Real Lawyer Reacts to Reynolds v. Reynolds (Cereal Defense) It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia

Real Lawyer Reacts to Reynolds v. Reynolds (Cereal Defense) It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia


– How did we get on evolution? This is not about about evolution. – Yes, exactly. You shouldn’t be talking
about this at all. – When you attacked Mac’s character! – Yeah, like they did in the OJ trial to that hero cop Mark Fuhrman. – (chuckles) No, not touching that one. (upbeat music) Hey, Legal Eagles, it’s
time to think like a lawyer. Today we are covering another episode of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. This time, it is Reynolds Versus
Reynolds: The Cereal Defense. As always, be sure to comment
in the form of an objection if you disagree with me, and while you’re there, let me know what show or
movie I should do next. And of course, stick around
until the end of the video where I give this episode of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia a grade for legal realism. So, without further ado, let’s dig in to Reynolds Versus Reynolds. [Charlie on Tape] You should pass three– – This is stuck, Charlie, I need you here, this tape isn’t working! – [Announcer] This is KPFN, public radio. – [Woman] Today on Do
It Yourself Gardening– – Ooh, more distracted driving, with a bowl of cereal. Distracted driving is a big problem, never drive while distracted. Always a bad idea. – Oh, Sandra, you dumb (bleep). (car crashes) Guys, so I’m sitting at a
red light, at a dead stop, and Frank rams into me, outta nowhere, and now he’s saying he’s not
gonna pay for the damages. I mean, did you know
that the man cannot see? – I can see, I got glasses,
I just need new lenses. – The lenses are what make
the glasses work, Frank. – If you are driving around
without the use of sight, then that is completely irresponsible and you need to pay for the damages. – Oh, man, this is actually incredible, because this debate hearkens back to one of the seminal cases in law school, specifically the case of
Hadley versus Baxendale, where someone was supposed to
deliver a crankshaft to a mill and the mill owner sued
the delivery person not just for the exact
damages that occurred, but for the loss of income that occurred for the days afterwards for failing to receive the crankshaft which was necessary for the mill. The Court of Exchequer in England, which is equivalent to the Supreme Court in the United States, held that the delivery person
couldn’t be held responsible for the consequential
damages that occurred as a result of failing to
meet their delivery deadline. And what they held is that
you’re only responsible for the damages that are
reasonably foreseeable as a result of your negligence. So I think what’s going to happen throughout this entire episode is it’s going to be a question about whether it was
reasonably foreseeable for Frank to have caused these damages to the interior of Dennis’s car, and it’s not an easy question. It’s hilarious to me that they set this up basically as a hypothetical
that you would have to deal with as a first-year law student. And it’s also funny considering how bad the last legal episode of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia was. – Objection, she’s not a cat, Your Honor. (Maureen hisses) – This is, I think, gonna
get a much higher grade. – He was eating a bowl
of cereal when I hit him, and it spilled all over the interior, and those are the only damages to the car. – You were eating a bowl of cereal? – Yes. – While you were driving? – Yes, it’s not that crazy,
that’s not what this is about. – So the only damages were interior. – You know what, I don’t have
to justify myself to you, you know what I’m gonna do? I’m gonna take you to court! – Fine.
– No, no, hold on a second, nobody needs to go to court here, there’s no reason we can’t
settle this ourselves like civilized adults. – No, no, we can’t, Dee, so
I’m gonna take him to court, I’m gonna sue him, and I’m gonna win. – Dennis, you don’t wanna
go anywhere near a court, how many bench warrants for
sexual misconduct do you have? – Would there be bench
warrants for sexual misconduct? I don’t think that’s a thing. – First off, who is the
defendant in this matter? – That’s not a statement. – Alright, well, irregardless, I would like to know, as Frank’s lawyer, who I am persecuting
or who I am defending. – Yeah, prosecuting. – Okay, let me just nip this whole thing in the bud right now, stop treating this like it’s a trial and like this is a courtroom. – Yeah, but the tables. – Yeah, but I was against that too. Okay, let’s just present
the facts to each other, and then let’s decide as a
majority who’s in the right. That being said, Frank
would be the defendant. – I’m not the defendant. No, that implies that I am guilty. – He’s right, if anyone’s ever accused of anything, I automatically assume they’re guilty. – [Charlie] You do, right? – I do.
– Yeah, you do. – It’s unfortunate that a
lotta people feel that way, if someone is accused of something, that they have a presumption of guilt. That should not be the case, it’s the prosecutor or the
plaintiff that bears the burden. That being said, here, clearly, Frank
would be the defendant, he’s the one that was driving, he’s the one that caused the things that are
potentially damages here. There’s no debate here,
Frank would be the defendant. – I’m finished. – Where have you been
for the last three hours? – I have been making this. – What the hell is that? – It’s the Trial Meter. It shows how we each feel
throughout the trial. Yeah, I made little gavels
with our names on it, and we can move them accordingly, and at the end, whoever has the most
gavels on their side wins. – It took you three hours to make that? – Yeah. – Mac, let me tell you something, nobody is gonna wanna use
that, because it’s so stupid. We are dealing with a serious issue here. – As ridiculous as this sort
of cartoon interpretation of which way all the different
people are leaning is, it’s actually not a bad way of deciding who, in this
sort of quasi-arbitration, is going to win here. Obviously the parties are
gonna vote for themselves, but ironically, in an arbitration, which this sort of is, you would often have a three-judge panel. Sometimes you would have only
one judge, or arbitrator, but often, you would have
a three-arbitrator panel that’s made up of former judges. And guess what, the majority wins, so if you’re able to convince two out of the three arbitrators, then you would win your
case in arbitration. So it’s kind of a funny version of what happens in real life. – Uh, I would like a five
with my client please. – Are you gonna want a five, Counselor? – I’d like to take a five, yes. – Alright, I’ll allow it.
– Stop talking like this is a (bleep) courtroom, please. – Oh, I’m the judge. – No, you’re not. – Can I be the bailiff? – You are not anything! – I’ll allow it. – [Dennis] No one is anything! – Yeah, he’s an arbitrator. – I will smash everybody’s
eyes out of their sockets! – And that is one of the reasons why you never want to represent yourself, you have too much skin in the game, it’s too hard to be objective, and it is too easy to have
an outburst like that. Dennis should not be representing
himself in this matter, he should really be relying
on his punitive counselor Dee. – I would like to add
into evidence article one. Mac, will you please read this document? – Mm-hmm. “By the power of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, “Reed Mental Institution
hereby decrees Frank Reynolds “to not have donkey brains.” (intense music) – What?
– What? – That is an official document that says donkey brain on it?
– What is that? – Alright, so there’s a
lotta stuff going on here. Interestingly, Charlie is not
doing a terrible, terrible job of laying the proper
foundation that he needs to enter this thing into evidence. And in fact, like few legal shows, he actually says that he wants to enter this particular document into evidence. You actually don’t see
that all that often. He missed a few steps. Number one, this document is hearsay, regardless of where it came from, because he’s trying to use it for the truth the matter asserted, that Frank, in fact, does
not have donkey brains. So he has hearsay problems to deal with, he has to establish that there
is some hearsay exception, but he has gone part of
the way towards there. He has established that Frank received this document at some point, and he has some basis to
say what this document is. He still needs to show that it was a business record
of the mental institution, and the only way to do that is to get a custodian of
the mental institution. So he certainly hasn’t
laid all of the foundation, but he is part of the way there, which is more than I can say
for a lot of legal TV shows, that’s pretty funny. – Frank, would you like to
clear this up for everybody? – Well, all the kids in the neighborhood
knew I got sent upstate, so they started calling
me Frankie Donkey Brains, and it was very traumatic, so I got my mommy to drive
me back up to the loony bin, where they signed this
official certificate exonerating me of all donkey brains. – Yeah, great, what does this
have to do with anything? – Yeah, that is a good objection. What Charlie is trying to do here is to enter character
evidence on behalf of Frank. He’s trying to say that
Frank has a character for lack of donkey brains, which is a ridiculous sentence for me to have to say right now, but anyway, that’s what he’s trying to do. And what he’s trying to show is that on the day in
question, of the accident, he’s saying that Frank was not acting with
(chuckles) donkey brains, and therefore could
not have been negligent in driving his car. So at base, this is a really good example of why character evidence
should not be allowed. Just because Frank might
have had a character for lack of donkey brains
when he was a child doesn’t mean he didn’t act negligently when he ran into Dennis in
this particular instance. – Do you have any such certificate? – What? (scoffs) – Well, we don’t want a donkey
on the road eating cereal. We know Frank’s not a donkey, how do we know you’re
not a donkey-brained man? – Yep, a good example of why character
evidence is a bad idea. You’re trying to prove a negative here, to show that you weren’t a donkey brain when you were the victim of this accident. The fact that Frank has the
certificate means nothing, and this is a speciesist argument that Charlie is using here, it shouldn’t hold any water. – Why would I have a certificate? – You don’t have a certificate? – Oh, no, no, no, no, the
burden of proof is not on me. – The defendant will answer the question. – The defendant? I’m not the defendant! – Just answer the question. – Those are two contradictory statements. He’s not the defendant, that’s accurate, but he does have the burden of proof here. He has to prove that it
is more likely than not that Frank was negligent and that the damages that he suffered are attributable to that negligence. (upbeat music) – Frank, would you like a glass of wine? – Yeah, alright. – Huh, why not have a glass of wine? I mean, after all… Oh. (chuckles) – Hey, hey, hey, you can’t do that! – Oh, I’m so sorry. Whoopsie, whoopsie, see, I bashed into Frank
while he was at a dead stop, that’s completely my fault, Frank. I will pay for all the
damages to your shirt. Case closed! – Oh, well, when you put
it like that, you got me. You know what, I’m on Dennis’s side now, he just convinced me. – Alright, I think Charlie’s
being facetious here, but Dennis’s argument here really goes to the heart of the matter. He is trying to establish that
the damages that he suffered, the liquid coming out of his cereal bowl and ruining the interior of his car, are analogous to running into Frank and spilling the red wine onto his shirt. This is what lawyers do all the time, we take case law, we make analogies to prior cases that involve a similar set of facts, and we say that the facts at issue are similar to the facts
that have gone before. And here, he is trying to make an
analogy between the liquid, the milk, in a cereal bowl to the liquid, the wine,
that was in the wine glass. So really good job by
Dennis making an argument that goes to the heart of the matter here, whether it was reasonably foreseeable for Frank to have caused the damages to the inside of Dennis’s car. – It occurs to me that Frank assumed responsibility
for a potential spill the second he took the wine. – Yeah, he’s right, I knew the risk. – So in this circumstance, it would appear that Frank is at fault, and therefore in the
car, Dennis is at fault, I am on Frank’s side, case closed! – That’s another good argument. There is a doctrine
called Assumption of Risk in negligence law. Sometimes, if you do an inherently-dangerous
act as the victim, and you are damaged as a result
of both someone’s negligence and your own actions, the law imputes an assumption of risk, and it is an affirmative defense
to a claim of negligence. It’s a doctrine that comes into play when a victim knowingly and voluntarily takes on the risks associated
with a certain activity. So, for example, if you were trespassing and you saw a sign that said “Enter at Your Own Risk,
Dangerous Condition” or “Caution: Guard Dog”, you might be subject to the affirmative defense
of assumption of risk because you knowingly took on the risks associated with that particular behavior. So this is a great
argument for Mac to make, this is a defense that gets
used in courts all the time. I don’t think it applies in
this particular situation, but let’s see what the other arguments are and see how it comes out. – I’m gonna ask you one more time, do you or do you not believe that you can create a
superhuman race of strongmen through genetic mutation and evolution? (intense music) – Uh, no. (chuckles) That’s ridiculous, Dee,
what are you talking about? – What are you talking about? You were just… You were just telling Charlie this morning all about the, “Oh, have you seen X-Men?” and “my seed”, and– – No, I was joking with
Charlie. (chuckles) That could never happen
in the real world, Dee, that’s like a comic book thing. – He’s credible. – Yeah, he’s credible. Alright, we won this case.
– I win this case. It’s an open-shut case. – [Dee] Shit, Dennis, that was… – No, no, wait, wait, wait,
wait, wait, wait a minute. Mac, why don’t you believe that? – Huh? – Well, I’m just wondering
why don’t you believe that you could pass down a gene that would eventually evolve
into a race of supermen? Why? – I like where Dennis is going here. This is one of the reasons why you should never lie in court. It’s because a good lawyer will be able to suss out your lies and show that you are
not a credible person. When you’re on the stand, often, credibility is important, not in the sense that
they’re showing here, but in the sense that
they are trying to show that this witness is not credible because they have lied, and usually your
character for truthfulness is usually at issue, which is separate from
your general character and certainly separate from
whether you had a character to engage in some sort of
negligence on the day in question. So, whether they take you
down the logical route of all the things that come
as a result of your lie or whether they show you something that contradicts your prior testimony, so whether it’s a deposition or perhaps an email that you wrote that contradicts what
you’re saying on the stand, a good lawyer will be able
to tell when you’re lying, and they will ram it down your throat and show everyone that you are no longer
credible as a witness, which I think is about
to happen right here. – That’s a silly question, (chuckles) because evolution
doesn’t exist, of course. (upbeat music) – [Dennis] I’m sorry? – Oh, could you repeat
that again, for the room? – Because evolution is
(bleep), it’s not real. – God (bleep), recess! – Yeah, or they’ll just catch
you in some other absurdity and ruin your credibility that way, that can happen too. Okay, I know at this point a lot of people are going to say this is completely unrealistic, this is ridiculous, they’re
having a fake trial in a bar, so let’s talk about what’s
generally happening here, and let’s talk specifically
about legal arbitrations. Let’s think like a lawyer. (upbeat music) Now, an arbitration is like a court and a trial that happens in a court, except it’s all done by private contract. So, two parties get into a dispute, and rather then take
their dispute to court, they either decide, at that
time, to do an arbitration or they have a prior contract that requires them to go to arbitration. Arbitration can have some advantages, it can be much, much faster than a court, which a court trial can
often take years to happen, but it does have the disadvantage of requiring the parties themselves to pay the arbitrator,
or arbitrators, plural, if there’s more than one, so it can often be more expensive than a courtroom proceeding. If you wanna know more about arbitrations, I actually did a whole video
about the arbitration provision in the Discord and Better
Health terms of service, I’ll put a link to that down below. Believe it or not, when
you go to arbitration, all of the rules are set
by you and your opponent, you have to agree. Arbitration is a creature of contract, and a contract requires mutual agreement. So if you agree to arbitration, you and the other party
have to agree to the terms by which that arbitration will proceed. So here, the parties, Dennis and Frank, have basically agreed
to arbitrate their case and avoid going to court, even though this is sort
of the classic thing that get litigated in court, negligence in a car accident, and they have sort of agreed
to be bound by the outcome of what their three friends think about this particular case. So, believe it or not, this is not that dissimilar
from an actual arbitration. It’s a little bit crazier, but you could agree to sort of forego the rules
of evidence if you wanted to so that all of the
testimony that’s coming in would come in in arbitration too, and you could agree to be bound by what your three friends think
about the particular case. – These were all the smartest
scientists on the planet, only problem is, they kept
being wrong, sometimes. (intense music)
(Devin chuckles) – This is insane, you fool! – This is getting dangerously close to the Chewbacca defense. – Why would a Wookie, an
eight-foot tall Wookie, want to live on Endor with a
bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you
have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. – Which, ironically, since
that came out in South Park, is a term that lawyers use. When we talk about arguments
that are completely ridiculous and that have no bearing
on the particular case, except for some speciesist reasoning, we actually do refer to things
as the Chewbacca defense. – Have you seen these fossil records? (intense music) – Have I… Huh? – Have you pored through the
data yourself, the numbers? – Oh, this thing is getting outta hand. – So let me get this
straight, Mr. Reynolds, you get your information from a book written by men you’ve never met, and you take their words as truth based on a willingness to believe, a desire to accept, a leap of, oof, dare I
say it, (scoffs) faith? – I think the writers of
the show had a lot of fun coming up with as many logical fallacies as they possibly could
cram into 22 minutes. None of this testimony is
relevant, we’ve gone far afield, I hope we get back to
the actual trial at hand, ’cause there are some really
interesting legal issues to discuss here: reasonability, foreseeability, negligence, this is fun stuff. Or at least it was. – Come on, look, I mean, don’t even know how I’m
supposed to respond to that, like… Ah, come on. That’s a false equivalency. – Just answer the question, Mr. Reynolds. – (chuckles) False equivalency. – Sure, yeah, okay. – I rest my case. – Wow!
(upbeat music) Well, that got me. Frank, you want me to… – Put me over too. – Yeah, alright. – What? – Well, we’re going on the fence, I mean, that’s a shadow of a doubt. – You actually don’t believe
– (chuckles) Shadow of doubt. – in evolution anymore? – I don’t know, he created
a reasonable doubt, he makes you sound like a
stupid, uh, science bitch. – So Charlie here is
getting the standard wrong, even though none of this is
relevant to the case at hand, he’s talking about the
criminal law standard, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. You cannot have any reasonable doubts in order to find someone
guilty in criminal court. It is the highest burden in all of law. Whereas when you’re talking
about a civil lawsuit, you’re only talking about a
preponderance of the evidence, something that is more likely than not. In other words, if 50% is
exactly the same on either side, all you have to be is 51% sure, then the plaintiff has met their burden, just 51% more likely than not that the defendant committed
the acts accused of and that that forms the basis
of the liability at issue. – Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, what, what are we even talking about? How did we get on evolution? This is not about evolution.
– Yes, exactly, you shouldn’t be talking
about this at all. – When you attacked Mac’s character! – Yeah, like they did in the OJ trial to that hero cop Mark Fuhrman. – (chuckles) No, not touching that one. – Okay, let’s just get back on track here, I would like to make my closing arguments. – No, no, no, no, no, no,
this has gone on long enough. And by the way, Dee, why the hell do you give a
(bleep) about any of this anyway? – You don’t know? You can’t think of why I might like to set a
precedent of responsibility for when someone’s car gets destroyed? – No. – So, ironically, arbitrations don’t really
set legal precedent. When you take a case to court and that’s adjudicated by
either the jury or the judge, it really doesn’t have
any precedential effect until one of the parties
takes that case up on appeal. So, Dee won’t get any precedent
out of this arbitration because it’s not taking place in court and has not taken place in
front of the Court of Appeals. (upbeat music)
– Okay, here’s the deal, Dennis, if you can drive
to your apartment and back without spilling a single drop, Dee, your precedent is set, and Frank, you pay for everything. – Fine. – Good. – Okay, and Frank, if you could
drive to our place and back without getting in an accident, with me giving you directions, you can continue to drive as long as I’m in the car with you. – Deal. – Alright. – On your mark, get set, go! – I got it. – This is amazing, this is a great way to resolve
this particular dispute, the parties are agreeing to the facts. They’re basically
creating an objective test to determine whether Frank was negligent in the first instance based on his lack of correct
lenses in his glasses, and they’re all agreeing to these terms, so they’re setting a metric
by which everyone can agree. This is amazing, I can’t believe this is coming as a result of this stupid show. – [Frank] Alright, here we go. – We’re gonna make a left up there. – Make a what?
– Uh-huh. – Go left. – Make a left? – Right.
– Right? – Oh no, I think I know
where this is going. (yelling and arguing) – You make up your mind! Deandra, shut up! – (chuckles) Oh no. (car crashes) (Mac groans) No! There’s no resolution! – That is insane, how do you hit me again? – It was Deandra’s fault! She gave me the wrong directions. – Guys, it’s actually pretty cut and dry, – This way, that way, up.
– it was Dee’s fault, I was trying to give directions
and she interrupted and– – What are you talking about?
– And she’s butting in, she’s butting in.
– I was reiterate… Charlie was giving directions and I was– – So this is your fault? – And this is why the law is hard, sometimes there are just gray
areas that won’t be resolved. – It was Dee’s fault,
she’ll pay for the damages. – Don’t you dare.
– Yeah, absolutely, she should.
– That’s it. – Don’t you dare, no. Okay, you know, I have an
idea, should we have a trial, me and Charlie? – That’s too many trials,
that’s too many trials. – (chuckles) Oh no.
– We can’t have a trial for every person. – Let’s just have her pay
for it and be done with this. – Alright, that’s it. – I’m tired of this.
– Let’s go. – No, no, no, no.
– I’m going back to the bar. – No, because Charlie was giving the… I was only… You sons of… God dammit! (Devin chuckles) – Is that a just outcome? I’ll have to think about that. But it’s a good lesson
that sometimes the law is just what everyone
agrees that the law is, it’s just a construct based on society, and sometimes you get screwed because everyone else is in the majority. Sorry, Dee. (upbeat music) Alright, now it’s time
to give this episode a grade for legal realism. (gavel bangs) This was a real treat, it started with one of
the classic hypotheticals in law school that you have to debate, and there are reasonable
people on either side as to whether you’re responsible
for consequential damages, then it goes straight into something that is a reasonable facsimile of arbitration between private parties, and despite all the hijinks
about nonsensical issues with character, and
credibility, and evolution, they actually have a
lot of good arguments, ending with an objective test to determine who is reasonably at fault. This was an enormous treat
for me as a practicing lawyer and someone who really enjoyed all those philosophical
debates in law school. I am so happy that this
episode of It’s Always Sunny was way better than the last one, so I’m gonna give this
episode of It’s Always Sunny a solid B. Nice job, you’re really
improving in this class. Do you agree? Leave your objections down below, and check out my other reactions where I will see you in court.


100 thoughts on “Real Lawyer Reacts to Reynolds v. Reynolds (Cereal Defense) It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia

  1. Obviously Its Always Sunny court cases are utterly ridiculous, nothing they do is as it should be 😂
    However this is surprisingly interesting

  2. I find it disturbing that there are a great number of people running around in the world who do not have certificates proving they do not have donkey brains.

  3. Objection:
    There is a level of “absurdity” to evolution that does in fact undermine its credibility. Skulls “found” tracing back human evolution have been discovered to have been falsified again and again. Also, the argument of vestigial parts of an organism has been all but destroyed, as these vestigial parts have been found to have a purpose, thanks to modern science. Also, the idea of progressive evolution is undermined in light of the fact that the DNA of primates, said to be descendants of the progenitors of mankind that branched off from the progression of the evolutionary path, is found to be incredibly different from that of humans, and in fact the banana has been found to have closer relation than humans, which makes no logical sense when tracing back the progression of life on Earth from an evolutionary perspective.

  4. It's 4:00 am… And yet here I am watching something that's not going to benefit me at all today… but great video!

  5. We need to see a review of It's always Sunny in Philadelphia season 12 episode 6 Hero or Hate Crime. They go to an actual arbitration and I've always wondered how accurate it really is.

  6. you look like if Matthias and Ryan Reynolds had a child. Not saying that's a bad thing. Just thought is needed to be acknowledged. Either way I love your content man. Keep it up 👍

  7. Oh man, this guy is a true professional! He even knows philosophy and abstract thinking… That's where Law came from… But to get out of his comfort zone and analyze IASIP?! That's like a person who truly expands his horizons and knowledge no matter the situation. That's love and professionalism at the same time. Well done sir! I admire you and I'm from IT in Europe. Actually I like IASIP very much so this was a treat for me. Thank you very much sir! Btw driving while eating cereal or using a phone isn't illegal in the US?? Because it is in my country… So actually Dennis was also committing a felony. So Dennis would have to pay a fine and probably lose his driver license (or something close like that) and Frank would have to pay the damage of property (the car). Am I right or wrong? Or close? xD

  8. Although this was moderately interesting, LegalEagle seems like that guy who picks every joke apart to make them not funny

  9. this is such a great, entertaining idea for a channel.

    you need to do the fresh prince episode where will and carlton sue uncle phil

  10. OBJECTION…RELEVANCE, LEADING, AND BESMEERCHMENT OF CHARACTER. BUT OVERALL…LOVED IT. PLEASE DO MORE…especially the other episodes of IASIP!!!!

  11. The biggest flaw with the Chewbacca defense: Chewbacca never LIVED on Endor; he was just there for a military mission. If anything Chewbacca lived on the millennium falcon with his captain Han Solo. Therefore the Chewbacca defense is fundamentally flawed.

  12. OBJECTION!!!!

    With Halloween fast approaching, I think that you should review the court scenes from horror/Halloween themed movies and TV shows. Things like the courtroom scene from Episode 1 of Freddy’s Nightmares, “No More Mr. Nice Guy”

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g7XT8-1ry1o

    The Simpsons Treehouse Of Horror where Homer trades his soul to Ned Flanders/Satan for a donut.

    Highway to Heaven S02E05 “The Devil and Jonathan Smith”

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a-VA8S2Gd8Q

    Picket Fences Season 3 Episode 5 “Cold Spell”, where a CPS is trying to take a little girl away from her mother because they practice witchcraft.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GcMn25rUqcY

    And I’m sure that there’s probably more out there, but these should give you at least a couple of episodes worth of material.

  13. You should do the one where the group has a lottery ticket and they're trying to determine the rightful winner of the lottery. "Hero or Hate Crime" or something like that

  14. Objection:
    The burden of proof is not on him (9:20), he was referring to the certificate, proving he does not have donkey brains, not the case as a whole. In that case the burden of proof is on the claim that he has donkey brains, and not on himself proving that he does not have donkey brains.

    I rest my objection…

  15. 7:18 Untrue snippet. Charlie, as a matter of fact, is illiterate. Most likely, he knows what the document is, living with Frank and all, and asked the baliff to read it verbatum because he is unable to.

  16. A drivers seat isn't exactly an appropriate place to eat from a bowl of cereal but frank did cause the damage. I think it should be an eat at your own risk kind of thing.

  17. For Halloween, I really think you should consider doing a video about the Stambovsky vs Ackley case (169 A.D.2d 254). It’s sometimes called the Ghostbusters ruling, and it’s a case from the New York Appellate Courts that I wrote about for one my paralegal courses. It’s super fascinating and would make a fun video if you haven’t looked into it already. Bonus point: the opinion is full of fun ghost puns.

  18. OBJECTION: how would Frank and Charlie get custodian approval for the certificate annulling his status of Donkey Brains, if in a later episode, we see that the mental institution was abandoned

  19. i feel like legal eagle and iasif should collaborate to make an A+ episode that is still completely rediculous at the same time

  20. The tragic humor at the end with poor Dee having to pay for the car damages is- that in previous episodes of the show, her car or cars she had always in up damaged by the rest of the gang. 😃

  21. Charlie:
    "CAN READ WORDS ON A PAGE"
    Objection, on several occasions, Charlie has actually shown that he is almost certainly illiterate. Frequently trying to spell words phonetically and being unable to pronounce words not spelled phonetically.

  22. 15:33 That video is not linked to in the description (neither is it in the playlist that is linked).
    Here's the video either way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHKtl074B6k

  23. Frank was not acting with donkey brains, and therefore could not be negligible in driving his car” — well when you say it like that makes it sound super smart haha

  24. I love these videos. I get a good chuckle and I learn more about law. If I binge this channel will I eventually be able to pass the Bar exam?

  25. 'this stupid show'…. Bruh :'(. NO. This is the smartest show on TV.

    Hah JK, i know ur kidding ;). At least you better be…. Because of the implications

  26. i have a very important question.
    how does one prosecute an unconscious person for sexual assault or rape and win!?

    backstory
    lawyers of subreditt what was your the jury f'd up moment?

    client out cold shit faced at party gets sexually assaulted by two girls who used fake ids to get in to party location

    prosecution says ''law'' doesn't cover unconscious envelopement and that he shouldn't have passed out near underage girls.
    he got 20 years
    HOW?!
    what law allows you to charge an unconscious person with a crime as though they consented to the act?

    please help legal eagal see my question.sorry about spelling and other things i'm freaked out.

  27. OBJECTION: Frank has already stated he is at fault for not having the proper glasses, which impairs his ability to drive.

  28. Assumption of Risk is why it makes no sense for people to physically attack skaters claiming "if you fall on my property then you'll sue me"

  29. Could do a video on the kinds of questions Jury candidates get asked, and why they can be disqualified, for visuals, 30 Rock season 3 episode 14 has Tina trying to disqualify herself.

  30. I’ll touch it. OJ did it [EDIT: was at least directly involved], and justice was served. The proven fabrication of evidence should result in the accused walking every time.

  31. Objection!
    There have been cases in which the "Beware of Dog" signage has allowed the injured party to successfully sue because it was an admittance by the owner that the dog on their property is dangerous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *