You Think I Would Cheat to Win? - Law & Order 

Then, when Jack became the DA, he got saddled with Cutter as an ADA who cheat and skirted the edge of the law even closer than Jack did back in the day. And Jack had to rein Cutter in. I always laughed at those scenes in the latest seasons because I was like, "Jack, you did the same in his shoes back in the day - it's a bit rich telling him off for making the same decision now!" What goes around comes around, I guess.

@@felisdexactly what I thought when Jack tried to reprimand Mike on the cases😂

Adam and most of the viewing audience.

Notice the defense attorney would often get very close to the witness stand without permission. He would get tackled for that.

Brady Kaynee - In some courtrooms, yes. But it depends on the rules of the trial court, which vary greatly in jurisdictions across the U.S., and on the discretion of the individual judge. I don’t know about actual NY trial courts, but in the L&O universe, of course, the attorneys constantly come very close to witnesses on the stand. A virtually iconic shot from the trial segments of the series, repeated over and over in many episodes, was ADA Ben Stone (Michael Moriarty) practically looming over the witness (or the camera filming the witness-pov take!) as he leans over the railing.

@@ColumbiaB Me and other friends and family have been in courtrooms as jury, and a few in criminal court too. The attorneys do indeed often approach the stand UNLESS the person on the stand is a threat to the people's safety, which can be rare.

Zhyvora - The court rules in some jurisdictions do indeed allow that. As I said, the rules vary from state to state, and sometime from city to city.

No, if the argument is that the DA is mad only because McCoy got caught, I disagree. Even if no one outside the office ever knew about it, McCoy was encroaching on his boss’s prerogatives. Especially when it comes to a question of ethics, that would make the DA deeply steamed, regardless of public repercussions, or the lack thereof.

Well he also has been honest and fair as well in some cases. Like for instance that one case where the defense attorney who was played by actor gregory Hines totally schooled Mr mccoy which was one of the rare times someone got the better of him. However during that trial mccoy got angry at his own witness for lying on the stand under oath to benifit McCoy's case which she thought he wanted and he told her straight up afterwards that "don't get me wrong I like winning just as much as anyone, but not on the expense of a false/untrue testimony."

It doesn't mean that Mr McCoy would cheat to win because he wouldn't. Because it's not the District Attorney job to not withhold information because no one is saying that you shouldn't do that. Because I fully agree with Mr McCoy.

​@@zackq8865Being an honest DA should be the norm, not the exception. If you're only honest and fair "in some cases", you're failing.

@@thefighter5182 It absolutely is the DA's job to not withhold information - a defence attorney is to defend their client, a DA's job isn't just to prosecute, but to investigate and arrive at the TRUE and correct outcome. That means giving the defence any and all relevant information, because that's how the adversarial criminal justice system works.

@@obliviouz well said

As opposed to the Clown Show put on by the *other* Adam Schiff, aka Pencil Neck.

I loved him season 1 of mission impossible

McCoy always hovered over the line of 'cheating' and 'creative' when it came to his tactics. He always acted with Justice as his end goal, never personal gain. The problem is with the system that favours the Law over Justice. As a former prosecutor and current police officer, I find it really hard to believe that he wouldn't have been disbarred very early on in his career if he practised Law in real life.

@@TheAmateurEditor Prosecutors hold evidence all the time. Most states have now laws against holding back evidence from defense attorneys, unfortunately. And with how everyone in the system has to behave together to work out plea agreements, they usually get away with it.

@@TheAmateurEditor That's really interesting! What made you decide to leave the practice of law and become a police officer?

@@kirstinmorrell Circumstances mostly. The country in which I was practising was very seriously effected by the 201-13 banking collapse and to the state prosecutor's budget was reduced to virtually less than 40% of what it was. Cutbacks had to be made with immediate effect, so the lawyers with the most years service only got their salaries frozen, but those of us with less than 5 years had to go unfortunately. All my life, all I ever wanted to be was a criminal prosecutor, never cared for being a defence lawyer. My only option left was to start my own practise and go into another area of law until things picked up economically and try and rejoin the state prosecutor's, but unfortunately I couldn't afford it due to the crisis. A really good friend of mine suggested I join the Police and I liked the idea of preventing a crime from happening rather than just picking up the pieces after the fact. And so now here I am,

@@MaurickSh Holding back evidence from defense attorneys is despicable and ought to be banned.

The prosecution doesn't have any advantage over the defence. It is a long established rule, in all but dictatorial/fascist regimes, that the defence gets all the breaks and the prosecution all the hurdles.

Idk about that..some defense attorneys that practice make millions of dollars..and work for firms that have endowments larger than some city budgets.

@@eldridgedavis why most people don’t have enough money to cover a $400 bill and you think those people are hiring millionaire attorneys? Big law - which is why your referring to handle corporate cases and usually only wok white collar crime . Prosecutors have the advantage

@@TheAmateurEditor That's not how it works in America. The prosecution has a huge advantage of the defense

@@eldridgedavis Key point some. Public defenders get paid much worse but require just and much education. They also get less time to prepare the case and can have information hidden from them until a few days before trial

Simply put if the person is mentally handicapped that severely, it's a case so much as publicity stunt

why is that? a judge decides if evidence is irrelevant not the prosecution.

Bryce Corbin So let me get this straight a prosecutor can withhold evidence claiming that it’s irrelevant but a judge can’t determine its relevance if it’s being withheld. Can you see my problem here?

@Bryce Corbin And that is withholding evidence, Noah's entire point. A prosecutor has no right to withhold evidence or determine it's not relevant. That's the entire problem, and your responses is proving his point. That's like someone important calling for you and a friend takes the call and never tells you about it and you missed a great opportunity that could be life changing. They have no right not to tell you about it when it concerns you and the prosecutor has no right to withhold evidence. And it's not only something you can get disbarred for, it can affect your colleagues and as Adam said, the integrity of the office.

@@ironfromice Noah is the one who said that a judge can decide of the evidence is irrelevant or not. Bryce's point is that if the prosecution never introduces it *as* evidence, the judge never gets the chance to make that call.

@@noahorakwue2653 You are missing what is going on here. Under Brady v. Maryland (1963), the prosecution is obligated to turn over any evidence that is exculpatory, meaning it would help the defense. The prosecutors are basically on their honor to do this. They are not obligated to turn over evidence that has nothing to do with the case. If they fail in this duty, some judges can come down on them like a ton of bricks. Sometimes is unclear whether the evidence is really relevant to the case or not. Now if it were me, I would err on the side of disclosing it to the defense, and then argue to the judge that it should not be admitted. Not everything the prosecutor discloses to the other side is admissible, or even, for that matter, is necessarily used by the defense. If you disclose, you have done your duty, and then you can fight it out before the judge whether it comes in or not.

Yeah they always portray defense attorneys as bad people.

But it’s such great telly that way!

Of which you cannot categorize Sam Waterston's as Jack McCoy.

Nick :"░O░b░j░e░c░t░i░o░n░!░"

You're kidding. Which episode was this? It's not that I don't believe you, but it's sooo out of character for McCoy.

@@AnnaJo2000 The episode was ‘Under the Influence. A guy gets drunk on an airplane and then drove through a crowd of people. McCoy wants the death penalty for the guy because his last assistant was also killed by a drunk driver. www.imdb.com/title/tt0629481/

@@amead78 That makes sense. McCoy loved Kinkaid, and was anguished when she was killed by a drunk driver. Thank you for answering. I got to see that episode now.

@@amead78 .. not a crowd. he intentionally drove into a man on the street then gunned it to strike another man with his son further down the block. No other people were present. Riveting episode.

He also did that to submarine a grandstanding judge looking to use that case to challenge Adam in the election for DA. 😉

Can’t they be required to reveal that evidence not under discovery but under the freedom of information act?

@@RLucas3000 Yes but FOIA requests can take a long time and you don't really know what you're gonna get. Besides, reports etc. don't always tell the whole story.

they are required to turn exculpatory evidence over to the defense, which is the whiole point of the episode. Now it is true that the state can behave unethically and that is why defense investigation is such a good idea.

And the fact that it was almost, rather than actually, is what makes this series so bad.

@@ajvanmarle then get out

Shut up, you're drunk.

@@Hellraiser0601 Dude, it's just a name. Look up the facts if you need to

Political pull

She taught at Columbia law

She was white.

Yes and no. He only wanted to win if he genuinely felt Justice wasn't being done. You can fault his tactics, but never his heart.

I always loved how McCoy would find loopholes or ride that edge, even if it didn't always seem ethical. I also loved how years later when he was DA and ADA Cutter pulled some fast ones. McCoy yelled at how Cutter was a loose cannon and I just laughed.

mccoy kind of inspired a generation of prosecutors to be obnoxious with god complexes than being public servants ben stone had his flaws but i think he was a way more likable character

That's the way the character is written. You're not supposed to like him. He's in the show because he's watchable, not because he's always right.

He learns from his mistakes however once he goes in front of the disciplinary committee for not revealing a witness to the defense in a drunk driving case out of a desire to get a form of revenge for Claire Kincaid' being killed by a drunk driver a few years earlier. He ends up learning from what he did.

That's a required course, in law school.

Yes, they do.

watch Better Call Saul

So the young "innocent" black kid that "never hurt nobody" actually did it!!! What a fucking shock.

@@tystin_gaming Only a simp would be triggered by a fictional character's race 🤭😬

Mauricio Graham so do you actually know what simp means? Or are you throwing it around because you can ?

@@maurreese You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means...

​@@tystin_gaming So you're telling me that a TV show in the 1990s had the young, seemingly-innocent black kid be the villain? What a fucking shock.

@@Redpillmediatv Hey! There are 10 of us now!!

I did

Fire thumbnail

They are lovers

I know, hated when she left. I wish her twin sister Jackie could've taken over the role.

Jack liked Claire's thumbnails. And toenails.

Let's not forget that he's crying out for the injustice of the "white" system (it was a black officer that shot him)

With very few exceptions, if you can watch an L&O episode and never think "If I had the power to bring the dead back to life, I would use it on (defense attorney's name here)...so I could burn them alive again", that defense attorney isn't doing their job.

@@TPTGopher which is the problem with L&O. They have created this fiction that prosecutors are the underdog. The reality is that prosecutors have an enormous advantage while the defendant is stuck with an overworked, underpaid public defender that has a hundred other cases to cover.

The advantage at trial is a product of prosecutorial discretion. Literally if you do not think you can win the case you don't bring it up. We see Jack working the big cases that DO go to trial, we don't see any of the cases where police finishes their investigation and Jack looks at it concluded "we take this to court, we get our teeth kicked in" and drops the case.

He NEVER cheated.

Watch how he wrongfully put a defense lawyer in jail

Many do

Thats incorrect. Sustained objections are reasons to have things striken from record but that is a separate request and objections mearly stop you from going down that line. In real life most if not all objections lead to things being striken from the record but if you dont ask for things to be striken they wont be and in shows they rarely follow through

Everything should be handed over! Simplify

"░O░b░j░e░c░t░i░o░n░!░"

He was good, but nah, for me, Ben Stone was the best. He at least didn't just want to win, no matter the cost. He operated within the law. And later in the show, when McCoy was DA and was running for Governor, he was obsessed with his name.

Nope !!! Nobody can replace ben stone.

@@Nightopian1982, nope, Jack was the best.

@@nightskylights4501 nope, Ben Stone was (we could go back and forth with this one endlessly!)...

100% agree

It was later stated by Arthur Branch (Fred Thompson) that Jack had done too much in his career as a district attorney that he would never be eligible for the top position. His actions were not political but merely of hunger for victory just as you said. The reason why he became DA was that the mayor wanted one person and the attorney general wanted another. In the end, the governor stepped in and recommended McCoy, so they both agreed to Jack. Ben was more of a son to Adam. He was heartbroken after Ben left the office.

I didn't like his politics for the most part and I didn't like the way he treated his ADAs and detectives. But when it came to grilling a defense witness on cross or making a closing to sway the jury, nobody did it better.

There was a higher conviction rate for McCoy because he rigs the system a lot, putting innocent til proven guilty people away just to get paid, selfish character

Waterston has always been one of my favourite actors, back when he was in 'The Killing Fields' and he plays this kind of ethical tap dance to perfection. He played McCoy never getting over Kincaid with an equal amount of empathy but I loved flaws in the character, that it wasn't just another Ben Stone. Loved Waterston as Charlie in 'The Newsroom' as well. Totally different than McCoy

No

Oh wait yes actually

Good catch

Then why are you here watching it? It's a tv show so lighten up and get a life.

Shut up loser. You want to live in a crime-ridden hellhole. Have fun.

Trust me, there's tons of them around and they always have clients. They obviously don't suffer for it...

@@TheAmateurEditor ummm are they not supposed to be confident? You want your lawyer to be humble? Your facing years in prison

​@@JL_Lux You're*

Who

​@@electroskates2434 Her.

Was 54 no 55

Trih vee UH!

No. Ben Stone was a big piece of shit. He always coerced people into doing what he needed to win. He would bend the rules into a pretzel if he thought that was needed.

@@jmichaelramirez2510 and Jack wouldn't?

@@jmichaelramirez2510 A pretzel 😂

😂😂

Yeah sure

He wouldn't but he should be.

He would probably be sanctioned just by changing Infront of Kincaid if he was caught too

Yeah and Just sanctioned since On account he actually did do the lawful and rightful thing since James bought the Necklace before the robbery by selling baseball cards Meaning the Necklace turned out to be evidence that actually incriminated zack instead of exonerating j and no offence but you do know that

No

It’s free on daily motion...almost all of them but shhhh lol

S5 E6 competence

Well, at night, most people sleep. Killing a man in broad daylight is riskier, more witnesses, that's why the expression of the same man usually means that someone is bold & stupid, you basically beg to get caught like that. If you wanted to rob someone at a bank - when would you do it? During the rush-hour or around, 2am in the safe darkness of a moonlit night.

Arcaryon you’re right

I have been trying to find these episodes as well...I heard in July all episodes will be on hulu

Yeah I thought that was a weird Objection place, unless the Defense had a compelling set of evidence that James did this regularly Olivett could have answered by pointing out such an activity wouldn't be rout and thus would be beyond James' ability to plan.

"Rote," not wrote. It means routine.