South Park Legal Defense

In the episode, Cochran`s defense is successful. The jury found Chef guilty of «harassment of a major record company,» after which the judge set his sentence at a $2 million fine to be paid within 24 hours, or, if that was not possible, four years in prison (the judge first sentenced him to eight million years before being corrected by a court official). The trope is named after the South Park episode «Chef Aid,» in which Johnnie Cochran — famous for his unconventional legal tactics in defending O.J. Simpson in his famous murder trial — actually inspired this scene of his escapades in that trial, in which it was widely believed that he and his team had done so successfully. But that`s unlikely – most legal analysis of the Simpson case suggests that O.J. was acquitted because the prosecution botched the case a lot (jury selection, mishandling of DNA evidence, letting Simpson try the glove). The closest thing to Chewbacca`s defense was the repetition of his phrase: «If the glove doesn`t fit, you must acquit!» – heavy on the strategy of the «buzzword» and directly parodied by this episode of South Park – defends his client by arguing that Chewbacca does not live on Endor, although not only did no one claim that he did, But that has nothing to do with the case. He then shouts that the mere fact that he is talking about Chewbacca shows the absurdity of the procedure and the weakness of the procedure against his client. And it works! In fact, many real-life lawyers and politicians have spoken of the «Chewbacca defense,» although there have been many inaccuracies related to the South Park episode itself, as more than one attorney has pointed out.

Any attempt to confuse the jury into ruling against the law may result in the judge overturning the verdict and deciding otherwise (a «verdict independent of judgment» or JNOV). The evidence was so clear that it would not have taken a jury to clarify it. What is the legal theory at play in Chewbacca`s infamous defense? The name Chewbacca Defense comes from «Chef Aid», an episode of the American animated series South Park. The episode, which first aired on October 7, 1998, satirizes O.J. Simpson`s murder trial, particularly attorney Johnnie Cochran`s closing arguments for the defense. In the episode, Cochran bases his argument on a false premise about the 1983 film Return of the Jedi. He asks the jury why a Wookiee like Chewbacca would want to live with the much smaller Ewoks on Endor if «it doesn`t make sense». He argues that if Chewbacca lives on Endor, it doesn`t make sense — and if even mentioning Chewbacca doesn`t make sense in that case — then the jury must acquit.

Attorney Devin Stone described all the things he thought would never happen in a real case and gave the episode a «C-» for legal accuracy. [15] Longtime South Park fans may hear the phrase «Chewbacca`s defense» and know exactly what it means, but the animated series` hilarious riff may have just made its way into a real American trial for the first time. In context, Chewbacca`s defense was conducted in South Park as a stab at the late Johnnie Cochran to roast his style of speaking to a jury in court cases. In their parody, he made a detailed statement about Star Wars Chewbacca, put everything together to say, «This doesn`t make sense,» and then applied that statement to your case. While Chewbacca`s defense works for Cochran in the series, it didn`t fly in reality. Cochran`s obituary by the Associated Press cited the parody of Chewbacca`s defense as one of the ways the lawyer entered pop culture.[6] «I don`t want to sound funky, but some of you may have seen it. I think it`s an episode of South Park. And there`s a character who plays a kind of shy lawyer.

And there`s a scene where he finishes and sets up a picture of a Star Wars Wookie. And he said: He`s a wookie. What does that have to do with this case? Nothing. It doesn`t make sense. This case makes no sense. When defense lawyers objected, the court ordered jurors «to ignore these latest statements about the South Park episode.» You can watch the clip of Chewbacca Defense from South Park below. Chewbacca`s defense is any legal or propaganda strategy that attempts to overwhelm its audience with absurd arguments to confuse the public and drown out legitimate counter-arguments. It also has, intentionally or unintentionally, the effect of confusing the opponent so that he stops arguing with you.

If they`re too rude to continue the argument, the point they`re trying to argue must be just as flimsy, right? Right? The record company refused and hired Johnnie Cochran, who sued Chef for harassment. In court, Cochran is resorting to his «famous» Chewbacca defense, which he «used in the Simpson trial,» according to Chef`s attorney, Gerald Broflovski. Although Broflovski uses logic, reasoning, and the fact that Chef properly protected his work, Cochran responds with the following: Given that a defense of Chewbacca distracts and misleads, this is an example of a diversionary maneuver. It is also an example of an irrelevant conclusion, a kind of informal error where someone who makes an argument does not answer the problem in question. [1] [2] Often, counsel for the opposing party can legally contradict such arguments by declaring them irrelevant, personality-based or argumentative. Finally, a «Chef Aid» benefit concert was organized to raise money for Chef to hire Cochran for his own lawsuit against the record company. At the concert, Cochran changed his mind and offered to represent Chef pro bono. He again successfully used Chewbacca`s defense, this time to defeat the record company and force them to acknowledge the authorship of Conductor of their song. In the second use of Chewbacca`s tusk, he ends up pulling out a monkey puppet and shouting, «Here, look at the monkey.

Look at the stupid monkey! » blowing up a juror`s head. Devin J. Stone, Esq. (aka LegalEagle), a licensed attorney in DC, Maryland, Virginia, New York, and California, notes that the episode typically contains several things that would never happen in a real case and various inaccuracies (e.g., actions that would be limited to a criminal case in a civil case), giving the episode a «C-» for legal accuracy. [3] The term has also been used in political commentary; Ellis Weiner wrote in the Huffington Post that Dinesh D`Souza used Chewbacca`s defense to criticize the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, defining her as «someone asserting his claim by saying something so patently absurd that the listener`s brain stops completely.» [11] In a jury trial, a Chewbacca defense is a legal strategy in which a defense attorney attempts to confuse the jury rather than refute the prosecutor`s case. It is a deliberate distraction or obfuscation. According to Forbes, U.S. Assistant Attorney Arnold Corsmeier channeled the defense, which dates back to an episode of the second season of South Park, and used it as a rebuttal against defense attorneys for their case. The outlet reports that in a case where a man, Paul Berkins Moise, was tried for tax fraud, Moses` defense team tried to argue that the work of the «IRS agents who investigated him» was «so bad» that it should be ignored by the jury. To counter it, Corsmeier said: Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a group of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? It doesn`t make sense! But more importantly, you need to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, this has nothing to do with this matter! It doesn`t make sense! Look. Kenneally also offers methods for refuting a defense of Chewbacca.

[8] [9] Kenneally and her colleague Anjali Swienton presented this topic to the Florida state court system and the 2005 annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. [10] The book Thank You for Arguing by Jay Heinrichs states that the term «Chewbacca`s defense» «creeps into the lexicon» as another name for Red Hering`s fallacy. [12] The term was used by Paul Krugman, who wrote in the New York Times that John Taylor is using Chewbacca`s defense as what appears to be a last resort to defend his restrictive monetary policy stance, after publicly stating for years that «quantitative easing would lead to a substantial acceleration of inflation.» [13] So why use Chewbacca to deceive the jury by ignoring the copyright evidence? Neither a lawyer nor a judge should instruct or encourage jurors to exercise their power of nullity.