Real Lawyer Reacts to South Park Chewbacca Defense

– [Devin] Thanks to Skillshare for keeping Legal Eagle in the air. Learn to think like a lawyer
for free for two months by clicking the link in the dooply-doo. – I’m trying to be cool about this, but you can’t just rip people’s music off. It’s against the law. – I am above the law. (Devin chuckles) – A record company above law? I’ve never heard anything like that. (bright music) Hey, legal eagles, it’s
time to think like a lawyer, and today, we are covering
the episode of South Park that gave rise to the Chewbacca defense. This is probably one of the
most-quoted things by lawyers in the entire world. And it’s great to go
back and see the genesis of the Chewbacca defense, because my friends and
I use it all the time. – Why would a Wookiee, an
eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a
bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense. – As always, be sure to comment
in the form of an objection, which I’ll either sustain or overrule, and stick around until
the end of the video where I give the South Park Chef Aid Chewbacca defense episode a grade for legal realism. So, without further ado, let’s dig in to South Park Chef Aid. (bright music) Okay, so, the background here is that Chef wrote a song called “Stinky Britches.” ♪ You got stinky britches ♪ ♪ Stinky, stinky ♪
– What did you say? – He’s singing some new hit song. – I wrote that song 20 years ago. – And now it’s being covered
by major rock artists, including Alanis Morissette… ♪ Stinky, stinky britches ♪ ♪ Stinky britches ♪ So, because he wrote the song, he goes to the record company to ask that he be credited for having written the song. He actually doesn’t ask
for monetary compensation. He just wants a credit for
having written the song… (sighs) “Stinky Britches.” ♪ Stinky britches ♪ ♪ You got those stinky britches ♪ – So, you see, Mr. Big Record Producer, “Stinky Britches” was something
I wrote several years ago. – Hmm, I really see no resemblance between that song and “Stinky Britches” by our artist Alanis Morissette. – Huh? – It’s the same (bleep) song. – I don’t think that’s the kind of song that Alanis Morissette would write. Also, I don’t know how
people are able to determine that this is the same song, given just the two seconds of
the song that they’re playing, and it shares just, really, this lyric. I mean, presumably, this
song is exactly the same, so I think we can understand that it is supposed to be the same song, but understand that in the real world, just because the same
lyric is in multiple songs does not necessarily mean that copyright infringement has occurred. – I’m trying to be cool about this, but you can’t just rip people’s music off. It’s against the law. – I am above the law. (Devin chuckles) – A record company above the law? I’ve never heard anything like that. – Mr. Chef, I’m afraid you
leave me no alternative. We’re going to sue you. – Sue me? You stole one of my songs,
and you’re gonna sue me? – Yes. I suggest you get a real good lawyer. We’ll have the best in the business. – We’ll get my dad to be Chef’s lawyer. – Yeah, and he’s Jewish. – God. Okay, so, that might sound insane, that someone wrote a song, that a music label then copied that song, and the music label sues the person who originally wrote the song. There is, actually, a real
mechanism in real life that would allow that to happen. There’s something called
declaratory relief that allows someone, that once a controversy has occurred, to then go to court. While they’re effectively the plaintiff, really what they’re doing is saying I’m worried that this other
person is going to sue me or that there is some controversy that needs to be
adjudicated, and as a result, I’m going to take the
affirmative step of filing suit and just adjudicating this thing. So, while it might seem
crazy that the victim could be the defendant
in a law suit like this, it’s actually totally plausible that the music company might be so worried about this lawsuit that they take the affirmative step of filing suit against Chef, and the mechanism that they would be using is called declaratory relief. So, actually could happen. ♪ Stinky, stinky britches ♪ ♪ Stinky britches ♪ You know, I actually don’t think that that Alanis Morissette’s
“Stinky Britches” song sounds like the one that
Chef sang earlier on in this episode. ♪ Stinky britches ♪ ♪ You got those Stinky Britches ♪ Of course, we’ve seen in the news recently that there have been some major copyright infringement actions between songs that I don’t think sound anything like each other, and frankly I think the
juries got it wrong. For example, we saw in the “Blurred Lines” Marvin Gaye lawsuit and the Katy Perry “Dark Horse” lawsuit, both of which the juries
found for the plaintiff. I don’t think that there
is a really good reason why that should count as
copyright infringement. I’ve been meaning to do a video on this, but in the meantime, check out Adam Neely’s
videos on these subjects. He’s done a really good job
of breaking down the lawsuits from a music theory perspective, and I think my hunch is right that these lawsuits should not
have held for the plaintiff, let alone penalized the
defendants by millions of dollars. – Now, just let me do
all the talking, Chef. We’re gonna bring these (beep) down. – Right. – This court is now in session. Who is representing the defense? – I am, your honor. Gerald Broflovski. – And representing the prosecution? – I am, your honor. Johnnie Cochran. (crowd gasps) – Uh oh. – Why uh oh? – Chef, that’s Johnnie Cochran. He’s the guy who got O.J. off. – Uh-oh. – All right, so, for the
younger viewers out there, that is true, that there was a famous
lawyer named Johnnie Cochran who was the lead counsel in
the O.J. Simpson murder trial. O.J. Simpson, for those of
you that don’t remember, was a star football player and was alleged to have murdered his wife and his wife’s lover. Famously, O.J. Simpson had
many different lawyers, but the most famous and lead
counsel was Johnnie Cochran who was well-known for coming up with phrases that would be
repeated throughout the trial. When I covered the Seinfeld finale that involved a trial, they also created a
parody of Johnnie Cochran, whose name was Jackie Childs, who exhibited similar
flamboyance in court. – I am shocked and chagrined. – I think we’re going to
see a lot of some parodies of Johnnie Cochran in
this South Park trial. – And so on this 15th day
of what is considered to be the most important trial of the day, Johnnie Cochran has appeared
to defend Capitalist Records. The question now is will Cochran use his famous Chewbacca Defense? – So, famously, for some
reason, the O.J. Simpson trial, they allowed cameras
inside of the courtroom, and it just turned into this phenomenon that the entire nation was obsessed with. I actually remember in
middle school, I think. We stopped classes. We rolled in a T.V. into the classroom and we watched the verdict being read because we knew it was going
to be a historical event, and as a result, the news coverage about
the O.J. Simpson trial, and, of course, the Chef
trial in this particular case, were just insane, and there were cameras and talking heads. It was really sort of the beginning of the cable news sort of
punditry that we see today. – What’s a Chewbacca defense? – I don’t know. – That’s what Cochran used
in the O.J. Simpson trial. – (beep) I hate that Cochran guy. If he was here in front of me, I’d be like, hey! You stupid son of a (beep). (sputters incoherently) I may kick you in the nuts. – I’m sure that would scare
the hell out of him, Cartman. – Yeah, so, what Cartman has done here is a pretty good parody of what I see all the time on Twitter, which is people who
don’t have a law degree or any experience in the legal profession second-guessing seasoned professionals. – And so in summation, ladies
and gentlemen of the jury. – Oh, okay, we’re already in
summation for some reason. Apparently, the trial was the next day and we’re starting with closing arguments instead of actually
going through the trial and there is no discovery. This kind of trial would
take, conservatively, two years to get to trial,
if it even got to trial, and 99% of cases do not even get to trial. They settle or they
are dismissed early on, and they come nowhere near the
actual courtroom or a jury, so, this is very, very wrong. Very wrong. – You’ve heard the version
of my client’s song recorded over 20 years ago. You’ve heard the exact same
song produced by these cheats in the past month. I’d say it’s pretty much
an open-and-shut case. Make the right decision. Thank you. – And, you know, if you
had a very strong case and you really thought that the two songs sounded identical to each other, there’s no reason that
your closing argument needs to be particularly fancy. You could just play them back-to-back or next to each other, and that might be very
persuasive evidence. But, again, if you had a very strong case, it’s very unlikely to get to trial. That’s actually one thing that people often forget about trials is that only marginal cases go to trial, and that’s both on a civil
level and a criminal level, because it has to be a really close call, otherwise it would not get to that point in the judicial system. So, when you have an open-and-shut case, it’s gonna be dealt with long
before you ever get to trial. – Mr. Johnnie Cochran,
your closing arguments. – Ladies and gentlemen
of the supposed jury. – The supposed jury.
– The defense attorney would certainly want you
to believe that his client wrote “Stinky Britches” 10 years ago, and they make a good case. – Hell, I almost felt pity myself, but ladies and gentlemen
of this supposed jury, I have one final thing
I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee
from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. – That’s true.
– Now think about that. That does not make sense. – Dammit.
– What? – He’s using the Chewbacca Defense. – So, this is a parody of
Johnnie Cochran’s famous saying during the O.J. Simpson trial. – If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit. – Now, in the actual O.J. Simpson trial, there was a bloody glove
found at the crime scene. Both the prosecution and defense made a very big deal about
this particular bloody glove, and in one of the biggest
blunders of all-time as prosecutors, the prosecutors had O.J.
Simpson take the stand, even though he was taking the
fifth as to everything else, and they had him try on the glove. Now, they gave him plenty
of forewarning to know that he was going to
be asked to put it on, and he wore a latex glove
underneath the leather glove as he was trying to try it on, so he had to time to bulk up his hand and he had the ability to
sort of spread out his fingers and he was wearing a latex glove so as to not contaminate it. And for all of those reasons, the defense said that the
glove didn’t fit O.J. Simpson, and so the defense made
a huge deal out of this in the closing argument. And people make fun of Johnnie Cochran for this childish saying that if the glove doesn’t
fit, you must acquit. But the thing is, it sticks with you. Even now, 20 years later, we’re still talking about
this particular defense and it stuck with the jury, too. I think it’s actually
a stroke of brilliance that Johnnie Cochran
was able to capitalize on this bad fact that the prosecution misplayed their hand, no pun intended, and lo and behold, the jury did in fact find
O.J. Simpson to be not guilty. So, that is the underlying real-life thing that actually happened that gave rise to this parody version, the Chewbacca Defense. – Why would a Wookiee, an
eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a
bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense. But more importantly, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has
nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I’m a lawyer, defending
a major record company, and I’m talking about Chewbacca. – Yeah. – Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I
am not making any sense. None of this makes sense, and so you have to remember, when you’re in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the
Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and gentlemen
of this supposed jury, it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on
Endor, you must acquit. – Okay, so, there are a lot of problems with this particular theme and this parody of the
O.J. Simpson glove defense. Number one, Chewbacca, I think, was on Endor for like the Battle of Endor, and I don’t know that he
actually lives on Endor. He, you know, goes around
the galaxy with Han Solo, so I’m not even sure it’s accurate to say that Chewbacca actually lives on Endor. He’s from Kashyyyk, obviously. But, let’s put that aside and let’s focus on the actual legal issues and not the Star Wars implications. I’m sure I’m gonna get tons of comments about how I don’t even understand the Star Wars extended universe. This is just non sequitur
after non sequitur. It’s literally trying to take something that doesn’t make sense and saying, for no reason whatsoever, that if that doesn’t make sense, that this jury should not
find in favor of Chef. – The defense rests. – Okay, then. (Devin laughs) – So, yeah. Even the judge recognizes
that it’s total gibberish and makes no sense whatsoever, and just because it doesn’t make sense, that doesn’t actually give a reason for why the jury should
find for the plaintiff in this particular case. But that being said, it has made a huge mark
on lawyers in general. My friends and I will often say we are using the Chewbacca Defense or that opposing counsel is
using the Chewbacca Defense when they’re doing something that doesn’t make any sense at all. Doesn’t really work. Judges don’t like it. Juries don’t believe it, and it doesn’t work out
the way you think it would. – How find you the jury? – We find the defendant,
Jerome Chef McElroy, guilty as charged. (attendees gasp) – And that doesn’t even make any sense because this is a civil case. This is a civil case for
a declaratory relief. It’s not even a criminal case where you could find someone guilty. You can’t find someone
guilty in a civil case. You would have to have a
criminal case for that. – Mr. Chef, you’ve been found guilty of harassing a major record label. – Harassing. – The full fee of two million
dollars will be handed over within 24 hours. – Do I look like I have
two million dollars? – Well, you have 24 hours to find it or else you’ll have to go to jail for eight million years. – Also not a thing. Yeah, okay, so a number of
things are very wrong here. Number one, you can’t
sentence someone to go to jail in a civil case. You can’t find them
guilty in a civil case. What Chef was doing was
in no way harassment and wouldn’t even be grounds
for anything like that. On top of that, you wouldn’t be given a choice between going to jail and paying a huge fine, even if it was a criminal case, and frankly, this is probably
one of the biggest issues in civil law, is that if there was a judgment
for two million dollars against some poor individual who’s just a chef at a local school, they’re not going to be able to pay that, so they’d effectively be judgment proof, and they’d just file for bankruptcy and discharge the debt that is owed. – And that chair, too. I want that chair. – Hey, that’s my favorite chair! – You heard the judge. Since you lost the case, I can seize whatever I
want to pay my legal fees. Yeah, take that water cooler, too. – So, while this timeline
is totally unrealistic, what is actually realistic is, sometimes, if you have a judgment in court, you can use that to get all of the things of the person who the debt is against. Or you can get a wage garnishment so that if they have a salary, you can get a percentage, sometimes a very high percentage, of that salary in order to pay back the debt that is owed. And in order to get the court to sign off on turning over physical property, you would need something
called a writ of attachment, which is something that would happen in the months after the trial, saying that you are owed this judgment and the only way to get it is to basically take
the physical possessions of the defendant or the
plaintiff, in this case. The funny thing is, if you’re able to get
a writ of attachment, you get the sheriff of the
city or the municipality to enforce it, so law enforcement will
actually go to the house of the person against
whom you have a judgment and they will help you
take all of the things and make sure that the person
is not trying to stop you, so, presumably in this particular case, there would have been a writ of attachment and the physical goods
would have been sold to discharge the debt. It’s a real thing. – Ladies and gentlemen
of the supposed jury, you must now decide whether
or not to reverse the decision for my client Chef. I know he seems guilty,
but ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. – Okay, hold on. Before Johnnie Cochran gets into the second Chewbacca Defense, let’s think like a lawyer. (energetic rock music) There’s no such thing as a
jury reversing the decision of another jury. There’s a principle in the
law called res judicata that says once a case is determined, that’s it. It’s done. And in the case of a jury trial, you might be able to get the
appeals court to weigh in and say that there was some
defect from a legal perspective, but you would never be
able to get a second jury on exactly the same factual matter to render another factual decision. That’s absolutely not allowed at all. Once the facts are settled, they’re settled. – Now, think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a man’s life is on the line? Why? I tell you why. I don’t know. It doesn’t make sense. If Chewbacca does not make
sense, you must acquit. Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey. (man groans)
(head explodes) – Ah. It’s totally unrealistic,
but it’s really funny. Look at the silly monkey.
– Look at thee silly monkey. (bright music) – All right, now it’s time to give the South Park
Chewbacca defense episode a grade for legal realism. (gavel pounding) On the one hand, this episode
sort of hints at things that you don’t really see
in legal dramas very much like writs of attachment and declaratory relief where a defendant sues a plaintiff. That’s really cool. That doesn’t happen very often. And the Chewbacca Defense has been adopted by lawyers everywhere. We use it all the time. – On the other hand is
basically everything else. The timing is all screwed up. The second trial makes no sense at all. The legal arguments are
intentionally insane. So, I’m gonna have to give
this episode of South Park a C-minus for legal accuracy. It really needs to go
back to South Park High. (Cartman stammering incoherently) – I may kick you in the nuts. – Now, you can only get
sued by the music industry if you have a song first, so if you want to learn how
to make your own hit song that will be covered by Alanis Morissette and then be subject to a
multimillion-dollar lawsuit, you’ll first need to learn
how to mix and produce your own songs. To do that, I’d recommend
Young Guru’s Skillshare course. Learn how to mix music with DJ Young Guru. He covers everything
you could possibly want to know about making music, including organizing the mix, tweaking the levels, and adding effects. He can’t keep you from getting
sued by Capitalist Records, but he can help you make a
diss track sound awesome, awesome, awesome. Awes-awes-awesome. Awesome. Awesome, insane. – Wow, he’s good. – Skillshare is an
online learning community that has nearly 30,000
classes on everything, like music, design,
technology, and business. Legal Eagles will get two
free months of Skillshare when you click on the link below. Plus, it really helps out the channel. The free premium membership
gives you unlimited access to must-know topics, so you can improve your skills and learn new things, all free for two months, so take Young Guru’s Skillshare class and start making your
own “Stinky Britches.” ♪ Stinky britches ♪ ♪ You got stinky britches ♪ Do you agree with my grade? Leave your objections in the comments, and check out my other real
lawyer reactions over here where I will see you in court.

100 thoughts on “Real Lawyer Reacts to South Park Chewbacca Defense”

  1. Make your own [sigh] "Stinky Britches" on Skillshare! Get 2 months of unlimited learning on Skillshare for FREE:

  2. It's funny how much it seemingly pains you to say "Stinky Britches" :p Every. Single. Time.
    Stinky britches, stinky stinky britches, sing it with me 🙂 Stinky britches, stiiinky stinky britcheees, with more feeling!

  3. Objection! Chewbacca did live on one of Endor's moons (it is not clear if there is more than one) for at least the duration of the mission length of time is not specified, so it is correct to say he lived there even if it was for one night only.

  4. Objection: You CAN (de facto) send someone to jail in a civil case. At least in governmental law cases. This happened to a former customer of mine and it's quite the story.

    Governmental law in most countries safeguards stuff like planning permissions and urban planning regulations, with fines that are best described as enforcement fees. I break planning permission, city will tell me to make everything in accordance with the planning, and if I don't they will first issue a fine (tell me I will need to pay unless I stop), and secondly actually claim the fine (pay it, AND stop), to force me to comply.

    Typically people appeal at that point, and a judge rules and whether or not the enforcement fines can be collected. If they don't, for my country anyway you have to go to court to make the moneyclaim enforceable by having it approved by court.
    Just like with fines under criminal law (and unlike civil law private party moneyclaims), these enforcement fines must be paid or 'replacing custody' (being locked up to 'pay off' the fine by serving time) is the enforcing mechanism behind these fines.

    There is no 'judgment proof' in such cases because that would allow a bankrupt person to ignore all governmental laws and do whatever the hell they like. Build illegal buildings everywhere and you couldn't stop him because you can't enforce.

    My former customer built an illegal house in the spot of an already illegally placed mobile home he bought, and refused to remove it. We advised him for a bit, but withdrew after a while because he was mostly in the wrong and impossible to work with. Too stubborn, too emotional. Basically it had been there more than 20 years and it's an unenforceable illegal situation, but everything else he did and claimed was a lose.

    He refused to change anything and the city demanded an enforcement fine of € 500 per day to a maximum of € 30.000. When the maximum had been reached they went to court and won the case. My former customer refused to pay out of stubbornness and lack of money, and was then taken into custody by police, taken to prison, where he would basically stay 'serving his fine' at a rate of € 50 per day spent incarcerated.

    Yes, at € 30.000 that meant he might spend 600 days in prison, potentially. In reality after a week he begged the municipality that he would comply and if they would please reconsider, and they gave him two weeks to break the bathroom, toilet and kitchen out of his house to make it unliveable and effectively leave the premises, and give him 6 months to remove the rest of the illegal building. He agreed to these terms and was then released.

    Another variation where this could happen, is when a municipality shuts down an illegal construction taking place. This is civil law too, but if you ignore it and continue building, the enforcement action is that police arrest the infringing builders AND the person who commissioned them. While the order was issued under civil law, refusing means ending up in prison for a few days.

    Summarizing: There is a way for civil law monetary claims to end up sending someone to a prison cell, under some conditions.

    Have I mentioned I'm a terrible nitpicker?

  5. just found your channel today. This is fascinating! I am going to be following from now on to see how the judicial system that is crazy complicated applies to pop culture events.

  6. Anybody that's been in a US court knows you are presumed guilty, until you can prove your innocence beyond any doubt. You will NOT get a "fair" trial, and you can not win. The level of corruption in the US judicial system rivals third world countries, and in most cases is far worse.

  7. 7:14 Objection. The commentator is commenting on commenters
    but, thus far, there are no comments by the commentator. Thus, the commentator
    is clearly not a seasoned professional commenter and should refrain from
    commenting and only commentate. … look at the monkey.

  8. "Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca.

    Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk,

    but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor.

    – That's true. – Now think about that.

    That does not make sense."

    "Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee,
    want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks?
    That does not make sense.
    But more importantly,
    you have to ask yourself
    what does this have to do with this case?
    Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case.
    It does not make sense.
    Look at me.
    I'm a lawyer, defending a major record company,
    and I'm talking about Chewbacca."

    "Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense.
    None of this makes sense,
    and so you have to remember,
    when you're in that jury room deliberating
    and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation,
    does it make sense?
    Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury,
    it does not make sense.
    If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit."

  9. 7:30 the episodes are a half hour + commercials, i dont think people would stick around if the episode was 2 years. Lol

    I think it was just meant to be a satire on corrupt justice.

    Im subbing. I have a feeling this channel is going to be fun

  10. Youre going to jail. For 8 MILLION YEARS. Imagine being alive forever as an immortal and getting a life sentence! Id kill myself. Oh s***, i forgot

  11. Do 1 of these on Charlie and his "bird law", from Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Please
    OMG ! I just thought of another one. The Rick and Morty courtroom video.

  12. SUGGESTION: Could you possibly do a video about the Johnson and Johnson Oklahoma Opioid Trial? I heard that they used 'Public Nuisance' against Johnson and Johnson and they won over 572million$ Not sure how Pubic Nuisance works in this manner. Would be very interested in hearing your side of it!

  13. i live in Michigan and my mother, a retired patient care assistant, she just got done with a mock deposition, actual one on thursday. from what i can gather a family is saying the hospital mistreated a patient and that led to an early demise. is she obligated to participate in the deposition? She claims she was told she has to. what are her rights and responsibilities? is this just a previous employer partially relying on her for their defense? It seems like this is currently a civil matter but could easily turn criminal, but my legal training consists of only watching your videos. hopefully this is cohesive and sensible enough for a response, thank you.

  14. I'm no lawyer nor even American, but something stinks here. You state that you cant be found guilty and go to prison in a civil case. Tell me, how many men have ended up in prison after visiting Family Court? They are only 'guilty' of being broke yet Judges actually send them to jail. And thousands blow their brains out in desperation. The whole system is run by corrupt lawyers who collude with each other and the Judge to financially rape the man. Just how sick can the USA get?

  15. Objection: Sheriffs are county operatives, not city or municipality. So the sheriff would not be of the city; those would just be regular police officers.

  16. That's the great thing about America — its endless legal appeals processes.

    As for OJ being not guilty, no one ever took into account:
    1) that his son Jason was a drug user,
    2) Jason was employed as a chef, thus access to knives., and
    3) Jason's resemblance under low light to his father.

    TL,DR: Jason Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, mistaking Nicole for Faye Resnick (a fellow drug user to whom Jason had been dealing at the time, and who owed him money), and mistaking Ron for some unfortunate random dude.

    While the LAPD did indeed have Simpson DNA, keep in mind that DNA testing was in its infancy, and they could never really conclusively prove that it was 100% OJ DNA. That was one of the facts that Cochran tore open during his defense. If the DNA were re-tested today, Jason Simpson would be sitting in prison.

  17. I wish you would have mentioned that at the very least they poke fun of the flaws of a jury system in civil trials and just in general. People are very easy to influence and their bias can lead them to absurd conclusions. South Park did that well. Of course there are nuances when we talk about the purpose of a jury and whether it's a good idea to still have it around, but at the very least they've made us laugh and reflect on just how silly jury verdicts can be.

  18. Completely agree with your thoughts on the recent Katy Perry trial. I'm curious to know what you think about Markiplier and the use of his image/personality/reputation in a game without his permission. (the introduction of the particular character is at around the 1 hour 24 minute mark).

  19. Objection! This deals with the star wars cannon universe and not the extended universe as all planets mentioned were featured in the films.

  20. Projared needs a lawyer….projared has the receipts and you have the legal knowledge. This could be a power move on YouTube history.

  21. Well, I would say you are on point with your analysis, but obviously South Park is not the type of show that generally goes for realism. Some of the unrealistic things you mentioned were intentionally absurd to be funny so trying to analyse them (in relation to the real world) is kind of pointless.

  22. 6:33 – Yep. I was in 7th grade. The verdict reading was around 2pm if memory serves. Every single teacher in the school was bitter the rest of the week

  23. Chewbacca can sell them generators, televisions, electrical wiring, fuse boxes, lights, refrigerators, and etc., as they didn't seem to have anything modern. Then have a job as a TV antenna repairman because he can reach their roofs without the need of any ladder. However what does any of that have to do with music and words?

  24. Have you even read the music of the cases or had any involvement in musical composition if not what makes you an authority on the subject?

  25. Nobody was claimed to live on Endor, in the story the Ewoks lived on the moon that orbited Endor so the cartoon version of Johnny Cochran is lying what the real one would say who knew did he even give them permission to use his name, or did someone else that looks similar with the same name give them permission either?

  26. Could you do the netflix movie about Ted Bundy? I know it was an actually trial, but there were obvious exaggerations made for the film.

  27. Get on with it… I've come to the conclusion that attorneys just spell out the accusations in the case in the most informative way possible to bore you into sleep. Then, at the end of the longwinded explanation they say: "This is why this doesn't equal that." 'That' being a one to two word meaning of the case they are fighting. By this point you are willing to agree with them; just so they will stop talking.

  28. One of the jurors said that her reason for acquittal was that the prosecution made a big deal about DNA when a lot of people have the same blood type.

  29. Above all else, note the fact that supposed video helps illustrate what's wrong with this system and why we are in dyre need of justice reform. Bring the court to justice or justice to court. You know what I mean! 😉

  30. Why can they play the actual songs for jury members in some trials but not in others? I remember in the Robin Thicke Marvin Gaye estate trial, they were only allowed to show the jury sheet music from the two songs and then bring in musicologist to try to explain the differences and similarities. Is this a jurisdictional issue or are is there legal protocol in different cases for this?

  31. Ahhhh, you realize South Park is a cartoon… right? You seem very confused that the trial does not take 5 years and that they don't adhere to actual law…. its called comedy. Look into it.

  32. Have you watched any of Billions? The main characters are a billionaire hedge fund manager (Damian Lewis) and a US Attorney (Paul Giamatti) that go after each other. The attorney pulls off a couple of long strategic plays that are cool but seem far fetched to a non-lawyer like me. Could make for some good reviews.

  33. Isn't it called Double Jeopardy for being tried twice for the same crime (which isn't legal), or is that, again, only in criminal cases?

  34. objection: not only does chewbacca live on the falcon and thus not on endor, the ewoks also do not live on endor since endor is a gas planet, they live on a moon of endor. ALSO THE HOLIDAY SPECIAL DOES NOT HAPPEN ON ENDOR! IT HAPPENS ON KASHYYK, DO YOUR RESEARCH NEXT TIME.

  35. Did you really feel it was necessary to analyse the length of a fake trial… in a cartoon… for some reason?

    You mean the fake trial isn't accurate! OMG, does Matt & Trey know?

  36. I was gonna bring up Adam's video the moment you mentioned Dark Horse. Some of these recent cases have us (prospective) career musicians feeling a tad antsy…

Leave a Reply

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