She's completely right though, you can't ask why they're pleading the 5th because that would incriminate them, which is the entire point of the 5th amendment
In open court with the jury present. That is why the judge should have moved for a recess (Correction, "Called them into chambers") and then questioned the witness to determine if she had a 5th amendment claim.
To me, it sounds like the judge was cutting right through the bullshit from the witness. A lot of people need to learn to do that. And I don't mean in a judicial setting either, but when it comes press conferences and such. Don't sidestep or give "I can't answer that" responses, because that's just gonna make it worse for yourself.
@@StarFighters76 Nope, no bullshit, no avoiding the question, it's 5th amendment, literally #5 on the list of things the founding fathers built the country on, the judge has absolutely 0 right to do what he did and IRL would be sanctioned severely for it
@@StarFighters76 that's not bullshit but the basic right of every citizen in a democracy. No one can be ever forced to answer any question they are not comfortable in any situation regardless of circumstances.
Uhh, it happens all the time. You can't just plead the 5th and use that as an excuse. And judges have exploratory sessions regarding a witnesses 5th pleas all the time (now they are done in private so the jury does not hear etc.).
@@brianholloway6205 Ok, so why have there been several cases where a witness takes the 5th, an attorney questions it, the judge says they will hold a hearing on it, and then the judge tells the witness they must testify? I mean look I listen to court recordings for fun...it happens (not alot), but it does happen.
@@barkere51 as I said that’s not how that happens. A witness doesn’t “take the fifth” that means nothing in law. Your anecdotal evidence fails as law turns on the facts is such a situation possible? Of course anything is possible. Is it common practice no. You aren’t a lawyer. You aren’t a judge. This is all relative to a tv show. Get of RU-vid professing knowledge that you don’t have
@@barkere51 the facts as presented in this video have Margulies in the affirmative. It’s open court. This isn’t some hypothetical hearing you read was possible.
The show won so many awards (and my attention), but the actress being horrible as a person contributed to the shows demise due to stereotypical difficulty working with her including her feud with Archie Punjabi (fan favorite character Kalinda) causing Archie to leave the show (it got so bad both actresses had to be film separately with stunt doubles filling the spots for camera's to make it "appear" they were filming together. Other core characters tied to pivotal plot lines left, such as Josh Charles (played Will Gardner) despite Juliana begging him to reconsider. Other examples showing the (rightfully) earned arrogance as a successful actress include telling examples, such as her storytelling of calling out Julia Roberts being rude to her before her fame as a waitress prior to her breakthrough on ER, and the entitlement she oozed retelling her calling Julia Roberts out to her face on The Ellen show. Not the only one in the industry, but that confidence to arrogance is a double edged sword. She would initially make statements about having "hung up" her shoes and wig when initially asked about appearing on "The Goodfight", yet would make multiple statements during the last season of The Goodwife that due to the creators "CHOOSING" to the end the show, she was now "Jobless" (aka putting the blame of her pending situation as the fault and decision of the creators), then later one contradict her "the mindset" she stated about "turning down offers to reprise Alicia Florrick on the Good Fight spinoff due to salary offers being below what she deserved". It all speaks for itself *insert eyeroll*
@@cychan7113 I agree that I started to realize Juliana might be a little difficult. She says she left ER because they wouldn’t pay her what she felt she deserved. They had her set up with a three episode arc on The Good Fight and she didn’t do it bc they wanted to pay her a guest star wage....for her to guest star. I think she could have met them in the middle
Why should she meet them in the middle? She doesn’t owe anyone a guest spot. If she felt the money wasn’t enough, she felt it wasn’t enough. People treat actors as though they owe the world something. She’s a human, it’s her chose whether she wanted to take that guest spot or not
He was so wrong for this it's not even funny. I used to work for a judge. They can ask if you understand your rights under the 5th but they cannot ask why you're pleading the 5th in open court. Now, if he had cleared the jury and the gallery to assess if it was necessary, it would've been a different story. But no, you do not question someone on their 5 amendment rights in open court. Alicia was right about calling for a mistrial and reporting him, because that's what happens in the real world. Judges get away with a lot but constitutional violations will have them reprimanded at best and disbarred outright at worst.
Your last sentence you are correct almost always, but the equity shifts when you're dealing with murder. It's all fun and games until you've got a murder trial and a little girl who's pleading the 5th. A judges responsibility is utmost to Justice. The Judicial board who oversees would not disbar the judge for trying their best while they have a self indicted murderer** 'on the stand' 'bound to Truth' to trick the girl, who's no longer so innocent, now a highly probably murderer or accessory to murder, into giving prosecutors a little more information in order to maximise equity to Justice. If a judge pulled that shit over a teenager joy riding a stolen merc at 4am on a Saturday morning then yes your last sentence I agree with: Out of (Good) Order; you'll get a few chances while learning the ropes and dealing with the stresses of weighing equities if arguably within Peace&GoodOrder. Anyway, what I'm saying, is: when dealing with **literal murder**; Justice is kept most in mind and small tiny bendings around the Constitution are allowed, because it's not the Constitution that a Judge is ultimately responsible to, it's to Justice itself. The Constitution is merely a vehicle used to travel, merely a conduit, merely a system by which we use in the tribe to maximise to Justice. 'The Form of Justice'. What is 'The Form' "Justice"?, many have been asking this question for millenia, since Plato infact. Not hard to answer, it's the 4D TimeSpace Matrix position where 'Justice' has the highest equity. We can't see the 4th Dimension: we simply feel it as the wind passes our cheeks and tickles our noses; hear it as it noisens our ear cannels. But, within this 4Dimensional TimeSpace Matrix, there lies a 'trail' of SpaceTime from the start of the bigbang to the end heat death of the universe, whereby 'Justice' within all Entities who lived within its entropy had the maximal Justice given to them. THIS. This, is 'The Form: Justice' Thereby i say a Judges responsibility is not to "Justice" or to "Equity", it is to: "The Experience" [to "E"]. To weigh equities to maximise 'The Experience' of the Entities within the 4D TimeSpace Matrix. Justice being but one of, but probably the highest equity thing that contributes to the highest equity of 'The Experience' and therefore it's their responsibility to maximise it. Anyway, that is where Alicia forgot her duty as a Defence lawyer here, her duty is as an Officer of Justice, you may defend your client, but ultimately, you must defend Justice mostly, you must defend 'The Experience' most of all. If this girl is dumb enough to indict herself as an accessory to murder, then that is Justice, and that is 'The Experience' being maximised, and therefore, that is what we all want achieved, we all win (except the murderers) if that happens. That is why a Defence Lawyer has to understand they are not a Defence Lawyer, they are an Officer of Justice who specialises in Defence, because that understanding will help them in these once in a career times where an experienced Judge is putting his career on the line for possible disbarment, complete removal of pension and status, he's putting all that on the line to get a murderer and their accomplice off the streets in order to maximise Justice and 'The Experience' but fresh out of law school Alicia just doesn't "get it" because she's been a 'moom' for the past decade and so doesn't understand that 'winning' would be for the equity of Justice to be maximised, and just because 'she' loses the case, if "Justice" wins, then ultimately , she wins, EVERYONE wins, and we all go home safer in more peace and good order than we did the previous day. What a shame. All that needed to change was her being called, "A Judicial Officer" instead of "a lawyer" for her to 'get it'. **They have indicted themselves by pleading the 5th - insofar as they have indicted themselves in the eyes of the detectives - not in the eyes of 'the Law'. That is the brilliance of the 5th amendment that no one seems to understand where I'm from, the place with all the best systems in the world, Australia {because of gross abundance + Digger mentality}. We have all the best systems here, just not optimised. The 5th amendment is the most intelligent evolution to the Common Law Justice System ever proposed it's literal brilliance. Here in Australia and in the U.K, we just have tyrant crims in the witness box and they'll just stop talking when asked a question that'll indict them. Over in the US, you got tyrant crims who are asked, "Did you kill Mrs White" and then they're dumb enough to answer underneath the stress and the lights "I plead the 5th". Ohh well hard case now, not. Now instead of scarce police resources chasing 3-4 leads you maximise all resources towards the that person who literally just may as well admitted to the murder, except, now you just have to find dna/evidence/proof that they did it. If you're chasing 4 leads and they're equal frequencies each, then you have to delegate 25% of the resources to each of the suspects/leads, that's 25% of the dna swobs, 25% of the whole thing. Would you rather 25% of 100% or 100% of 100% of resources being put towards catching a murderer?
@@jackbrady9738 Except, your wrong. It's justice for all, including those who plead the 5th. But, that's NOT their responsibility is to the CONSTITUTION in which he was sworn in to serve and protect. Compelling someone to explain why they pled the 5th taints what they swore to do.
See the judge fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia. But only slightly less well known is never try to circumvent constitutional rights when a murder conviction is on the line!
As I have only started watching this series running on TV I am really hooked on the writing. the juxtaposing of plots and intrigues--great writing. Its so real if I had a job and homelife such as hers I would drop dead from the stress. Another winning facet of the series is how they keep characters running through but maintaining the principals that way you dont get bored.
@@a.h.6461 Yikes, I can't argue with you there. The character itself wasn't really that great and didn't really coincide with Kalinda's character, which was bad enough. But the casting was even worse. I'm not a huge fan of that actor in general
Hahahahaha! You actually believe that? If I had the time I would link a dozen stories where judges have done completely insane crap and not only did they not lose their job immediately, they got reappointed to the bench.
In the UK the nearest equivalent is to mention the Court of Appeal. A judge who knows they are wrong would not want it to go anywhere near the Court of Appeal.
The Good Fight! Might be 2 months late but I would honestly recommend it, if you have Amazon prime the first few seasons are free to watch with Amazon video. I honestly went into it not expecting much, but was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked it.
I only ever watched this series because Rajesh went on about it in The Big Bang Theory. I thought it was great, so any time a character in a show goes on about another show, give it a try.
Wiltern I wish lawyers would do this for real. My lawyer did this for me in court I won my case. But the judge was badgering me about my fifth amendment. And my lawyer was screaming at the judge in the judges like I held you I'm holding you in contempt and the lawyers like I'm going to refer you immediately to the judicial committee for action against violation of the Fifth Amendment and of course my lawyer has the right to defend me. That judge was thrown off the bench by the Florida Supreme Court. And was never allowed to be a judge again. And then my lawyer went after their law license and the Florida bar took away the judges law license
SELECTIVE ASSERTION of the Fifth Amendment? I did not see this television show, so I do not know whose witness this young lady is or how extensively she had testified before this assertion of her Fifth Amendment rights. I am a lawyer and worked as a litigator as a younger man. There is a situation in which the judge would be correct in compelling her to testify-SELECTIVE ASSERTION of the right to remain silent. If this woman was called on direct in the defense case by Ms. Florek and testified extensively that she was innocent and had nothing to do with the crime, yet then asserted her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent only when direct testimony defense counsel (Florek) anticipated cross-examination and asked the line of questions most likely to discredit and impeach her, the judge would be fully correct in disallowing SELECTIVE ASSERTION of the Fifth Amendment. Every criminal defendant faces a dilemma: whether to testify in his or her own behalf but also face withering cross-examination by the prosecutor. Juries are not supposed to infer guilt when a defendant does not take the stand (and may be expressly instructed by the judge not to make that inference), but we all know that juries wonder why someone accused of a crime will not take the stand to deny it under oath. If defendants were allowed to selectively testify to their innocence, then take the Fifth Amendment about cross-examination type issues (even if anticipatorily posed on direct by their defense counsel), the prosecution would be denied the people’s right to show the defendant was lying or not credible. In the that instance, the judge would be fully within his authority to determine whether the defense was attempting to get away with SELECTIVE ASSERTION of the Fifth Amendment. If the judge determines there has been SELECTIVE ASSERTION, he can 1) compel the defendant to testify under threat of criminal contempt; 2) strike all of the defendant’s earlier denials; and/or 3) instruct the jury that defendant’s continued refusal to answer must be construed as an admission that her answers would have been very damaging to her defense. If the judge finds that defense counsel did this intentionally, it would be the defense lawyer that would be facing disciplinary proceedings.
I was hoping an actual lawyer would chime in. Legal and medical shows are fun and dramatic, but they tend to be all over the place when it comes to reality.
One week on The good wife I was surprised to see the judge's name was Judge Friend, that being my father's surname and my name. The following episode the judge's name was Judge Rigby, which was my mother's maiden name. Amazing coincidence!
See! Now I have to go back & watch/love this series all over again🙄! Great run...so is "The Good Fight"...although that last season did kind of slip off the rails. Looking 4ward to S6 though!
I did not see this episode. If I did I would have remembered this and I honestly do not remember. I wonder how many more episodes I've missed thinking I have seen the entire series.
The Good Wife was a brilliant show up until S4-S5 after that it went going downhill, did you know The Mandolorian star Pedro Pascal also starred in couple of episodes as Assistant States Attorney arguing against Alicia Florick.
I agree - there are too many episodes where there is no connection between Alicia and Will. I love the clandestine love affair, but not coming into fruition frustrates me. Either she gets back with Peter or gets a life of her own. Can't have it both ways.
Should revive the good wife since she didn't die off in end. Bring Jason back and start the series again. The good fight is to political and makes for stupid tv. Bring good wife back. Best show ever in my opinion. I have watched it 3 times. Hated the ending of the tv series. Writers did terrible end.
Isn't Alicia's question also "piercing" the fifth amendment - she asks if the witness is worried about relating what happened. Is that not asking why you are pleading the fifth?
funny thing is...the Judge was totally in the right here. By law a judge can conduct a hearing to determine if a witnesses use of the 5th amendment is legitimate. Now, that should be done in a closed session, but still you can't just go up and say "I plead the 5th" without being able to show cause as to why you are pleading the 5th.
The judge wasn’t quite in the right cause as you say it should have been done in close session. If he continued he would have contaminated the jury and she would have been right to call for a mistrial.
IT depends on the context. Sometimes it is obvious that answering the question would incriminate the witness, so there is no need for a hearing. Sometimes not. If you ask the witness, "what's your name," and she says, "I plead the Fifth," you better believe the judge is going to inquire about it.
The judge could have held Alicia in contempt but that only would have made things worse for him. Alicia would have definitely filed the complaint and the court transcript would have been produced as evidence. The judicial conduct committee would have seen that not only did the judge seek to violate the witness’ constitutional rights but he also held Alicia in contempt for calling him out on it which is an abuse of power.
She could have also revealed that he was also a Vampire (before Colin Farrell stole his role) and an evil King who tried to have the Princess Bride Killed.
The show must have had some toxicity for wills actor to leave and for Katrina and Alicia to not share a screen from season 4 on. Unless it was done as a formula to create press.
Isn't it funny how you've made three comments ending each one you give away the fact that you know nothing of the Fifth Amendment. It certainly does not give you away, Proclaim your guild, or anything else. What it does is prevent your own words from being used to convict you. Just be honest? My God, that literally is the most childish thing I've ever heard.
