Yes, it does. Shut up or pay attention.

I know exactly how you feel. The chill I felt that one feels when watching acting so intense coupled with writing so brilliant in its urtter simplicity... THIS is why people --whatever the outcomo--devote their lives to this craft. This series represents some of James Kelley's finest work. And as for Holland Taylot, Linda Hunt, Lara Boyle and Kelli Williams: well done, Dear Ladies. Well. Done.

Fact's

I believe you meant to write,the greatest courtroom drama scene in television history!

And the best courtroom dramedy was Ally McBeal !

You forgot Alan Shore in the supreme court.

Then again, there's perry mason,Matlock and maybe Hawkins starring the late, great Jimmy Stewart

Maybe watch the series before you comment...There's a theme.

Why ask why?

One of the greatest shows of all time.

that liar?

@@bhakti235 put a sock in it libby.

I lovely sentiment from a terrible judge.

It was actually Justice Antonin Scalia who said it first

Well I don’t believe you’re supreme court judge but even if you were then you’re assumptions you’re intelligence even would come into question. To overrule the majority of the people who have decided as a nation in this case of over 350 million people that you’re going to violate right one time to let some wacko criminal gothen that goes to show there’s a real problem in this country this whole thing is nothing but a contraption to overrule the rights of the people the people the people of the United States of America we have a constitution we’re going to keep it you make a move against it you’re not gonna like the response.

As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with you and Zoey Hiller. Even at the point of closing arguments, who's to say who's guilty or innocent? No one was convicted yet.

What I love about this show is that is celebrates THE RULE OF LAW above everything. Yours was also a victory for the rule of law. 👍👍👍

I agree. It was the correct ruling

is it illegal to have weapons in the US now ? they had no business looking in the closet.

That's actually not true, but you got your "likes" so that's something.

@@gmh471 It is true. Try reading it sometime.

@@Subangelis I read it as part of my profession and I teach it. The idea that the Constitution as a concept and as a document was designed to "protect citizens from the government" is right wing pablum. There's a couple of amendments that have that purpose, but that's all.

yet no one's protecting you from mistakes with APOSTROPHES! hahaha. come on, mate.

@@gmh471it’s true the point was stopping the state Laws are made to protect citizens from other citizens that’s the whole basis of the constitution

"Better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent is imprisoned."..........and those 1000 freed guilty people will kill again, rape again, loot again. So in effect, more innocent people are hurt by that kind of thinking.

The point was that they didn't know the guy was guilty until they did the search. It is like trying to open a locked door when the key is behind it.

@@finris1 , precisely.

"Better a thousand guilty free then a single one innocent imprisoned" when I hear that I always think "When the law of the land appeases the guilty at the expense of the innocent, how have you not imprisoned the latter already."

@@The_Phoenix_Saga, I do agree. I feel that still.. the man was the ultimate slime.

But it is also reasonable that what the first lawyer said. They could secure the crime scene and get the warrant for the evidence. Why didn't they?

⁠@@solmas2111honestly, it was just a folly choice made by the police. Some of the more experienced “brass” might’ve said “hey dont go in we need a warrant” if consulted, some more experienced “brass” mightve made the same mistake. In all honesty the laws can be very goofy, understandably so, but still very goofy. My guess the officers were trying to do their jobs and accidentally overstepped. It happens. Should they have gotten a warrant, yes. Would they have known they needed one to secure the evidence, quite probably, no.

@@ezekielellis7471 no. this isn't happenstance. its the fact that the vast majority of police officers who are given the immense responsibility of carrying a GUN and a BADGE in the US are SEVERELY undereducated about the laws they are meant to be upholding and the procedures by which to carry out and uphold those laws that keeps EVERYONE, including themselves safe. They effed up. It's GREAT that they did. They have to pay for it now, cos you never forget a hard-won lesson and you will always remember why you follow protocol.

But those detail were added to remove common sense in favor of bureaucracy This is why the court Yates became a kafkaïen nightmare

That is your opinion, but if the cops went to your residence and searched you without a warrant, you would invoke your rights and this case as a point of law.@@dumbidea1007

@@dumbidea1007 Hard to swallow but how many times have we seen Helen charge into court arguing passion over facts and then get all P'O'd when she loses.

@@mikemactavish1665 yeah the character all lack principles and are just hypocritical. Only Eugene and allan were 100% honest and had actual principles and they Ironically were the only ones not being sanctimonious. Eugene was for the system all the way even if it costed him his wife and child. Allan on the other hand was for his clients. He knew the system was a joke so he put a red nose and played the clown as long as it satisfied his sense of ethics

Sadly yes

As I recall the cops shot him dead a few eps later. So no biggie.

@@akshaynatu6568 lol

@@akshaynatu6568 good for them. Let's celebrate

No it wasn't. They ignored the inevitable discovery rule.

every time i see that actress i think of The Shadout Mapes

Already mentioned in Description

just watch the whole series, it's all fantastic

Sn 3 ep 19. But watch the whole series if you can. Sn 4 ep. 20 will have you bleary

"...shall not be infringed.", is only HALF of the law for the HALF witted who choose to only read and accept what fits their ideology.. "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Do not quote the law unless you're willing to accept it IN IT'S ENTIRETY.

Not quite. The law goes, from greatest authority to least, Constitutional provision --> Federal Statute/Law OR Federal Case Law OR Treaty Provision --> State Statute/Law OR State Case Law --> ect. In other words, decisions made by judges do have the force of law, and can override statutes or laws of the same level. Also, without case law, the Exclusionary rule that makes illegally obtained evidence inadmissible wouldn't exist. And if that were the case, police would be able to violate your 4th amendment without significant consequence.

Then she fell into the hollywood image issues and turned herself into an unrecognizable lady.

And Jack Nicholson fiancee

@@grantkyle8823 awesome for both of them. Shame about her face

No.

And they never show him working out or jogging even ONCE in the entire run of the show. Smh. Just perfect genes?

Actually the whole episode needs to be seen to understand this. The Judge here is conflicted since the beginning. She even asks another Judge on how to interpret the 4th amendment.

This is a reading of a judicial decision. They're usually submitted in writing with no ceremony but this is a drama.

Judges will occasionally opine from the bench, especially where a controversial ruling is entered. Dissent to precedent set forth by the SCotUS, especially where it applies to the Bill of Rights, despite having to rule in favor that allows the alleged perpetrator of a heinous act to go free without so much as a trial, is probably going to get any judge on their soapbox.

It is a well known method in debate. Admit some fact that support's the opposing side of an issue, only to put forward more facts that support your side. It is usually used to prevent opponents from claiming that you only care about facts that support your perspective. Of course, in today's political reality, it is receiving less use, especially from politicians. They see any admission in the other side's favors as a sign of weakness.

@@finris1 You totally nailed it. Very few people debate or argue like this any more. It's tragic.

The Practice

@wittyroark thanks it's been solong since I've seen commercials for this show one I never got around to watching but knew it was pretty damn good I think I'm gonna start😁

@@joshuaarmendariz4967 it's much better than Boston Legal and Suits. There are no RICH lawyers here worried about their suits. Only laborious cases.

@wittyroark yea but I love James spider soo..ima watch both

@@joshuaarmendariz4967 😄... where do u think Alan Shore and Danny Crane were born ? Watch the show and u r in for a treat in the last season.

To loose is to set free, release. To lose, as it is written in the title section, is to fail to win, which is an adequate word for the situation in the scene and the title itself. 🤗

For every right you have, there is a remedy if the state violates that right. Otherwise, your rights don't exist. You have a right against unreasonable search and seizures, which is violated when the police enter your home and search and seize evidence absent a valid warrant (except in certain cases). If the police violate this right, resulting in the state having incriminating evidence against you, what remedy would be fair to you? Money? How much money would it take for you to be ok with going to jail, potentially for years? If you get sentenced to life in prison or execution, no amount would be worth it. Paid for defense attorneys? With the incriminating evidence they illegally seized, you are likely to go to jail anyway. Punishing the police officer's involved? That may help others in the future, but it doesn't do anything for you. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that making the illegally seized evidence inadmissible against you is the only way prevent the officer's misconduct from harming you. It also forces the cops to follow the law, else guilty people go free.

@@finris1 Why not just punish the officers for their criminal misconduct like we do others? Why instead let the criminal go free to commit more crimes - maybe even murder? "How much money would it take for you to be ok with going to jail?" That is a stupid question. The criminal would be going to jail for the crime he committed. The Supreme Court ruled evidence from warrantless searches is generally inadmissable because it seemed to be the only remedy to rampant police misconduct THAT WAS IN THEIR POWER TO DO. The Supreme Court could not pass a law making it illegal and establish penalties for police violators. Legislators should pass laws doing the later and making the evidence admissible. I would expect the Supreme Court to vacate its earlier rulings.

@@rocky3993 I am not sure that you read my post or just skimmed it, as you appear to have misunderstood. If your rights are violated, and nothing is done to address that violation, then your rights don't exist. So if police violate your rights to find and seize evidence against you, there needs to be some remedy to address that violation. Money isn't sufficient to compensate you if your freedom is in jeopardy, and punishing the police will only help other people in the future. So making the evidence inadmissible is the only practical method available.

@@finris1 I did not misunderstand, I just don't agree. In my mind, the person who committed a crime implicitly gave the police permission to gather evidence about his crime. He gave up his rights when he committed the crime. If it turns out he did not do the crime, then his rights were violated and the police that violated them should be punished for their violation. Letting a killer go free because one police officer screwed up violated the rights of the victims, their families, and any people the criminal harms in the future. I balance the rights and don't want the criminals to go free.

@@rocky3993 (1) Rights are something that we all have under the law. They don't just disappear, no matter what we do. (2) If the world worked as you seem to desire, it would be a mess. Police would be gambling with the law. Breaking into people's homes based on suspicions and hoping the person had incriminating evidence to seize. It would establish the legality of the search based on the results and not the evidence held beforehand. Our rights wouldn't mean anything.

Did you see the case where a police officer arrested a guy, beat him because he was supposedly "resisting arrest" (which he wasn't), pulled down his pants and tasered his balls because he was supposedly "resisting arrest" while being held down by 4 cops all while his kids where in the backseat of the car screaming and watching the scene. And all of that because he supposedly didn't turn on the blinker before turning. Which he actually did it was on CCTV. Cops in the US are so out of control it's simply insane.

@@Kalenz1234 He wasn't even the driver. He was in the passenger seat. His wife/girlfriend was the driver. Plus, all the camera footage shows that there was no way the police could tell if the blinker was used or not.

@@Subangelis The story gets even more bizarre and unbelievable. What a fucked up country.

It is absolutely not trying to elicit sympathy for the prosecution, only depict the emotions of a specific character who is a prosecutor. The show's protagonists are defense attorneys, their victories are our victories. People who tend to sympathize with prosecutors likely do not enjoy this show at all.

I think you missed the point. As for training the police better, maybe change the hiring requirements. Perhaps requiring any individual that has received prior training for a profession that centered around killing people(the military) to undergo extensive psychological testing to ensure suitability for the position.

It isn't. Generally for searches, if there is reason to believe that evidence will be lost unless police perform a search, then a search can be done without a warrant. This is often used in cases where it is believed that a suspect inside will destroy the evidence (like flushing drugs down the toilet) before police can get a warrant.

The problem is that you are making that augment knowing if they are guilty, which is often only known after the police illegally searched and seized incriminating evidence. If there is enough evidence to conclude a person is guilty of some crime, probable cause is established, and a warrant can be obtained. No violations of their rights. If there is not enough evidence, then you don't know if they are guilty of the crime or just have bad luck.

Appeals to nullification only work on a Jury, not a judge, and usually you can only try it in closing statements. It is a Desperation move, not an Argument.

@@c13rmusic She knew she was screwed ever since the last conference in judge's chambers. She had to hail mary it.