@@daltonvillani8341 imho bcs > bb. the pay offs hit a lot harder and they basically perfected their storytelling with BCS. Season one can go long, but it comes to play in later seasons. Def give it a shot.
From what I understand from what little of court that I’ve actually seen it’s more or less just a matter of procedural things like conduct in court. I think most judges would prefer if you didn’t turn their courtroom into a circus.
it's actually a thing that CAN be done, though it's not a thing of "my client is actually.." it's a thing of "Your honour, my client is sitting among the stands today and I would like to request that the witness point them out, if that is alright." if it's a no, oh well client comes back up to their seat, but if it's a yes than it's the same scenario as in the clip. I think the issue with Saul's is that he 1. didn't request permission and 2. had someone else in the defendant's seat
You should definitely be able to do this, clearly there are people in the world who can’t see or will just flat out lie or both. Sorry but fuck the court if the victim or witness can’t even identify the defendant that’s complete bs
It’s not necessarily that they can’t see or are lying but it’s been shown that witness testimony is extremely unreliable. Psychologists have found out that people trying to recall an event from a spontaneous moment (like trying to identify who walked out of a Walmart on a Friday night) or from a high pressure situation (like recalling details from an armed robbery) will make major mistakes of things they feel certain about (it’s more complicated than this but I can’t remember the details). Phrasing of questions or discussion of the activity you witnessed can also cause the brain to create false memories of what actually occurred. In addition, it was found that witness testimony is the most influential evidence that can be presented. So yea it’s pretty bad because the jurors will most likely make their decision based on a testimony that is once again most likely incorrect. Good news though is that a lot more people are aware of this now so change will hopefully come soon.
I love how pathetic the justice system is, if you prove the defendant’s innocence by lying, it should not matter, the whole point of the court is to determine who is innocent or guilty of an accusation, not to abide by some stupid fucking oath. The way that vital evidence or information is acquired should not matter as long as the the innocent leaves freely and the criminals get put behind bars.
while i completely agree with your conclusion, having a legal system like that would probably be way too chaotic. i think it's important that lawyers have regulations to what they can or can't do to prove someone's innocence, theoretically speaking this scene could've easily been the other way around because of how flawed our memories can be. the concept of eye witnesses is tricky in general but if we were to not take them seriously bc of their general flaws and loopholes than crime would increase in places with no people and specially no cameras. in the battery scene for example when they planted it on the witness they still could've been wrong and accidentally harm him by trying to prove a point. don't get me wrong, if innocence is proven than that person should be trialed as such, but this scene didn't prove their innocence, it just proved how unreliable eye witnesses can be. in the battery scene the point does come across pretty clearly but saul should in my opinion get trialed after that, i don't think that kind of behavior to prove innocence should be completely ignored.
@@im.mr.tsunami6953, the way I see it, putting all the technicalities aside, say, an innocent man was up for the rape and murder of a minor, which is arguably one of, if not the worst crimes you can be accused and prosecuted of, this man has a wife and 2, 3, maybe 4 kids who rely on him, imagine that man being found guilty of these crimes, he would lose his family, his children, and in prison, he would probably be raped and killed himself… now imagine if this man’s solicitor/lawyer had an opportunity to prove this man’s innocence but he had to break his oath and possibly the law in order to do it… it would be for extreme circumstances like this that this kind of behaviour should be ignored, imagine not acquiring vital information through dishonesty or illegal practices and then having to watch this innocent man who you could have saved, suffer and eventually die for a crime you know he didn’t commit. I firmly stand by my original statement, any vital information acquired that proves the innocence or guilt of an individual should be legal. If a solicitor/lawyer happened to attempt to get vital information through illegal or dishonest means and they found nothing, I then believe legal action should be taken against the solicitor/lawyer.
@@seafirefr.4751 well the first problem with this is the fact that the people breaking the law for evidence would have too much power over the evidence itself in that scenario. I'll take your example. the guy is innocent and his lawyer knows where to get evidence to prove his innocence in an illegal way. now let's say he finds it but it's not enough to prove anything. the lawyer could very easily manipulate the evidence in his client's favor or worse, change it in such a way that it seems that someone else is guilty. since the lawyer got to the evidence first no one can prove he modified it, the innocent man doesn't get arrested, but another one does and the lawyer gets no trial for his illegal acts. that's not only too much power for an individual in general but it also makes for a great excuse to do crimes. second problem is that it would make it legal to abuse someone's rights. if you break into someone's house, it doesn't matter what you think is there, you still are breaking into their home, period. except if it's an emergency or a crime happening on the spot, you shouldn't be the one searching for evidence, that's what the police is for. not even the police is allowed to enter someone's home without a warrant or serious suspicion of criminal activity, so how tf are we going to allow everyday people to literally break the law in that way with no consequences at all? it just seems like a very bad idea that would only be functionable in very specific cases. I can guarantee you that more people would abuse that law in many different ways and beside, if you know where evidence is and how to get it just call the cops, that's their job not a lawyers. I'm not saying that the police or even the law is perfect, but it's mainly there so people feel a sense of justice. so people don't go around searching for evidence on their own, which in hindsight could end very bad, we have the police that does it in a more professional and safe away. it would be very irresponsible to legally allow people to, for example, break in someone's house to find evidence if the person hiding it could be a killer or anything of the sort. BUT I'm not saying that breaking the law to prove someone's innocence should automatically mean they go to jail, but go through a fair trial like all of us. even if you kill someone in self defense you'll still have to go to trial and so should anyone who breaks the law. personally, I'm all for self justice tho, if i see someone getting raped I'll kill that piece of shit without blinking an eye, but it wouldn't be fair for others if i didn't go to trial just bc of pure intentions and that's the same with breaking the law for evidence
Great idea. You've just opened up a door for people to lie and falsify evidence to sway the jury/judge. Which means guilty people are back on the streets much easier. Oh, and guess what? That means the prosecution can do that, too, so even more innocent people will end up in prison, too.
There was a guy who was in jail for years, he looked very much like a guy who assaulted and hurt a woman. She swore it was him. It was on forensic files
I get WHY they get in trouble for it, but I think they should only at most get a slap on the wrist for a stunt like that. Especially since it susses out liars.
Well, it seems like a fair move. If they're asked to identify the defendant, they just point at the person in the defendant chair. If they had to pick them out of a whole courtroom, it might prove they're lying.
Whilst i do agree but whilst saul wasnt being honest, the witness simply pointed to the guy who was thought of to be the defendant rather than taking his time to look closely at the guy.
I think this is great and if courts don’t want to look like idiots maybe don’t be idiots in the first place. What are the odds there’s gonna be a similar looking person in your county? Can’t believe it’d be high. And if we are gonna punish someone for their crime shouldn’t we be 100% sure? Not 99.1% sure but 100% sure. It needs to be without a doubt correct and this proves it’s not absolutely correct. Find different evidence. Also even if you could find a doppelgänger in your county what are the odds they’d agree to do this for a criminal? I’m just saying it’s stupid this isn’t allowed without basically telling the guy in the stand to find the other one in the name of “unbiased” lmao.
It just shows that eye witnesses are not that reliable because many people can look similar, and cops could also just pick 6 people that matches a description and it's just as easy to pick one out
