Real Lawyer Reacts to the Exorcism of Emily Rose – Demons or Negligence?

Real Lawyer Reacts to the Exorcism of Emily Rose – Demons or Negligence?


100 Replies to “Real Lawyer Reacts to the Exorcism of Emily Rose – Demons or Negligence?

  1. Watch out for the INDOCHINO GHOST who will save you a SCARY amount on TERRIFYINGLY good-looking suit: https://bit.ly/2IeeB8W

  2. for those interested, here the case on which the movie is based (it happened in germany and the desastrous outcome led to exorcisms more or less being no longer performed (at least officially) in germany)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anneliese_Michel

    PS: the sentence, while harsher in real life, was still extremely soft for the crime.

  3. Objection!

    You should really review the film "Law Abiding Citizen". It deals with both court procedure but deals made between defendants and prosecutors.

  4. I would love to see your reaction to the Trail of Tim Heidecker. It's a bigger time investment so i wouldnt expect you to react to the whole 4 hours, but at least parts of it. The whole thing is on youtube. Please please react to some of it

  5. Next video should be "Revenge of the Nerds" and what laws were broken.
    What sentence would you render if you were presiding Judge?

  6. Foreperson: "We recommend a sentence of time served"
    Eagle: "That is not correct"
    Judge: "I'll accept that"
    Everyone on Earth that's not ridiculous: "LOL"

  7. Not an objection, but could you consider taking a look at the courtroom scene from Big Eyes? It's a great movie with a very unusual legal situation at the end to cap it off.

  8. I despise being a guy who suggests crap because so many do it. But it’d be pretty funny to see him do Idiocracy, which intentionally has a stupid trial that makes no sense. Nuff said

  9. Still love to see Rake, Australian version. The main character is based on a real Sydney lawyer. 1st ep has Hugo Weaving as a cannibal, you know you want it.

  10. This movie really could have been a great one. It could have been presented as a court room procedural, giving the facts as they were known (maybe with speculation outside of the court room) and ultimately left it up to the audience whether or not they believed the titular character was the victim of negligence or if she was the subject of demonic possession. Instead, unfortunately, the movie pushes the pseudo-spiritual narrative and completely ignored almost all the fact of the real life case, including the fact that the Catholic church officially agreed with the real life doctors and did not condone the exorcism performed by the priest.

  11. Objection! Ghosts are real legally speaking, see the case of Stambovsky v. Ackley in 1991, aka "The Ghostbusters ruling".

  12. So which is worse manslaughter or negligent homicide? I mean the priest a had no intent for her to die in fact he wanted her to live but she died because of his professional neglect according to the law. So which is a worse decision manslaughter which is the unintentional death of another , Or negligent homicide would seem to be the same thing almost.

  13. Other than a lack of proper objections from him, it seems like the prosecutor did everything right while the defense, judge and jury did not.

  14. 9:30 Every time she is in a movie, anything she says always sounds so endearing and pleasant no matter how the dialogue is like.

  15. Objection: Is the LegalEagle an expert on the supernatural? Can he authoritatively assert that there is no such thing as ghosts?

  16. Authentication makes sense but how could a video be hearsay? IANAL but sounds like the law is behind the times by about a century. So here is a video of my neighbor Bob in my house stealing and that is hearsay but his friend testifying that he was with him at the bar is ok? This kind of think is why a lot of people don't have faith in the legal system.

  17. You'd think this case would be a fairly easy win for the Defence – Possession is nine tenths of the law, after all 😉

  18. I'd love to see a react for 'The Man Who Sued God' from 2001. It's more of a comedy basis than a serious take on law i reckon, but i'd still love to see your react on it, would also give an opportunity to say how ridiculous suing God is, which will be a chuckle!

  19. As always, great work: love your personality and the quality of your videos. Since we're approaching its 58th anniversary, I'd like to ask you if you could get Judgement at Nuremburg lawyered (my favourite "trial" movie alongside Inherit the Wind, of which I'd also love one of your videos).
    Thank you for your attention and for all the education and entertainment you provide; cheers from Italy!

  20. HOW HAVE YOU NOT DONE FRACTURE YET?!?!?! It’s on Netflix AND ITS AMAZING!!! I think you would LOVE IT!!!!

  21. Objection: 13:54. The audio tape was a recording made by a medical professional in the execution of his duties. The tape should be considered part of the medical record of the victim.

  22. There is an old saying "A picture can speak 1000 words." So 2000 words worth of pictures, as opposed to yelling at the jury until their face turns blue, sounds more efficient.

  23. Objection!
    "I have in my possession a letter, written by the person I'm accused of killing with my negligence on the day before they died, saying it wasn't my fault. This is the first anyone's hearing of it despite months of lead-up to the trial. Please allow this completely legitimate document into evidence."
    I'm not a judge, but I find it hard to believe a judge would just accept that as valid evidence under such highly suspicious circumstances.

  24. The prosecution would eat these defense clowns for breakfast. Vincent Bugliosi would have stood up, reminded the jury that America, in spite of appearances otherwise, is not a Christer theocracy, and because of that, when we assert something we have to prove it. You as jurors are obligated to understand the rules of what constitutes evidence, and what is merely some mentally slow individual crying "the devil made me do it". In other words, the principles of democracy compel you to lock this asshat priest up and throw away the key.

    I hate religionist films almost as much as I hate religionists. Their moaning that they are persecuted? Well, a not guilty in a case like this one would be absolute and incontrovertible evidence that they are not. It would, in fact, prove them to be privileged.

  25. Ugh I really wanted to hear more about "time served."
    It blew me away when I saw the film and I've been curious about it ever since.
    I was hoping our host would talk in depth about it.

  26. #Objection! In her opening statement, the defense attorney didn't say that it was caused by a demon. She said that they believed it was, but, to the jury, she said that all the priest did was to help a girl, after the doctors failed with her. In my understanding, it is like when a patient is no longer responding to a treatment of cancer, stop the medication, because it's no longer helping and try to look to alternative medicines, like herbs or teas. So, the attorney is not trying to prove that demons exist (at least in her opening statement), but that Emily was in a point of no return and would die, even if the priest did nothing.

    After that, the specialty of the defense specialist was not to say that demons exist, but the belief that you are under demonic possession could cause physiological and very real symptoms that are, in fact psychosomatic, but not less true, so I guess that, even though she went that way, her knowledge is very important in that discussion.

    Sorry for the bad English, by the way.

  27. Note that the "real Emily Rose" was exorcised not once but 67 times. Guess it wasn't that effective. That's what they don't tell you about so-called "real" exorcism, it's not something you do once, its months or even years of regular abuse.

  28. I've mentioned this before, but I'd still really love to see you do Philadelphia. It really is great, and I'm curious about the legal realism of such a public (in the film) case.

  29. Objection.
    Unless this happened outside of the USA, religious freedom applies. The victim and defendant were behaving within the realm of their religious beliefs. The victim even asked for this "negligent homicide", being of sound mind when she decided upon doing it. It's the same illogic that allows the Church of Scientology and other cults get away with much of what they do.

  30. can you do the movie "shooting from the hip" with Judd nelson, its from 1987.. I always remember a hammer scene when he smashes the bench with a hammer..

  31. Hey there LegalEagle, love your vids, (also, great job on the effects and spoopiness in this episode). I know you've already done a video on Better Call Saul, but could you please do another one? Specifically the episode that shows Jimmy McGill's disbarment hearing, and how accurate that hearing was portrayed. It's season 3, episode 5, titled "Chicanery." I think it would make for a fantastic episode of your show. Thanks for reading!

  32. Objection: you completely glossed over the prosecutor and his improper questions, his stating opinions as facts to the jury and injecting his own mockery of defense witnesses in the presence of the jury. Hang your head in shame Devin…lower….LOWER!!! 🙂

  33. #Counselor #Lawyer
    As far as establishing a credible witness, a doctor in this case; What is it called when the defense would muddy the water and/or smearing the individual being questioned in front of the jury, subsequently disproving the credibility of the witness giving the testimony?

  34. " I object, your honor! This trial is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham." The Court scene in Woody Allen's, "Bananas" would be fun.

  35. Is perspective playing tricks on me or does Devin have huge hands????

    Let’s hope the POTUS doesn’t see these videos or he might send him off to Syria, Ukraine or somming, out of sheer hand envy.

  36. OBJECTION: The D.A.'s father met the Ghosts of Jacob Marley, Christmas Past, Christmas Present, and Christmas Yet to Come; and his mother was in The Dead Zone.

  37. I've never seen any man nor eagle go from relief to disappointment as fast as when LegalEagle heard the silliness objection

  38. Objection! Demon possesion is actually proved, as is existence of superpowers, therefore you can use spiritual arguments and experts to prove fact of demon possesion. There are many well documented cases of real miracles, especially in cathlic church. One example is the disappearnece of few kilogram tumor within a night from a human being. Happaned many times. unexplainable by science – proof of superpower existence.

  39. Objection: not only should the prosecution have spent more time laying the foundation of their experts credentials, but also had them explain what the procedures he used (Electroencephalograph) was and how that (The possible epileptic focus in left temporal lobe) is relevant to his medical diagnoses. He should have had him explain the medication (Gambutrol) and why he selected it. Most jury's would not have the background knowledge to know what any of these are.

  40. OBJECTION: You really need to macho that intro dude up. Give him a proper beard, remove the suit and put on some swimpants with the scales of justice on the bulge. Keep the tie.

  41. Objection: More of a question than an objection, I get that its improper for the jury to recommend a sentencing, but why is the sentencing of time served improper? Is it only improper because the jury recommended it? If the judge made such a sentencing would it be improper?

  42. Objection: just because you personally do not believe in the supernatural, it doesn’t mean the supernatural doesn’t exist. Case in point: there are plenty of people around the world that don’t believe in science despite the evidence and yet science still exists.

Leave a Reply

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