like... "uh... I don't know, what does it say? Can we look it up?" And stand there for 5 minutes and actually read it. Why wasn't that law literally written on a piece of paper that's on the front page of the charging document? How can you even charge a person without knowing the wording of the law they're charged with? "My phone doesn't work, I don't have a copy of it." that prosecutor is pathetic.
Also, no shade to you Larrry, you kicked ass here. I'm just saying it's all nuts.
what professional prosecutor would not have a working phone ⁉
The prosecutor did not want to see the definition because he knew he was wrong and pretending his phone was broken was an embarrassment he could live with but deliberately lying to jurors to sway their decisions was shameful and could affect his career reputation
No one is remembering every word of every law. The prosecutor only cares about the part that makes his job easier. The DUI Guy knows it because it's first and foremost in his client's defense. And the law the guy was arrested under was probably not the law being referenced.
@@chrisfoxwell4128 But the prosecutor wrote his statement including stating the law ~ therefore he would open a computer or law book and write it down literally because it would be his ongoing defense as well as his concluding argument!
This is not a random know-it-all Cliff character sitting at the bar who can rattle off just anything ~ he deliberately wrote what he wanted the jury to think was law
No one can know everything. Part of a lawyer's job is to know the law. The medical field is another example of a system with holes. You'd be surprised how often the pharmacy is the place that catches life threatening drug interactions being prescribed to a patient.
@@deborahrose8621 , you don't think this is the first time he's given that same opening do you? And, he didn't have to copy anything from anywhere. Prosecutors are trying to get convictions, there's nothing altruistic about their actions. This guy is even arguing what he "thinks" after being read the law.
Excellent work, Larry!
I love it, I never would have caught that!!! Perfect! I really hope I can hire someone as qualified as you!
Good call! That's why the DUI guy is worthy of the big bucks, he's one of the few lawyers who actually studies the real law/statutes.