This is a pretty great video that really contrasts what hollywood depicts the legal system to be and how it is in actuality. As you can tell the legal system is pretty mechanical and procedure heavy, it developed this way due to how law evolved here in the US versus the common law system that the UK uses.

The one thing that bugs me is when he explains the difference in the civil and criminal cases burden of proof. In civil, the standard to win a case is "preponderance of the evidence" which means more than likely, or better yet 51% sure its that way. In criminal law, the standard to convict is "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is the highest legal standard in the court system as criminal law deals with personal liberty while civil system handles $$$$$$$.

What he explains incorrectly is trying to define "beyond a reasonable doubt" with a percentage. In fact there is no clear cut definition of what "beyond a reasonable doubt". You take it by the definition of the words that make up that standard. It basically asks that if you had to judge someone, you ask yourself with the evidence presented and the elements of the crime given to me, do I (a) have a doubt, (b) is it reasonable, and (c) does it go to an element that the State has to prove.

Basically a common sense standard, does the evidence positively show that each element of the crime??

I loved watching legal shows growing up like Boston Legal, the Practice, and Law & Order and its spin offs. As far as movies, the movie that got me interested in being a trial lawyer is Rules of Engagement and then of course LOVED the underrated movie "The Judge with Robert Downey Jr. and Robert Duval.

If it ain't criminal minds don't