Skip to main content
Loading Explore guides…
Court Case Analysis · Acedra
Home
Explore
Law
Court Case Analysis
Sign in to save
Chat
If YouTube asks you to sign in, open the video on YouTube.
Watch on YouTube
Reload player
Transcript
69 segments
Copy
Hide video
0:00
I'm Devon Stone, practicing lawyer, adjunct law professor, and host of the Legal Eagle Law Channel, and I'm here today to answer your questions from the internet. This is Law Support, but it is not legal [Music] advice. A Reddit user asks, "Is there a chance with a jury trial Luigi gets a not-uilty verdict?" I would say in this particular case regarding Luigi Manion, he has a better than average chance. Now, that chance is still very, very low given what seems like mountains of
0:28
evidence. Right now, Mr. Mr. Manion is represented by a very capable criminal defense lawyer, Karen Freriedman Agnilo. So far, his attorneys have moved to exclude some of the evidence that was found on his person when he was arrested in Pennsylvania. That includes a 3D printed gun, some writings in a notebook, as well as a fake ID. Mr. Manion got a lot of press and a lot of people seem to be upset with the state of healthcare in this country. As a result, it's possible the jury can do
0:52
something called nullification. That is, the jury could recognize that given the facts and the state of the law, this person is guilty of the crime that they are accused of, but they simply refuse to find them guilty and instead acquit them of the charge. Z gentleman asks, "Are public defenders actually bad at their job or are the people they have to deal with just usually screwed?" Public defenders are doing some really, really thankless work. It's the prosecutors
1:16
that get all the glory, putting away criminals, but it's the public defenders that are ensuring that everyone is represented. If you are accused of a crime, I think even most public defenders would agree that most of the people that they represent are probably guilty of something, which means that there's probably going to be overwhelming evidence because prosecutors probably not going to want to go to trial unless they have certainty that they're going to stand a
1:39
good chance of getting a conviction, which means that the public defenders, even when they're doing a fantastic job, they probably have the deck stacked against them. Wannabe Canadian 17 asks, "Explain like I'm five the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony." Well, this one's super easy. A misdemeanor is generally any crime that can be punished with less than one year in jail and or fines. And a felony is any crime that can be punished by more than a year in jail. Hermes Mora IRL
2:05
asks, "Deep fakes and the law. How do we prevent deep fakes from making video evidence worthless?" So far, it hasn't been too much of a problem because, believe it or not, there's a whole system that controls what evidence makes it into trial and what doesn't. And part of the rules of evidence includes chain of custody and authentication. So just because there is a video of something doesn't mean that it automatically comes into court. You've got to go through a
2:24
whole bunch of hoops to establish for the court that it's something that can be relied on. And in the case of video evidence, that's often considered hearsay. Hearsay, of course being come on, let's all say it together. An out of court statement used for the truth of the matter asserted. Often video evidence does get to come in, but you have to establish that it's reliable. And if there is a dispute about the authenticity, then there might be experts testifying that this particular
2:46
video evidence is a deep fake or this particular evidence is not a deep fake. The system isn't perfect, but so far it's doing a pretty good job even when technology is getting really scary. What I'm assuming is kids hit stuff asks is what the Doge doing actually legal? Man, I don't even know if Doge is legal at this point. Doge started as what was supposed to be a new uh department or agency within the executive branch. But the administration quickly found out that only Congress can create a new
3:14
department. What they did is they turned the old US digital service which had been created during the Obama administration into what we now know as Doge. And the problem is that the current Trump administration not only keeps saying different things about what Doge is doing, they also keep lying to the judges about what is actually in fact happening. The president keeps saying that Elon Musk is in charge of Doge. In court, they keep saying that other people and definitely not Elon
3:38
Musk are the ones in charge. So, we really don't have an org chart for the department itself at this point. But at this point, Elon Musk is acting like an officer of the executive branch. And an officer needs to be confirmed by the Senate, which he definitely has not been at this point. It also would make him subject to a bunch of conflict of interest laws that he doesn't appear to be complying with. The bottom line is some of what they're doing is probably
4:00
legal and a lot of what they're doing is probably illegal and it's going to take a while to sort all of that out. A very suspiciously username deleted says, "What actually happens if the police don't read you your rights? Does it help your case at all?" Well, it actually can. Cops hate this one weird trick. The Constitution requires that the police when you are taken into a custodial interrogation read you your Miranda rightites. This comes from a very famous
4:23
Supreme Court case called Miranda versus Arizona. And by custodial, I mean an interaction with the police where a reasonable person would not believe that they were free to leave that interaction. So if you happen to have confessed to the police about a particular crime during this interaction, then that confession will probably not be allowed into evidence. Now, that doesn't mean that the police and the district attorneys can't prosecute you. They just can't use those
4:46
particular statements. A Reddit user asks, "Are crypto pump and dumps illegal?" So a classic pump and dump is what is depicted in the movie The Wolf of Wall Street. You have a bunch of brokers who know that a stock is basically worthless, but they tell a bunch of people that it's the best, hottest new stock, drive up the value so that they can sell all the shares that they have that otherwise would have been worthless, get their bag, leaving their clients out in the cold. And that is
5:11
happening a lot right now with cryptoreated assets, whether it's an NFT, whether it's a memecoin. There are so many people out there who are offering no value whatsoever. They are hyping up, for example, their coin of choice simply to get some greater fool to buy into it so that they can sell their holdings and make out like a bandit. This is what people call a rugpool. If the crypto asset is considered a security, then it would almost certainly be considered
5:37
securities fraud under the Securities and Exchange Act. But whether it's a security or not is currently up for debate. And given that our current president and first lady launched memecoins to the tune of billions and billions of dollars right before they took office, I don't think we're going to see a crackdown on crypto assets anytime soon. Blizzard Vortex asks, "What's up with the Mayor Eric Adams prosecutors resigning instead of just charging him?" This is one of the
6:01
craziest and darkest days with the Department of Justice that we've seen probably since Watergate. Mayor Eric Adams was charged with all number of bribery and corruption allegations. He was accused of taking thousands of dollars of free plane rides and hotels from the Turkish government as well as getting millions of dollars in matching funds from the city of New York for his campaign for mayor, which he was arguably not entitled to. And he was being prosecuted by the Department of
6:29
Justice. Before President Trump took office for the second time, Mayor Adams started changing his tune about the kinds of policies that he was going to implement in the city of New York. And then shortly after President Trump took office, his deputy attorney general, Emil Bo, issued a very strange memorandum that said that while he wasn't making a judgment call about the accuracy or propriety of what the prosecutors had done, because the prosecution had been politicized and
6:54
because it was interfering with Mayor Adams ability to effectuate the policy preferences of President Trump, they were going to drop the prosecution. And they weren't just going to drop the prosecution. They were going to drop it without prejudice, meaning that they could refile those charges later on. That's not how the justice system is supposed to work. You are supposed to prosecute criminals without fear or favor for what they can do. The lead prosecutor, the acting US attorney for
7:18
the Southern District of New York, refused to move forward and resigned instead. Seven to eight other attorneys also resigned rather than move forward with this incredibly craven and corrupt decision from the acting deputy attorney general back in 1987 asks is it true that 60 to 70% of wrongful convictions are due to eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony despite having this reputation as being the absolute gold standard for evidence in court is surprisingly fallible. I mean think
7:49
about it. What did you have for breakfast 8 days ago? or um what color are my eyes? Often prosecutors are asking people to remember things that happened weeks or months ago or sometimes even years ago. So, it's not surprising that often eyewitnesses get things absolutely wrong. A study by the Innocence Project says that about 70% of wrongful convictions where DNA evidence was used to exonerate someone involved eyewitness misidentification. Prince K845 asks, "Can Trump really rename the
8:17
Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America?" Well, he can certainly try. The president can arguably define geographical names for the purposes of the federal government, but nobody else outside of the federal government needs to comply. So, if you're outside of the federal government, you can call it whatever you want. Some companies chose to capitulate. Google and Apple both label the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America in their various map apps. And some companies like the Associated Press
8:42
made a conscious decision to call it the Gulf of Mexico and not call it the Gulf of America. And because no good deed goes unpunished, the Trump administration, when they saw the AP style guide, kick the AP out of the White House press pool. Local concern asks, what is the point of multiple life sentences when there is no possibility of parole? Well, there's a couple concerns. Uh, one is symbolic if someone, let's say, commits multiple homicides. You want to have a punishment
9:07
that reflects the severity of the crime that they have committed. But also, there are some pragmatic considerations. Let's say there are multiple homicides involved in a single case. You might imagine that with respect to one of those homicides or murders, let's say it gets overturned. If they were only convicted of a single life sentence, they might go free. But if they are convicted of multiple life sentences, then they'll still be serving time in jail regardless of what happens to one
9:34
of those particular charges. At US Culti asks, "Serious question for lawyers, please. How is breaking into the capital resulting in misdemeanor for these J6 criminals? Would breaking into a military base or embassy or any other restricted government building always be a misdemeanor too? Not understanding. There were about 1,600 people who were arrested in connection with the riots inside of the capital. There were probably many more people associated with that riot. But one of the problems
9:57
was that there just weren't simply enough police officers to arrest all of those people. But of those 1600, about 700 or so were convicted of misdemeanor or those people just simply plead guilty to misdemeanor. And there's a lot of reasons why some people would get misdemeanors and some people would be convicted or plead guilty to a felony. A lot of it depends on the severity of the actions they took on that day. Absolutely anyone who was convicted of assaulting a police officer would have
10:25
received a felony. But some people obviously didn't break down any doors. They didn't put their feet up on Nancy Pelosy's desk. And under those circumstances, they might be guilty of a bare misdemeanor of trespass in a federal building. And apart from the legality of everything, there's also pragmatic reasons why the US Attorney's Office might want to get rid of a lot of the cases just simply on a misdemeanor basis. It probably conserves resources to just get them to plead to a
10:51
misdemeanor and then they can focus their time on the people who engaged in things like sedicious conspiracy and uh treason. Though all the prosecutions were for not because, as you probably know, all 1600 people in connection with the January 6 riots got a pardon which wiped out the convictions entirely. Well, a handful of people like Stuart Rhodess, the founder of the Oathkeepers, received a commutation which leaves the conviction intact but simply reduces his
11:15
sentence. At Danny Pick 6, why did I just hear about the Menendez brothers? I don't think they should be in jail. The Menendez brothers captivated the attention of America really in the same way that the OJ Simpson trial did. It was a national phenomenon in part because of the severity of the crime, the nature of the accused, two very very wealthy brothers, and also the fact that they received two trials. In the first trial, they had a hung jury, so the jury could not come to a conclusion as to
11:42
whether they were guilty or not. And during the second trial, a lot of the evidence of their abuse at the hands of their father uh did not make it into the courtroom. Now, interestingly, under a 2018 law that was passed in California because the Menendez brothers were under the age of 26 when they committed these homicides, they are arguably eligible for parole. So, there's going to be a hearing on whether they are eligible and whether they can be released coming up
12:08
soon. A Reddit user asks, "Is the death penalty unconstitutional?" Well, uh, it depends. There are a lot of people who believe that under the text of the Constitution, it is always considered a cruel and unusual punishment. But right now, the Supreme Court says that the death penalty is constitutional. In a 1972 case called Ferman versus Georgia, the Supreme Court established that the death penalty can be considered cruel and unusual punishment in violation of
12:32
the ETH amendment if the penalty is too severe for the crime that is established. So in the US, you could never have a death penalty for shoplifting, for example. And that case resulted in a 4-year moratorium on the use of a death penalty. that in 1976 the Supreme Court established that under some circumstances and probably under most circumstances the death penalty is allowed under the eth amendment and it's not necessarily cruel and unusual punishment. Demon Denise asks explain
12:57
like I'm five the difference between civil and criminal court. If someone commits a crime against you, they might be prosecuted by the state that is a criminal offense and they might go to jail as a result of that offense. But if you're the victim, you probably aren't getting any compensation back from the person who committed this crime against you. So, you need a vehicle to receive compensation to make you whole for damages that happened as a result of someone's actions. And that's what the
13:22
civil court is for. At Eugi Bear 1 asks, "Bro, but I don't get it. Why pardon the creator of Silk Road, aing drug trafficking site? Why? Trafficking drugs is not legal. How could getting him out of jail be a good or fair idea?" Well, the reason he's out of jail is because he supported President Trump's campaign. Now, the difference between Ross Albertch and Mexican drug lords, I will let you draw your own conclusions. Whether it's a good idea, that never entered into the equation. Dquarles
13:48
asks, "How many folks beat RICO charges? Add Young Thug to the list. Just recuse the judge in the case I smell #mistrial." Maybe that tweet was a little bit premature because eventually Young Thug did plead to crimes related to the trial that he was being prosecuted for. Now, the Young Thug trial was fascinating for many different reasons. It was filed under the Georgia version of RICO, which is not exactly the same as federal RICO charges. RICO on the federal level was created as a
14:18
vehicle to convict people who the prosecutors would have had a really hard time convicting under traditional criminal laws. These are people like mafia heads who are issuing multiple sets of orders that get filtered down to the people who are actually doing the dirty work. That RICO trial was the longest criminal trial in Georgia history. It went on for years and years. And there's a saying among prosecutors, you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. Meaning that you might
14:44
ultimately win at trial, but the process that you're going to go through is going to be excruciating. And there's some things that Young Thug could have been convicted of where he would have spent less time in jail than he did just simply waiting for the trial to conclude. But the RICO trial of Young Thug took a bunch of twists and turns. At one point, the judge had to recuse himself because he was having exarty communications with the prosecutors, meaning that he was communicating with
15:09
the prosecutors in chambers without defense council being present, which is absolutely a no- no. Anything that happens in a criminal trial, both sides need to be present. So, eventually he recused himself. A new judge came in and things wrapped up pretty quickly, but it was an absolute mess. Sus Scroa asks, "What exactly is so difficult about the bar exam?" Oh, yeah. What's so difficult about learning all of American law in the span of about 8 to 10 weeks during a
15:37
time when you don't have a job and you're not getting paid? And whether you pass or fail defines whether you can actually practice law, which is the vocation that you've chosen, and you've gone to law school for three years and probably incurred, I don't know, $200 to $300,000 in debt for. Yeah, that doesn't sound difficult at all. Mimshot asks, "Change my view. If I'm not guilty, I want to be tried by a judge rather than a jury." Most people don't realize that
16:01
if you are being charged with a crime, you almost always have the option to be tried by a judge instead of a jury. Some people believe that if you have a really complicated technical case, a patent case involving technology, or maybe a securities related case, you'd want a judge because the common thinking is that the judge is going to be able to understand more complex topics. That's not always the case. Sometimes people believe that if you have a really emotional case, you'll want the jury
16:29
because they are more easily swayable. That's also not always the case. It's definitely not always one or the other. Band me here asks, "Is AI art trained on stolen art or is it fair use?" There are a ton of cases that are looking to answer that exact question. In general, copyright law protects artists from other people just reusing the art that they created. But there are exceptions to that. And the big one is considered fair use, where there are some circumstances where people are allowed
16:56
to use that underlying art without asking for permission. The classic example on YouTube is a reaction video. There are some cases from the early 2000s, a lot of them involving Google, where Google did things that some people characterized as copyright infringement. In one of the cases, for example, uh Google was creating a huge database of lots of images that were on the internet. And when people would search for images on the Google search engine, Google would show a thumbnail of that
17:22
image. That arguably could be considered copyright infringement. But the court allowed Google to do this under a fair use analysis because it's really helpful for people to be able to have a thumbnail of an image without having to go to the website and see the the full resolution image. And a lot of people are arguing that what AI is doing is very similar to that and that there are similar pro-social reasons why we should allow it. And then on the other side,
17:46
you have a lot of people arguing that unlike the Google case, AI is coming through, training itself on all of this original art and then creating bad art that is uh replacing the original art itself. So, you have a lot of vested interests on this and both sides are arguing it out in court right now. Stormlight 82 asks, "Do sovereign citizen defenses ever work?" I'm not aware of a single sovereign citizen ever being successful. There are these people that argue that under some ridiculous
18:14
interpretation of the Constitution, they are not bound by the laws of the United States. They often say that they are passing through an area and therefore they're not considered drivers with respect to driving laws. If that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. It seems to be becoming more popular. Now, I've been in court when I've seen people try to pull this stuff in front of a judge, and the judges will just simply not put up with this. Gios asks, "To what extent
18:38
are Mr. beast illegal lottery is actually illegal. A lottery is in general illegal in the United States. We sometimes forget that because lots of states have a state sponsored lottery, which means that they had to have a carveout in the law that says we're the state, we're allowed to do a lottery that would otherwise be illegal if an individual did it. But an individual can get around this by running a sweep stakes, which is something that looks like a lottery, but it allows someone to
19:02
participate for free or by doing something that doesn't have much hardship associated with it. And it seems like back in the day, Mr. Beast along with a lot of YouTubers was running basically a lottery where someone had to actually make a a purchase to participate in it. If there is no free or nearly free option, it will be considered an illegal lottery. But I don't think this is going to be something like a felony. If they are prosecuted for it, it would be a very
19:28
small slap on the wrist. Moment M on YT asks, "High school student, I'm not allowed to sit for the pledge despite being in a public school and despite having warned multiple staff." Well, that's a big no no. One of the foundational cases on the First Amendment for both freedom of speech and also freedom of religion is West Virginia versus Barnett that established in 1943 that individual students can't be compelled to participate in the flag salute. So, while this is not legal
19:55
advice, if you're not going to talk to a lawyer, maybe you can go online and print out that particular case and show it to your teacher and your principal because they should not be forcing you to participate in the pledge of allegiance. Shellshot 321 asks, "Why is double jeopardy a thing, especially if evidence can be brought forward after the trial?" Well, the founders were very concerned about a practice that was going on in continental Europe before and at the time of the founding of this
20:17
country. Some countries allowed for multiple prosecutions in Syrial. If the crown or the state was unable to get a prosecution the first time, they would just simply refile the same charges and keep doing it until the person ran out of resources. So, the founders included the prohibition against double jeopardy to prevent being charged with the same crime multiple times. If you are acquitted by a jury, you cannot then be reprosecuted by that same sovereign.
20:44
Now, there are quasi exceptions to this. Sometimes if you are acquitted on a federal level, the states can sometimes file charges over the same conduct, but for the most part, once you're acquitted, that's it. You get to go home forever. Marvel man 1788 asks, "Can the president of the United States pardon himself?" That's open for debate. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the president quote shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United
21:09
States except in cases of impeachment. Now, that doesn't include an exception for the president pardoning themsel. It simply says the president has the pardon power regarding offenses against the United States, which means the president can pardon infractions of federal law, but not state law. And there is an exception for cases of impeachment. Now, some people say that that means that the president cannot pardon themsel if they are being impeached for that particular
21:34
offense. And since some people argue that the only thing that can be done to a president is impeach them, the president can never pardon themselves for any particular crime. And while a self-pardon has never been tested in court, the Office of Legal Counsel, which is the part of the Department of Justice that examines things for constitutionality, they wrote a a memo saying that the president did not have the power to self-pardon, but OLC memos do not have the force of law. So, until
21:57
the Supreme Court weighs in on this particular question, we'll never know for sure. Mark 1373 asks, "Under the Second Amendment, can you openly carry a bomb, mortar, or even a nuclear bomb as your arms? Why or why not?" Well, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now, still to this day, the
22:19
Supreme Court hasn't worked out all the limitations on the rights that this Second Amendment confers on individuals at this point. Now, certainly, there are a lot of people who have argued that the kinds of arms that are covered by the Second Amendment should be the ones that are analogous to the ones that the founders of the Constitution had at the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment. And there are lots of people that argue that people should be allowed
22:38
to have basically anything that would be helpful in overthrowing a tyrannical government. And they look to the priatory language of the Second Amendment that says that it exists for the purpose of having a well-regulated militia. And there were certainly a lot of people that argued that that same language about a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state meant that this was never supposed to be an individual right for citizens in the first place. But at this
22:59
point, I don't know that there is a satisfying definition of arms that would allow handguns and rifles. but not allow bombs and mortars and nuclear bombs. We'll see what the Supreme Court comes up with. The Darkest Charizard asks, "Why exactly can't felons vote?" Well, whether you can vote as a convicted felon depends on the particular state that you're in. Some states say that if you're convicted of a felony, you can never vote again. Others say that you can only not vote while you are
23:23
currently serving your punishment as a felon. And some states say you absolutely can still vote. I happen to think that if you have served the punishment for your crime, you have served your debt to society. and thus you should be able to participate in the voting process again. Mythic Mango asks, "Why are social media companies responsible for the content their users post?" Well, actually, it's basically the other way around. Almost all social media companies are not responsible for
23:49
the content that their users post and the reason is twofold. One is the first amendment and the second is a law called section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 says that if you have a website or a platform, generally speaking, you are not responsible for the content that another person posts. So, for example, if someone uploads a video that engages in copyright infringement, YouTube is generally not responsible for that. Or if you're buying something on Craigslist
24:17
and someone puts a fraudulent post up there, Craigslist isn't responsible for that fraudulent post. And section 230 is one of the fundamental laws that allows the internet to be what it is. If every website was responsible for every single post that a user created, there probably wouldn't be platforms as we understand them today. So, one of the other important factors of section 230 is that it allows platforms to remove offensive or violent or uh spam content from their
24:46
platforms without taking on ownership of that particular speech. And if those kind of protections were removed, you'd basically see platforms either engaging in no filtering and removal at all, or it would engage in so much filtering that there would barely be anything on there at all. At Bartool, Syria asks, "Can someone show me the law that says doxing is illegal?" Doxing, generally speaking, revealing information about a particular individual is not itself per
25:12
se illegal, but there are other laws that it can run a foul of. There are harassment and stalking laws. This often comes up in the context of social media platforms where there might be something in the terms of service that says even though doxing itself might not be illegal, we think it's, you know, kind of a dick move. So, we're not going to allow users to do it. And if you do do it, we might kick you off the platform. So, even if doxing itself isn't illegal,
25:36
you might get kicked off the platform if you engage in it. Jay Weller 12 asks, "Would aliens from other planets have legal basic human rights?" So, there's a couple different ways to think about this. In the US, generally animals are considered cattle property, meaning they don't have human rights in and of themselves. In some European countries, more intelligent animals do have some rights that are bordering on humanlike rights, like the greater apes, for example. But I think a lot of people
26:01
would argue that a space fairing intelligence should be considered analogous to humans and therefore receive basically the same thing as human rights. But I think the more important question is if you have a species that's so intelligent that they can travel through space and visit us on Earth, what rights are they going to give humans? Sharp cgrapher 831 asks, "Can AI be blamed for a teen suicide?" That's a really interesting question and it probably depends on what you mean by
26:27
blamed. Now, there was a very famous case involving two humans where a young woman was found guilty for basically encouraging the suicide of her boyfriend. Under those circumstances, that young woman was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and that was upheld on appeal. That being said, I'm not sure an AI algorithm could be held to a criminal standard in that respect. So, you'd have to look to the programmers and the people running the company. If, for example, there's a
26:53
defect found in the program, or they're found to have created a negligent product that they didn't uphold the industry standards that they should have, then it's possible that they might be found civily liable. And this has come up recently in the AI context because in 2024 a young boy in Florida developed a relationship with a character.ai chatbot that eventually encouraged him to commit suicide and he followed through with it. Gip gip on that tip. If you shoot someone cuz they
27:20
invaded your house and they die, will you still go to jail for murder? Generally speaking, it depends on what state you're in because some states have what's called the castle doctrine, which generally allows the use of deadly force for someone that has trespassed on your property itself. And it also depends on whether the state has a duty to retreat or not. Some states require you to retreat if you are reasonably able to do so before you are privileged to use deadly force against someone.
27:45
Consideration real 995 asks, "Why does every state have its own laws?" That's because the United States, at least when it was originally founded, was a very loose amalgam of different sovereigns. The founders were concerned that a very strong federal government would act like a king. And so they made sure that all 13 states uh retained a fair amount of power. And each state has what's called plenary authority. Now, over time, the federal government became more powerful.
28:11
But generally speaking, because the founders wanted to make sure that the states weren't trading one tyrant for another, they made sure that the states were able to exercise their own sovereign authority. A Reddit user asks, "What are some laws you think every American should know about?" I think the two most important ones are the First Amendment allows you to speak your mind, but remember that just because you have the right to freedom of expression, when
28:33
you do exercise that freedom, the first amendment does not protect you from the consequences of saying something really, really stupid. But remember, if you do exercise those First Amendment rights and the police come around asking you questions, you also have a right under the fifth amendment to shut the up. So that's all the questions and I'm going to exercise my own fifth amendment rights to shut up. And until next time, I will see you in court. [Music]
Here to help you learn
Sign in to keep a private conversation with your course tutor.
Ask me anything about the material…
Sign in to chat