I just discovered this person on YouTube, member name is LegalEagle (real first name is Devin) who is a real life lawyer, and has been doing videos discussing the accuracies (or mistakes) TV shows or movies make when featuring real legal matters.
He already has many videos up, but this video
is a good starting point, where he discusses the infamous series finale to Seinfeld.
Mod Note
There is a forum-wide ban on discussing US politics, which remains in place as long at the dedicated US Politics thread
is locked.
If a new episode goes back onto that subject (or any of the other banned topics
) then you are not allowed to discuss it. You can discuss any video about anything else, just not related to US politics.
If this becomes a problem, posts will be thumped and there may be further consequences.
We've already had to lock this thread once. If we have to lock it again, it's likely to remain locked for a very long time — and may not get unlocked at all. We'd really like to avoid that.
Edited by kory on Sep 22nd 2024 at 9:15:19 AM
Well, that's good. How many other trials are there? I remember the classified documents one (which was mentioned in this thread), but I feel like I'm missing two.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.Georgia 2020 election interference trial and the January 6th trial are the other two I can think of. There’s also a potential trial for Arizona as they’re charging some people in that case. I think Trump has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in at least one other 2020 election interference case.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe classified documents case is being delayed a lot by the Trump-friendly judge, don't expect a ruling before the election. Devin covered that a few days ago.
Figures, right? The actually quite important case about improperly handling secret documents gets delayed, while the relatively harmless fraud case gets resolved.
Though I'm not really sure either case could really harm Trump's election chances at this point.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesI've seen some political groups claiming that polls are indicating guilty verdicts will genuinely hurt him, but you know how polls are.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.Gonna remind everyone for the record that this is not the US Politics thread and thus we may not discuss the verdict against Trump until/unless Devin mentions it in a video.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The final verdict will be given on 11 June.
From the news, I understand there is not much chance he will go to jail. Only 10 percent of similar cases end in jail time, and Trump does not have a criminal record, so it would be unlikely he would go to jail since he is technically a first offender.
Then again, this case is also unique. Maybe the judge will want to set a precedent for presidents, who knows? But they may also want to play it safe with a verdict that is likelier to stick.
Edited by Redmess on May 31st 2024 at 11:15:51 AM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesDevin did a video a while back explaining how determining the sentence works. It's really complex, hence why he made a video once so he would never have to go over it again. It's the same one where he explains that the number of charges doesn't really say anything about the severity of the crime or the harshness of the punishment.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesHere is another reaction video to a legal piece of fiction, this one being Primal Fear, a key example of how exonerating someone based on insanity can be wrong sometimes.
Edited by Weirdguy149 on Jun 1st 2024 at 12:14:12 PM
The legend has returned.`The youtube version is less than half the length of the Nebula version lol.
That does come up in the movie though. The main thing is it avoids the death penalty, which the guy was on the hook for if he was found guilty.
The main issue with the movie is that no one on the defense enters an insanity defense plea, so it's just weird the judge would rule on that. Especially with only one expert sort of theorycrafting on it. Spencer goes over this (at least in the nebula cut), that the proper method would've been to request a mistrial to then re-do the trial from scratch with an insanity guilty plea, allowing the prosecution to have their own expert.
Also, IRL Dissociative Personality Dissorder is super controversial and might not actually exist. It'd be super easy to have experts strike that down if the defense even tried.
Calling the film "a key example of how exonerating someone based on insanity can be wrong sometimes." borders on Space Whale Aesop because it's so divorced from how it actually happens.
Edited by Ghilz on Jun 1st 2024 at 1:25:04 PM
![]()
It's known under a bunch of names. Dissociative Identity Disorder, Multiple Personality Disorder, etc...
It's in the DSM (though at one time so was Homosexuality so ya know) but there's a lot of controversy about if it actually exists or is caused artificially by treatment / psychiatrists "trying to find it". Research aiming to prove its existence has been plagued by bad methodology and related research in cognition tends to indicate that a personality cannot separate into independent "alters". It's also something that gets self diagnosed a whole lot coz it's dramatic and eye catching (hence its popularity in fiction).
The Other Wiki gives a decent overview of all the controversy around it.
Yeah there's alot. Though to be fair "is it its own thing or a symptom of something" is an issue that plagues alot of the DSM.
Anyway, on the topic of Legal stuff. Good movie. Even if the court room shennanigans don't make sense. Also, as they point out, the corrupt death penalty seeking DA was the good guy?
Hmm, I have a friend who claims he has Multiple Personality Disorder, but I notice the other personality only comes out when he wants to break British social decorum, that is, be uncommonly direct and blunt for a Brit (even a Scot, at that). That feels... a little convenient to me.
Never mind that people just love to self-diagnose things like that.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesWhile there are people that abuse the system, I wouldn't go so far to say that every self-diagnosed psychiatric disorder is a liar or deceiver. For one, actually obtaining a diagnosis is like pulling teeth (especially in the US healthcare system). For another, a diagnosis might not actually do much to help the patient as far as access to care or medicine. A diagnosis can also carry stigmas and consequences, like if you're autistic then you can't move to Austrailia or New Zealand (and Canada up until 2018).
Like my therapist said I'm likely on the autistic spectrum but there was little point in getting tested because I'm too old and the tests were geared more towards difficulty learning than the symptoms I experience.
I'm not saying that, but it is harmful, because it can lead to misdiagnosis and self-medication, and it can foster an attitude where professional help is rejected or avoided, with an attitude of "I already know best what's wrong with me, I don't need a professional".
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesI didn't even necessarily mean they're doing it maliciously either. I'm including the kind of people who, when they have the flu, enter their symptoms in Web MD and, even though the very first disease on the list is influenza, scroll down the list and immediately go "O MY GOD I HAVE LIVER CANCER!"
Alexander Avila, another breadtube long essay video guy in the same circles as Legal Eagle, did a big essay on the complexity of self-diagnosis for neurodivergence. I'll link it here [1]
but otherwise drop the subject since this is the Legal Eagle forum.

The fraud trial in New York related to Stormy Daniels.