That's the beauty of the jury system. You have lawyers arguing with each other before a Judge but are really trying to convince a group of non-lawyers to decide who wins.
Depends on the kind of eye witness testimony. Sometimes you get a good look, sometimes you don’t. Lawyers are there to argue which one of the two it is.
@@sergioakaskyler Exactly. My Cousin Vinny is another great example of how "eye witness" testimony can be incredibly inaccurate for a variety of reasons
@@deeeznuuuts9406 It was never about the money. Well, okay, it was a little bit about the money. But it was always about the con, pulling the fast one. That's what Jimmy always loved - fooling people.
“You didn’t recognize him either, your honor” lmao I love how Jimmy was a slippery snake doing shady but harmless things like this to get his clients off and then he ran into Gus and Walt and now he’s working at the mall under a new identity
@@iainronald4217 Don't know much of what happened to Bob, but I had a mild heart attack a few years ago. If his experience is anything like mine, he'll be back on his feet and working reasonably soon. Its really a matter of changing bad habits so a more serious event doesn't happen in the future.
Theoretically, this is allowed. I mean, it might get you jailed for contempt of court, but it wouldn't get you disbarred . . . and it wouldn't compromise the trial. As long as the defendant is present in the courtroom, and not sworn in yet, the trial is valid. There's no specific rule about assigned seats. Honestly, this would be the most impactful way to establish doubt in front of a jury. I wouldn't be surprised if the tactic has real world precedent. Probably not though, because tv.
I went to a lot of court hearings when I was in college during breaks (It’s hot in my country and our rooms weren’t air conditioned. The nearby courts were). When a case is called the accuser and defendant are identified by asking the names of those involved and what their involvement in the case is. They aren’t sworn in but I recon that if this clip happened here in my country it will be more than contempt of court. It’s basically identity theft.
The craziest part was Kim was shocked. She already knew the lengths jimmy would go to; to still be surprised; that’s why she lost the kettleman’s; she was a great textbook person; when around jimmy she became a great outside the box thinker even by the books (see oil rig guy in earlier season on how to bypass taxes from 2 states); all lawyers are scheisters, you want the biggest one working for you. As Jesse said; you don’t want a criminal LAWYER, you want a CRIMINAL lawyer.
I like how she raised her voice "Oh, Mr. Goodman. REALLY!?" but immediately calmed down when he said "You didn't recognize him either your honor." Tiny details make the entire scene because now he not only had the prosecutor and witness but the judge as well.
He’s right, though. Police aren’t supposed to do single option line-ups/identifications, anymore- they have to have several similar people lined up, or use a “six pack,” six similar photos. Because it’s too easy to just pick the one in custody.
@@bigjimmcbob9358 that's a terrible idea. 6 photos, perp may or may not be a photo. Shown in a random sequence, same amount of time per photo. If they want to see any photo again you show all the photos again. You want as little as possible interfering with the witness to taint any id.
Saul is absolutely correct in this clip... who is to say the fake defendant wasn't the actual person that did the robbery? The only witness to the crime believes he is. Or maybe another tall bearded guy walking around did it? Why should the first guy the police arrest that fits a shallow description be automatically assumed guilty?
@@bait5257 we have an idea of the Law.. we are saying the "Law" has no idea what justice is..... But they'll gladly throw the wrong guy in prison if it fits for the moment...... And there's something WRONG with that
@@bait5257 it's called beyond reasonable doubt, under common law we assume someone is innocent until proven guilty. There is a reasonable doubt the defendant didn't do it because the only witness who can prove the defendant is guilty was just deemed unreliable
I was accused of assaulting some girl by a random guy when I was out on a run. Defending yourself when accused of something you didn't do is harrowing. Funny thing though, I think playing Town of Salem had a hand in ending the confrontation as I've learned how to defend myself from stoner moron vigilante accusations.
This is a play on words. If Jimmy had a court "recognize" his client then he'd have to have confirmed the identification. This actually happened in a real court battle and the issue the lawyer ran into was that he misidentified his client to the court : which is a huuuuuuge no-no (on the level of perjury and destroying evidence). If the court had "recognized" him - the process of identifying the person directly and them having to respond - then Jimmy would have had to bring up his real client and the ruse would have been over m
@@Hytegia Would the recognizing have to occur before the witness ID'd the defendant? I'd argue the defended wasn't wearing his ID out in plain view when the witness was robbed...
Ive hired quite a few lawyers in my day, good ones, top rated ones from the best law firms in the area........but damn! I’d pay anything for a lawyer like Saul. None of my lawyers have ever cared about my case, like Saul does with his clients. Bob Odenkirk really nails his performance as an attorney. Such a gifted actor.
Idk lawyers are supposed to be professionals, they are hired for their skill not for whether they care. While amusing and interesting, Saul Goodman is extremely unprofessional.
I've hired dozens of lawyers over the years; been in hundreds of court hearings. No lawyer would trash his own career in this manner. The fake defendant would face charges of fraud, contempt, misrepresentation, etc. The last thing you ever want in a court room is a judge you just humiliated. All the commenters on here talk about how amazing the scene is---of course its amazing, its fake Hollywood.
@@gurubhaktmohit It's very important to identify the right person. You know how many people have been framed and served sentences for simply looking like the person who committed the crime. My dad's best friend served 12 years for a crime he didn't commit. It's no joke here
@@gurubhaktmohit Yes, which means his witness testimony should be worthless. That's the point. If he can easily finger the wrong guy he shouldn't be pointing it at all.
@@em.1633 You are missing my point. If the judge also can't differentiate between the 2, they really do look *very* similar. Which means the victim shouldn't be held for confusing the 2.
This is one of the best scenes to show Jimmy's competency and brilliance, in the background of deceit - his style. One of the reasons Kim likes Jimmy so much. It would be heartbreaking to see anything happen to Kim in the following season.
@@brakesforsnakes757 Howard really really hates Kim. You can tell a lot in season 1. He has no respect for her, he only ever listens to her because he's being pressured, later on when she leaves he acts really patronizing about paying off her college debt.
I’m rewatching this series again and one thing I gotta say is, she actually had nothing against Jimmy doing tricks like this or scamming people for that matter. She was only concerned when it was at her expense or if she felt that it could be a danger to Jimmy’s life or career.
Kim in the later seasons is the biggest hypocrite to exist in Jimmy's life. She doesn't only condone Jimmy's action depending on the context, she actively exploits it when it suits her like getting the building plans signed for Mesa Verde, and then swiftly turns a hundred eighty to act self righteous and chastise Jimmy. I'm really not getting the good vibes from her for the next season.
I've always thought that she ties her hopes and self-worth to Jimmy. She comes from even less than him and worked even harder to get where she is. Seeing Jimmy as the outsider is a mirror in some ways to herself so his success and acceptance in the law world is the same thread as her own. That's why she is happy to support and defend him as long as she does.
@@EvilSapphireR Well then I'll extend my contribution by saying that your comment was trash-tier analysis with the nice dose of misogyny grandfathered in like a lot of Breaking Bad fans display. Are you so thick that you don't realise why she would be angry at Jimmy for the Mesa Verde stunt? She clearly expressed her intention to wrap up the situation but he oversteps it because he just can't resist pushing buttons to see what will happen. "Self-righteousness" is such a stupid way to try and cover up your ideal of women who fall in line whenever their male partner need them to. She brought him into the situation to assist her and he stabbed her in the back in front of her client just because he wanted a kick, or did that go over your head because you are so dense you hate anyone standing in the way of the protagonist having fun? Is that fucking relevant to your garbage comment?
@@banzaiboy1597 Can you post a comment without sounding like you're currently being pegged by your girlfriend? Quite frankly it's very clear that the intention is to make both Kim and Jimmy morally dubious characters, just in different regards. This is part of the reason why they are well suited to each other as is mentioned in the show. It's not about her "falling in line", she simply doesn't have a consistent code of ethics, and changes what's acceptable based on what is beneficial to her when she uses Jimmy. This is not to say that she does not care for him at all, but she is definitely manipulative and even Jimmy points out how she will "roll around in the mud" with him for her own gain then leave him on his own when he needs her.
This scene is great not only for showing how much clever Jimmy is, but also how much attention he always gave to his clients. For this little little trick he pulled he had to find somebody who looked like the defendant, convince him to go to court and act emotionless the whole bit
Bob odenkirk's dialogue delivery is so smooth and realistic at the same time. He is flawless and one of the greatest actors i have seen in recent years. So underrated.
This scene and the one when he buys the house for Jesse shows us how smart and great actor Saul Goodman is ,he plays everyone into a fool but surprise He loves his job
I had a stunt a bit like this pulled on me as a witness. I was beaten up after finishing work in A&E as a junior doctor in Australia in the 1980's. The cops immediately went to the house I'd walked past before I was jumped, I identified the guy at a party in the back garden and he was arrested. The defendant grew a light beard and at the trial when I was asked by his defending lawyer if I noticed anything different about my assailant I said no. The lawyer jumped up and down and claimed therefore it couldn't possibly be him. The judge didn't buy it and he was convicted anyway.
At the beginning of the clip, when Kim is getting settled, the defendant is right smack in the middle of the screen. And you didn't see him, either. Fantastic shot.
Came back to watch this clip again and it's the first thing I noticed, nearly swore to myself about how hard they even got us, the audience. Absolutely genius.
Made especially better by having the audio, "Is the person who robbed you present today?" "Yes" play over that shot. I can practically hear the editors laughing at us.
0:01 "Is the person who robbed you present in the court room today?" while at the middle of the screen.. xD They really timed it like that, they got bosses behind the directing
Can we for a minute appreciate how well the director of photography did on this scene? I understand depth of field and focal depth but this scene uses it in such a clever and subtle way. The fake defendent is sitting in his position but is just out of focus. We see him there but with no detail, the same way the witness sees him. When the truth is revealed the focal depth changes and plays a part in that revelation. It's a good technique for this scene and it goes a long way with little attention drawn to it until necessary.
Right? That brow shift when he hears he's pointed out the wrong man is brilliant. The best actors are the ones you forget are acting, but tragically, that's what makes them so easily overlooked!
@@shroud71 Saul asked the victim to identify the assailant, and the victim said “without a doubt” that it was the guy in the stand. But the actual defendant was in the audience, and the “defendant” on the stand was a lookalike. Saul basically created doubt in the courtroom about whether or not the prosecutor’s testimony can be trusted. And that makes his job as a defense attorney much easier
This is classic - I'm a heavy-set bearded guy - when I was in college, I would have people I didn't know walk up to me and start talking - sometimes, they would realize on their own that they had mistaken me for someone else- sometimes, I would have to speak up, and make it clear. "Eye-witness" testimony truly is not very reliable.
After last episode, rewatching a little scene like this, where Kim and Jimmy light up upon seeing each other amidst Jimmy's antics, is really heartwarming
That's why they adjourned the hearing. The jury would normally be told to dismiss the testimony but it doesn't really matter that much to tell them. Jimmy only needed the Jury to see it.
@@SinisterPixel a smart or a relative well educated jury wouldn’t recognize the switch as the witness not being able to recognize the defendant but that the lawyer played a trick on the witness as well as the whole court. Surprised Saul wasn’t held in contempt for dissuading the jury through a form of intentional deception
@@JTKatz07 lets be honest, the "smart or relatively well educated" are usually the first to be dismissed during jury selection. it would realistically result in a mistrial, which we learn was the outcome in the show. if the case was retried and they scrap that part of the testimony, saul still gets what he wants.
After watching this show for so many years, it is so easy to tell that Kim has a special poker face she puts on when she wants to express just how proud and madly in love she is with Jimmy.
What impresses me the most is how a the writers actually come up with an idea like this for the show. How do they think of that stuff? Pure creativity and genius
The Practice, Season 5, Episode 7. If you want to watch... Start watching at 21:30 then they go into judge's chambers. Then skip to 34:25. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jr93y-yLUZU.html
0:32 Witness left work at midnight, when he would have been exhausted 0:42 Quotes the witness verbatim, emphasizing his poor grammar and pronunciation to make him appear uneducated (with possible Southern ties) 1:16 "Sounds like it happened pretty fast" = limited information 1:23 Once again focuses on how tired and weary he must have been 1:31 Information limited due to it being "dark out" 1:42 "You feel confident" = "So we're just supposed to trust YOUR judgement?" 1:54 "Are you sure that's the person?" = locking in his confidence in his own judgement 2:02 "The person YOU just pointed to", not "the person sitting there" Boom 💥 Reasonable doubt
@klock404 Your job is to be neutral, not to put a charge to a man. Innocent until proven guilty and all. Reckon it’s a hard concept to grasp if one is accustomed to the taste of boot polish.
@@enrique88005 And how many innocent people are you fine convicting to get each guilty person? There is always some doubt, that is why the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.
One of my favourite scenes......one of the other is when Huell asks Saul "You're a lawyer, you make good money.......Your wife is a lawyer, a legit lawyer.......Why do you do this?"
@steven sutherland I know nothing about law, but logically thinking, the defense and prosecution must have an equal playing field, or else the trial would be as good as rigged in one side's favor. For example, new evidences cannot be introduced mid-trial because you're introducing key items that *you* have full knowledge of, but the other party *doesn't*, and the court has no time to verify its authenticity. Setting up the trick in the video means that for most of the trial you intentionally withheld vital knowledge from everyone else in the room, not to mention that you are jeopardizing the mutually agreed facts in the trial - the prosecution in this case would expect to at the very least be able to agree on where the defendant, defense and prosecution are sitting and who they are.
He could do it because he never actually indicated that the person next to him was his client, the court would hold you in contempt due to the fact that you client wasn’t sitting where their suppose to be.
This was almost attempted, but not the exact same way. A lawyer named David Kenner who represented Snoop dogg in a murder trial had a witness to the shooting. The witness, was confused between snoop dogg who was actually there and the famous Dr Dre. He was essentially calling Snoop Dogg, Dr Dre. The lawyer attempted to manipulate the witness and he tried to bring Dr Dre into court, but Dre wasn’t having any of it and he didn’t understand what the lawyer was trying to do, fearing he might be implicated in a murder. But David had the same idea as Saul, to give the jury doubt as that’s what you’re ultimately trying to do as a defence lawyer. Sway the jury.
This is really similar to a situation I learned about from my dad who is a lawyer. In our hometown there were twin brothers who would always be caught committing various crimes. Whenever one was accused the lawyer would ask for whoever accused him to identify him to the court and it would be the opposite twin sitting there and the twins would always get off because you could never prove which one did it. PLOT TWIST: One of them eventually got a face tattoo (I know right, but that should tell you a lot about these guys) and the jig was up. I believe they are both now in prison.
Ask you dad if he heard about the female lawyer who recently got suspended for a year and a day for pulling this trick. What's worse is that it didn't work. The witness correctly identified the real defendant.
