Last Updated on July 2, 2024
In one of the most famous season finales in television history, George, Elaine, Jerry, and Kramer are all charged under a “Good Samaritan Law” for watching someone get carjacked and failing to offer assistance. But over 25 years later, countless fans still wonder if the Latham, Massachusetts Good Samaritan law in Seinfeld even exists. If so, could the gang actually be convicted for doing nothing? It’s time to find out.
Is the Good Samaritan Law in Seinfeld Real?
While there are plenty of Good Samaritan laws on the books, these do not involve interfering with criminal activity but instead with helping injured persons. These laws are written not to force persons to help but to protect those who assist those in need from civil litigation. For example, in a state with a law of this type, someone could not be sued if they broke an unconscious person’s rib while attempting CPR.
The so-called Good Samaritan law in Seinfeld was actually what is known as a “Duty to Rescue” law.
Does Latham, Massachusetts Have a Good Samaritan Law?
At the time of the finale, the US only had a handful of Duty to Rescue laws. While the small town of Latham, Massachusetts is real, they did not have a Duty to Rescue law when this episode was made.
Notably, Massachusetts does have a Good Samaritan law. However, this only shelters those who help injured people from lawsuits and does not require anyone to help a crime victim.
Could the Seinfeld Gang Really go to Jail for Doing Nothing?
Even if you put the cast in modern-day California, where there is a Duty to Rescue Law, they could still only be found guilty if they failed to report the murder or rape of someone under 14. The state does have strict reporting regulations for those who observe child or elder abuse, but only if those persons happen to be what the state considers “mandatory reporters” of these crimes because they work in places such as nursing homes, doctor’s offices, therapy centers, or schools.
Though some states have Duty to Rescue laws that allow someone to be charged with a misdemeanor for failing to report a violent crime, even then, the laws do not require someone to put themselves in danger to do so. But even then, the laws do not require someone to put themselves in danger to do so. Being as how the carjacker in the show had a gun, the group would not be legally required to intervene to stop the crime.
Even the arresting officer says Good Samaritan law requires people to help or assist anyone in danger “as long as it’s reasonable to do so.” Even the strictest prosecuting attorney in the nation would agree that it is not reasonable to expect a stranger to interfere with someone holding a firearm. Asking someone to do so would be a blatant violation of an individual’s constitutional right to life as it would mean putting their own safety at risk to help someone else.
On the other hand, Jerry could still be accused of failing to help the victim by not calling the police with his cell phone. However, an attorney could defend the group by explaining that they did not want to attract the carjacker’s attention by calling the police while an armed man was nearby.
Collecting Evidence is Helpful
Duty to Rescue laws do not specify that you need to call the police while witnessing someone committing a violent crime, only that you need to report the incident. While the gang may not have called the police while the carjacker robbed someone, they did videotape the encounter, which could provide invaluable evidence should he get caught.
Whether or not they belittled the victim during the crime, the characters could not be charged with violating the law just because they chose to film the incident instead of immediately calling the police. The officer who arrested them did not give them sufficient time to make such a call. And a good attorney would still be able to argue that, realistically, even if they did call 9-11 as the crime occurred, it still would not have helped the victim as the police would still have to find and chase the offender.
What About the Police Officer Who Did Nothing?
When you watch the scene, it’s evident that aside from the carjacker, the one person who should be punished is the police officer who believed his time would be better spent arresting innocent, evidence-collecting bystanders rather than trying to catch an armed criminal.
The Case Would Surely be Appealed
Aside from the unconstitutionality of the law that got them sent to jail, the trial seen in “The Finale” is such a mess there’s no way the main characters would be convicted. Perhaps the biggest problem is the number of character witnesses brought to testify against Jerry, Elaine, Kramer, and George. While it’s true that the defense and prosecution may present a witness to help establish a defendant’s character, the prosecution cannot introduce witnesses to undermine the defendant’s morality until the defense first presents a character witness to testify on the integrity of their client.
Additionally, it would be considered a waste of the court’s time to present so many character witnesses, and much of their testimony could be ruled inadmissible on the grounds of irrelevancy or hearsay.
Perhaps Jerry and the rest brought their unfortunate conviction upon themselves though by hiring one of the worst lawyers around to defend themselves.
Of course, no one wants to be found guilty for merely doing nothing, so if you ever find yourself being accused of failing to do something, like when Jerry Seinfeld and his friends were arrested for violating a wrongly named Duty to Rescue law, please call (760) 643-4050 to schedule a free initial consultation with Peter M. Liss to discuss how to fight the charges against you.
Like this article? Then check out our post on the series finale of Curb Your Enthusiasm.
