I know a bench trial wouldn’t happen from a Good Semaritan violation, but (in general) are prosecutors allowed to bring in witnesses attesting to a defendents’ lack of character?
There were a lot of legal errors made in the “Seinfeld” finale. I’d list and detail them but that would take a lot of time. Of course, keep in mind Larry David and the other “Seinfeld” writers are not attorneys. You don’t watch “Seinfeld” to get a grasp on how the rules of law operate in society.
First of all, their whole concept of the “Good Samaritan law” was backwards. A Good Samaritan law protects someone who tries to help and inadvertently causes some kind of harm. It doesn’t require people to help.
Even by TV’s messed up view of the legal system, that episode was bad.
Read a little more at Wikipedia:
And that’s just the law they were charged with breaking and its punishment. Throw in the ridiculous line of “witnesses”, etc., and it gets stupid beyond belief. (And they put a woman in a cell with 3 men. Right.) One of the more infamous big let down series finales.
(The clip show that preceded it was considered the highlight of the night. When a clip show is better than your finale, you goofed big time.)
it’s a comedy show guys not a documentary on the legal system
You guys do recall other court cases in the series, right? They were pretty realistic, with golf caddies acting as impromptu legal counsel, and braless women wowing the court? And Kramer and Jackie Chiles taking on anybody and everybody and Kramer torpedoing Jackie’s efforts every time with lame-brained settlements?
You have got to be kidding about not doing the research.
Actually, if you want strong research in a sit-com courtroom scene, see the third episode of Season 3 Trailer Park Boys, when Ricky convinces the judge that he should be allowed to smoke and swear during his appearance, because it’s the only way he can think correctly and ensure that he defends himself as well as possible: “If I can’t smoke and swear, I’m fucked!”
Yes, but generally only if the defense first “opens the door” by presenting its own character witnesses.
Eh, fiction writers have been getting court cases & legal systems wrong since Shylock was forcibly converted to Christianity.
There was also that episode when George visited a hospital only to have his car badly damaged when a mental patient jumped out of a window and landed on it. George asked the hospital administrator if they could pay for repairing or replacing his car only for the administrator to almost throw him out the window for having the audacity to ask them for compensation. In real life, George would’ve filed a property damage claim with the hospital that would’ve likely led to a payment made through their insurance carrier. However, if worse came to worst and the hospital refused to pay him any money, George’s case was strong enough that he could’ve successfully sued the hospital for property damage. (Of course, that’s all rather dull and prosaic so it really wouldn’t be good comedy fodder.)
No, some states do have Good Samaritan laws that not only protect those who choose to assist somebody but also require bystanders to assist people in some circumstances.
The Vermont Good Samaritan Act, for example, states “A person who knows another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others.”
I always figured that episode was a dream George had after watching an OZ marathon.
Halfway though Newman boasts the Jerry that he’ll “soon reveal himself in all his Glory”, and I immediately realized that they are in Hell, and Newman is the Devil. Newman however never subsequently did anything remotely of the sort, which makes me think that they originally had this kind of twist in mind, but then dropped it. Damned shame as that would have been in perfect keeping with the series’ tone, and would have explained a lot actually, in retrospect, and in addition would have been a lot better than the lame ending we actually did get.
I think that might’ve been the original plan but it was changed due to rampant speculation among fans that in the final episode, the four main characters would die and be judged for their sins in the afterlife.
The biggest problem with the episode is that all those people should have been witnesses for the defense. Every time Jerry, or one of the others, tried to help somebody, they wound up destroying their life. The best thing that ever happened to that mugging victim was when the Gang of Four left him alone.
Yeah, when we watched the entire series through again a couple years ago, it struck me that, for people so often thought of as sociopathic that It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia has been called their spiritual successor, they were spending a whole lot of time trying to do the right thing, as in “What’s the proper kind of present to bring to a party? I can’t just bring Pepsi and Ring-Dings?” or “I have to go out with the gymnast how many times instead of just dumping her right away?” or “I promised to help my friend and by George I’m going to do it, even if it means mugging an old lady for her marble rye!”
What always struck me about the finale is since the gang did catch the crime on tape, including, I think, the mugger’s face, they actually did help the victim inasmuch as it’d be that much easier to identify and prosecute the mugger.
If I’d written the finale, the defense lawyer would have contacted all the witnesses and they would have refused to help, out of spite and revenge, and Jerry, et al., would have been convicted. So the one time they do something right, staying out of things and getting the mugger’s face on tape, they would have gone to jail for it.
But if you wreck someone’s car and have no insurance, the judge can still sentence you to be that person’s butler. Right?
Unfortunately, the finale failed there too.
I can’t believe Larry David came back to the show to write that finale episode. The Seinfeld reunion episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm were great, but I guess it’s not a fair comparison.
I’m not a particular fan of Seinfeld so I’ve missed a lot of episodes. But I think it’s debatable that they were trying to help everyone whose life they screwed up.
People they were trying to hurt:
Mabel Choate - Jerry stole a loaf of bread from her
Donald Sanger - had a fight with George that led to his house burning down
Lola - George did take her handicapped parking space. Kramer and George did subsequently buy her another wheelchair but they bought her a discount one.
Sidra Holland - testified that Jerry and Elaine conspired to feel her up. The actual incident was an accident but Jerry and Elaine had been conspiring.
Joe Bookman - Jerry had forgotten to return the library book
Robin - testified how George panicked over a kitchen fire
Mall Security Guard - testified about catching Jerry urinating in a parking garage
Leslie - testified that Jerry made fun of the shirt she had given him which hurt her design business
Yev Kassem - Elaine revealed all his recipes and forced him out of business
People that they were trying to neither help nor hurt:
Dr. Wilcox - testified that George was happy about Susan’s death
Marla Penny - testified about the masturbation contest
the Detective - mistakenly assumed Kramer was a pimp
George Steinbrenner - mistakenly thought George was a Communist
Marcelino - argued with Jerry over a bad check which he refused to stop displaying
the Pharmacist - testified that Elaine bought a lot of birth control
Fred - testified that Elaine once exposed a nipple on a Christmas card
Justin Pitt - mistakenly thought Elaine tried to kill him
People they were trying to help:
Babu Bhatt - Jerry gave him sincere but ill-advised advice about his restaurant and helped him get a job and apartment but inadvertently lost his mail