Thanks for having me, WIRED! (And yes, people, now I know that "petit" is French, not Latin. You are technically correct...the best kind of correct)

I was on a petit jury once and had to remind my fellow jurors that the defendant choosing not to testify didn't make them "seem guilty." Spending time on a jury and seeing just how dumb people deciding your fate can be was the single biggest deterrent to committing crime than anything else I've ever encountered.

as someone with anxiety, I have no doubt I'd look like the guiltiest person to ever walk into any courtroom.

So many people seem to always forget that defending somebody doesn't always mean proving their innocence but rather making sure that their human rights aren't violated. Regardless on if we think somebody "deserves" those rights, it's part of the law and needs to be upheld.

One of the best answers I’ve seen to “how/why would you defend a client who is clearly guilty” is to make sure the police and prosecutors follow the rules. Even if a given person is guilty, defense attorneys are there to make sure the process was followed, no corners were cut, no rules were broken, no funny business occurred. It may not make a difference for the clearly guilty client, but it’s not just about them. It’s also about the next defendant and the one after that and the one after that. The police and prosecutors must also obey the law, and someone has to put them to the test to make sure they stay honest and don’t get sloppy.

Even when he's on a completely different channel Devin still wants to see you in court.

I was in Pre-law and you cannot imagine my shock when I see this dude walk in as a guest speaker. Great guy IRL and that was a lecture I was on every word.

Thank you for that one about the fifth. I’m so sick of people saying, “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.”

Even the most heinous criminals deserve a defense, otherwise we have no legal system.

Regarding a defense lawyer: The best explanation my law professor has given me is "Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, even someone guilty. Especially someone guilty. The job of a defense lawyer is to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial."

I gotta say I appreciate how fast you blaze through your questions and answers, rat-tat-tat, then on to the next, with no unnecessary nonsense. You covered a lotta ground in 14 minutes. Thank you.

The way the 5th amendment was explained to me in school was this. It's to avoid implicating yourself in questions that have no right answer. For example, you are in no way an arsonist, but get asked this question "Did you stop lighting fires?" If you say no, because you never started, then it sound like you're still lighting fires. If you say yes, because you aren't lighting fires, then it sounds like you used to. The idea being that you could use the 5th amendment to avoid answering a question like this that is pretty much a trap.

I like how he explains the technical stuff so clearly and simply without coming off as condescending it makes it way easier to listen to what he has to say

it's frustrating when people ask why you wouldnt testify if youre innocent. anything you say can and will be spun against you, testifying opens the door for you to be cornered and to sound guilty even if you arent.

As a lawyer, I found this examplary - very good presentation. Don’t let the breakneck speed of the presentation fool you into thinking any of this was spontaneous, these are all well thought through answers. Thank you very much for this presentation.

about pleading the fifth: I remember seeing a law professor talk about how a client thought "Hey I'm innocent so I'm going to talk so I appear helpful" . He WAS innocent but what ended up happening is that because he talked about certain details they then tried to pin a different crime on him. So yeah don't talk unless you have a lawyer present

I was on a petit jury for a murder case, and up until the defendant testified before sentencing, we were probably going to give her less time than we did. She was just awful at...everything. Lied even when caught doing so, didn't seem upset by what she'd done, etc. Her lawyer failed her on that. Pleading the 5th is important. Sometimes, it's best to keep your own mouth shut.

I wish devin addressed that even the most well known “frivolous” lawsuits are actually just propaganda. If you look into many of them, such as the McDonald’s hot coffee incident, it isn’t frivolous in the slightest.

Pleading the 5th is the best thing you can do. Regardless of guilt. The police can use anything you say against you, but not to help you. So you simply misremember something you think won't matter and before you know it, you've convicted yourself.

They literally tell you why you should plead the 5th when they arrest you: "Anything you say can be used against you in court." This doesn't change if you're innocent.

The real problem with lawsuits is that you don't have to win them in order to hurt your opponent or beat him into submission. With a sufficient power/money imbalance, a plaintiff can bully a defendant with just the threat of long, expensive litigation.

I was in a civil restraining order case against a neighbor, who DID literally threaten the judge in some email correspondences. He accused her of being a drug dealer and a human trafficker. Of course those documents got brought into evidence by me very quickly.

A friend of mine works with AI in law. He's told me that some of his colleagues rely on it so much that they didn't even notice when it started referencing cases that didn't exist. So I don't think it will be replacing lawyers any time soon.

When I was on a jury for six days, not once did the judge tell us to disregard anything. What did happen was, a lawyer would ask a question, the other lawyer would object, and the judge would immediately send us back to our room. That happened several times. I got the impression that the judge was anticipating what each side was going to try, and knew when to nip it in the bud.

If I’ve learned in undergrad (not becoming a lawyer, maybe): it’s no longer about knowing every single thing, it’s about knowing how to research and interpret the things you need.

Holy crap, a crossover I never thought we’d see

EVERYONE deserves a fair trial. Because the moment you make an exception, you may have just started a chain of events leading to YOU being that exception!

One of the things I respect about lawyers is what he remarked about being careful and covering edge cases. In my years of programming, I have not once not had issues with my code handling edge cases. This is basically what lawyers do, but they can't run unit tests all day to figure out the problems before pushing it to QA.

Always love seeing Devin Stone pop up unexpectedly. He is so good at explaining the law in a way that non-specialists can easily follow. One of the best UKpostsrs out there.

"Anything you say can and will be used against you" is ESPECIALLY true in a court room. With all the people watching, prosecutors trying to get you tripped up in your own words, the fact that being on trial has drastically life changing outcomes either way, and just the general stress that comes with having your life turned upside down and inside out by the whole ordeal, I think I would always plead the fifth. Ain't no way I'm keeping my composure up there.

I was on a grand jury once and the way I remembered the difference was that a grand jury just decides if there is enough evidence that they should go to trial. The petit jury has to be convinced guilty beyond a reasonable doubt while the grand jury just has to be convinced to doubt innocence.

Regarding "knowing every law", you can think of it like another insanely complicated field like medicine. Just like doctors, lawyers like to specialize in one area. There are lawyers that can handle common legal issues, like there are General Practitioners, but if your specific problem is beyond them they will refer you to someone who specializes in that field instead. Lawyers can specialize in even seemingly overly-specific areas too, like DUI (or DWI or whatever it's called in your area) defense. Plenty of lawyers out there who handle nothing but divorce cases. Just like a doctor that specializes in disorders of the foot, or the jaw, or eyes.

10:45 "How do lawyers know all the laws" I loved your answer. I think back to words of wisdom I learned when going to school. 'School is where you learn to learn'. This professor's philosophy was that a successful student is not one that can just memorize a bunch of stuff. A successful student is one who can research and understand the information in their related field and then apply it when needed.

Holy crap! Movin' on up, Devin! Congrats on being featured on law support! 🎉

Prosecutors have one goal and it’s not to convict a guilty person, it is to convict the person who is charged.

Also about pleading the fifth: as a layman, I’d say it’s not just about being innocent; it’s about not appearing guilty. Maybe you didn’t do it, but you still were… close to the crime scene… or had an argument with a (murder) victim… or had a motive… or don’t want to reveal you cheated on your spouse… So you might look guilty while being innocent.

The fifth amendment part is really important. A prosecutor might try to make you look stupid or take things out of context, even if you did nothing wrong. It's usually best to just exercise your right to remain silent and not give them ammunition.

Another important aspect of the "How can lawyers defend people that are clearly guilty?" question is that it's very necessary to ensure that the government (meaning: the police officers that produced most, if not all of the evidence, and the prosecutor that puts it together into a legal case) hasn't broken any of the restrictions placed on it to get that evidence or made any wild interpretations of the law to twist something entirely reasonable into a crime. Even people who commit crimes still have rights that the government isn't allowed to violate to hasten the process of convicting them. The police and prosecutors are already constantly dancing on the line of what they're legally allowed to do and it's a huge part of why the justice system in the US is as broken as it is. Criminals getting off the hook while the police and the prosecutor don't get any punishment besides losing the case for taking "shortcuts" that violated the defendant's rights is the compromise the system is currently at. If there were personal legal consequences for going over the line of legality while they dance on that line, police and prosecutors would refuse to gather a lot of evidence that's within the line, and far, far more criminals would be getting off the hook for a simple lack of evidence. Legal ambiguity over how much police were even allowed to do in their investigations, and what, if any consequences there are for violating suspects rights was a big part of why there was an increasing amount of public outcry in the US during the final decades of 19th century: disorganised police forces lacking in any statewide (much less nationwide) standardisation kinda sucked at finding the perpetrators of high-profile crimes during the rapid urbanisation of the Reconstruction era and proving their suspects were actually guilty. On the other hand, if any evidence gathered became legal just because it eventually proved a criminal guilty, the fundamental philosophies behind arguments against allowing atrocious things like torture to extract confessions start falling apart: if the supreme duty of a criminal court is to sort out the facts, then what reason is there to deny the government any methods they deem necessary, no matter how invasive, to produce those facts? Not only that, but it would create a strong incentive for the government to fabricate incriminating evidence to justify any violations of the defendant's rights which they've already made that didn't produce the evidence they were expecting.

As someone who has a Perjury conviction under their belt, I can say it is absolutely enforced. I was charged with felony perjury, got it reduced to a misdemeanor and I can say it has and still does cause many many problems in my young life lmao.

People might also plead the 5th to avoid giving testimony that might hurt a relationship or their business in some way. There are a number of reasons someone might plead the 5th. Its definitely not just an easy indicator of guilt.

I took a couple law classes and also wondered about the sheer volume of laws. I was told law school doesn't teach law. It teaches you how to think like a lawyer.

Devin is so good at explaining the law in a way that's easy to understand

I love the question about objections because it gives credence to something I've always assumed about courtroom strategy. A lawyer could do or say something that they already know is going to be objected, but at that point they have already planted the idea in to the jury's mind regardless.

Need a part 2 of this series. Knowing the law is as powerful as being rich. It’ll get you out of things most people wouldn’t think about.

Give whomever finds the experts a raise 🎉 They find the best people

I never needed a lawyer until my mother passed away unexpectedly two months ago and I needed help settling her estate. Having a probate attorney has made my life so much easier 😅

"Someone accused of petty burglary shouldn't face the death penalty" You've obviously never been on Reddit.

couldn't help but smile when the issue came up because it is known some lawyers say things that they know will be objected to just to get it in a jury's head.

Thank you for pointing out that just because you lost a case doesn’t mean you’re guilty or lied! So many innocent people are locked up and guilty are free b/c people think that way.

10:50 My dad was a lawyer and would always say that you don't learn how to practice law in law school you learn how to research and understand case law.

I am so happy Devon got on WIRED Support. I really want to see him in action one day. Is there a way we can see this Legal Eagle having his own reality show or making content where we can see him in the court room?

I have wondered about several of these questions. Thanks for giving them a shot!

ONE word when you get arrested by Cops: "LAWYER." NEVER volunteer information to a cop. They are trained to get you to self incriminate before you have your lawyer present, and that testimony IS admissable. DO NOT SELF SNITCH.

9:00 I once read a sentence by a Spanish Court on a serial killer in which they complimented the defense lawyer for his profesionality, as he had given the best defense he could despite having overwhelming evidence against his client.

@LegalEagle you're doing such a huge service to the public and helping with access to justice. Bravo.

I actually love these!! I learn so much! Any time they bring a professional of any kind ( mortician, layer etc) i always go away more enlighten

Where he mentioned the fact that no lawyer knows EVERY LAW and must do research is a major point to discuss. Its why corporations and the uber rich have law FIRMS on retainer and not individual practicing lawyers(They'll have a representative they speak with but the entire firm works for them). The ability to have essentially an ARMY of researchers to find ways to get you out of legal trouble is VERY powerful protection to have. Our own government prosecutors are outnumbered by these guys, and they in turn have an advantage over public defenders who have to do hundreds of cases a week. Its literally a pay2win system. Something that hopefully as A.I. improves, will get marginally better for the little guy.

I thought of going into law while I was in school and took a couple law classes. I had a professor who was a former defense lawyer. He defended robbers, thieves even one murderer. He was asked how he defended some people where evidence was overwhelming that his client was guilty. He simply said he always saw it as defending the persons rights. No matter how overwhelming the evidence, the accused still have rights until a conviction is determined. He ended by saying if people have a problem with that they could take it up with our forefathers and the constitution.

I love how he'd get really enthusiastic and start talking with his hands and the scales on the statue of Justicia would start shaking.

I want a round 2 of this! This was so good!

The threatening the judge question sounds like something a sovereign citizen would do lol

Also: Many frivolous cases are actually not that frivolous once you really look into their technicalities -- they just seem that way because media articles really love to highlight odd aspects of the case.

I remember when I sat on a jury for a personal injury case, the judge told us that if we thought a witness was being untruthful we could disregard their entire testimony. Which is exactly what I and at least a few other jurors did. I don't think perjury would even apply in that instance? Especially since we're talking about the line between "gross exaggeration" and "outright lies"

Because of my diagnosed severe social anxiety disorder, I would literally not be able to testify. I would not be able to get any words out of my mouth, I'd probably just hyperventilate (wouldn't matter if I knew I was innocent). So yeah, there's reasons to do everything you can not to end up on the stand.

The innocent 5th amendment answer leaves out some potential bias issues too. You could have an accent, or speech impediment that even though you are innocent and say that you are, the jury could look down on you through no fault of your own.

I don't remember where I saw it, but I remember once seeing a Lawyer answer that question - the one about "how do you go about defending someone you know is guilty/liable?" And they said something to the effect of, "You make yourself be ok with it by presenting their case as best you can, and knowing that no matter the outcome, whether a guilty/liable verdict is passed or not, the trial happened fairly, and there will be no case for a mistrial."

"what constitues a chicken" honestly i would have thought that is obvious but now that i think about it...

The best way I ever had someone describe the guilty question to me is by saying "I'm not just defending the rights of the guilty but also of the innocent that have been accused of something they haven't committed. I defend the guilty person's rights in order to defend the yours". Really put it in perspective

Well done. Good answers. Pleading the 5th could also be done, I imagine, bc you don’t want to reveal something which isn’t illegal but embarrassing, say, or perhaps disadvantageous to your career/business.

Our boy has hit the bigtime! Ive been waiting for legal support forever!

Great to see Legal Eagle on Tech Support 👍 Huge fan of both!

Wow this was super enlightening. Do it again please!

Love to see Devin finally featured on WIRED!!

Keeping up-to-date with rulings can be key too. I saw a case the other day where a man got out of a citation for leaving his car running on his own property while he was cleaning ice off it (in violation of a city ordinance) but his attorney had found an appellate court case decided only a few months before his court appearance, where the appellate court had ruled that that ordinance violated the state constitution on some issue regarding private property versus public spaces. Either way, his lawyer convinced the judge the cases were similar enough that stare decisis should apply and the defendant was acquitted. Was this a life or death matter? No. It was a $500 fine or something like that, but the point is that by keeping current with the state's appellate and supreme court decisions, the attorney was able to save his client an undue fine.

13:34 was something i've always wondered thank you!

Oh my goodness, I am so glad to see you here, Devon! ❤ it!

Awesome!! I've been subscribed to this guy for quite a while now. I love the clear and relatively concise breakdowns he does! Good booking, Wired!

Next up: saul goodman

This video was really interesting. I learnt quite a lot. Thanks 🙂.

I've never seen any of Devin's videos, but GAHT DAYUM! I love hearing him talk!

11:10 like I often say -- an expert is not someone who knows every answer, an expert is someone who's been taught how to find the right questions.

1 week after my 18th birthday, I got called for grand jury. I had to go to court for 2 days each week for 4 months. As much as I loved being a part of the legal process, I pretty much ruined my summer before college. On the plus side, I couldn't be called for any other type of jury for a long time after that.

thank you so much Wired for choosing those questions, they are very good and interesting ones

Great questions and answers! 👍🏼

No way!! I never thought I'd see this collaboration! Hype

Everything about this man is so Lawyer-y

I really liked his argument for the statute of limitations question, it really changed my opinion on the topic

8:08 oh my god,,, my aunt is a lawyer and she has a fantastic story about this that her law professor related as it had happened to him a few years before she had him. They were covering some sort of civil case (I think) in which the key question was “what is chicken” or something along those lines. On the day when they were discussing this in class, one student stands up and says “this case is ridiculous. I know what a chicken is! *This* is a chicken!” and pulls a live chicken out of his bag that he purchased at a market that morning. He released the chicken and the classroom descended into chaos Unbeknownst to that student, that was the day the professor was being reviewed by the university for continuing tenure 😬 Luckily they did in fact get it and the student was super apologetic when he realized what he’d done. Alls well that ends well!

I've been subbed to Devin for a good few years but I didn't know he was a law professor. Makes sense though, he does a great job making such a dense subject so digestible and approachable.

I like that they called it law support and not legal support, since this is not, in fact, legal advice.

Thanx, Devin and WIRED. Please do this again. Cheers.

Awesome term learned today: virtuous cycle. After reading what that was, that's an excellent descriptor for a lot of things I argue about.

2:10 The first jury summons I ever received was for a grand jury. I did not know much about our legal system before then. Sitting on grand jury for two weeks was one of the most informative experiences for me in my life. Also depressing. 50/50.

Great answers! Of note, no contest vs. guilty can make a difference as to whether you can have arrests sealed/expunged in some jurisdictions.

An example as to why statue of limitations things exist: If you're going to be accused of fraud, you might have documents proving your innocence. It would be an undue burden to force everyone to preserve every document they ever receive, so the statute of limitations allows you to throw away sufficiently old stuff.

I'm absolutely loving this series

One of my favorites of the Support vids. Love Devin’s explanations and love his channel. I hope he does more of these.

Please do more of these. I could listen to them all day.

8:06 - "What constitutes a chicken?" All I know is, don't ask Diogenes.

Devin, I have been enjoying watching your videos on your channel. Thank you for breaking law down, in a good way. lol.