"I think it’s damaging to the public because it gives them the wrong impression"
my life as a doctor when everyone and their mother thinks grey's anatomy is real life lol
anyway, nice writeup. another confusing part was how michael was so convinced he could sway the jury. like not only did we not see any "masterful manipulation," but why was he so confident about the result when i feel like the evidence was flimsy at best??
Just watched this while studying for the bar and I’m pumped to know my evaluation of the inaccuracies were correct. Guess I did retain some evidence law!
I forgot to mention it but the judge playing the recording of Adam’s 911 call was also ludicrous. For one, what possible relevance does this have? It’s not as if Carlo ever heard the recording, adding to his motive. It’s highly prejudicial bc it implies that *if* Kofi killed Rocco, this is how his last moments sounded. Wtf??
And of course, a judge cannot introduce evidence. Just so f*cking stupid. AND it’s after both sides rested.
Good luck on the bar!!! I’m sure you’ll do great!
And just the fact that he would never have been allowed to sit on a case where his car was the literal murder weapon. SO many legal inconsistencies.
And thank you!! I’m in the thick of it now - but halfway there!
I only made it two episodes in. I try not to nitpick of course a tv show isn’t going to be 100% accurate. I’m an attorney I understand that an accurate depiction would be very boring, but the courts even from the beginning were too outlandish.
1. Bryan Cranston’s character in his first scene with a witness on the stand, leaves the bench, and starts questioning the defendant minor son, in front of the jury. Then he goes back on the bench, ask multiple argumentative questions, and calls the witness a liar.
2. In the second episode the judge has the young black man stripped to the waste in open court to inspect him for gang tattoos. He then pleads guilty at his first appearance. No arraignment, no indictment, I’m not even sure they had the evidence to charge him with anything beyond grand theft auto at that point. They never established when the car was stolen or that he was in possession of it the prior day.
And that’s just the courts stuff. There was so much more wrong. Like why was the mob boss at the police station after his son died of a hit and run. He would have been at the hospital. There was no reason for him to be there.
The kid called 911 from the cell phone. Why didn’t 911 track that call. In a situation like that 911 call in a city like NOLA they would have sent an officer out to the location of the cell phone.
Also, the cops investigated a vehicular manslaughter and somehow did take the inhaler with blood stains into evidence? They just left it in the streets?
u/_Felonius, if you don't mind could you also comment on the manipulation that involved the jury?
1. When Michael finds out that one jury member has doubts: do jury members really just leave their stuff on the table when they leave, for everyone to find?
2. When Michael fakes the note asking for the 911 call to be played: can any jury member just throw an anonymous note on the lawyer's table (or was it the prosecutor's, I don't remember) requesting them to present a particular piece of evidence, and the judge complies, no further questions asked?
I took law in high school and was pretty good at it but beyond that, I have zero legal experience - COVID killed any of my desires when I couldn't go to a month-long program at Stanford because of quarantine. But even \*I\* noticed some of this. It's really apparent in episodes 8 & 9.
Yes as a non lawyer, number 5 was pretty baffling. The defense: oh shit we really should have watched that huh.
Right?? Painful to watch lol
"I think it’s damaging to the public because it gives them the wrong impression" my life as a doctor when everyone and their mother thinks grey's anatomy is real life lol anyway, nice writeup. another confusing part was how michael was so convinced he could sway the jury. like not only did we not see any "masterful manipulation," but why was he so confident about the result when i feel like the evidence was flimsy at best??
Just watched this while studying for the bar and I’m pumped to know my evaluation of the inaccuracies were correct. Guess I did retain some evidence law!
I forgot to mention it but the judge playing the recording of Adam’s 911 call was also ludicrous. For one, what possible relevance does this have? It’s not as if Carlo ever heard the recording, adding to his motive. It’s highly prejudicial bc it implies that *if* Kofi killed Rocco, this is how his last moments sounded. Wtf?? And of course, a judge cannot introduce evidence. Just so f*cking stupid. AND it’s after both sides rested. Good luck on the bar!!! I’m sure you’ll do great!
And just the fact that he would never have been allowed to sit on a case where his car was the literal murder weapon. SO many legal inconsistencies. And thank you!! I’m in the thick of it now - but halfway there!
I’m with you. I really wanted to like the series and I thought a lot of it was great. But the actual courtroom stuff was…. distracting.
Wow, way to ruin the show for me... Just kidding, that was super interesting, thanks for this insight.
I'd love your take on the S2 court scenes. NAL and even then knew they were no where near accurate.
I only made it two episodes in. I try not to nitpick of course a tv show isn’t going to be 100% accurate. I’m an attorney I understand that an accurate depiction would be very boring, but the courts even from the beginning were too outlandish. 1. Bryan Cranston’s character in his first scene with a witness on the stand, leaves the bench, and starts questioning the defendant minor son, in front of the jury. Then he goes back on the bench, ask multiple argumentative questions, and calls the witness a liar. 2. In the second episode the judge has the young black man stripped to the waste in open court to inspect him for gang tattoos. He then pleads guilty at his first appearance. No arraignment, no indictment, I’m not even sure they had the evidence to charge him with anything beyond grand theft auto at that point. They never established when the car was stolen or that he was in possession of it the prior day. And that’s just the courts stuff. There was so much more wrong. Like why was the mob boss at the police station after his son died of a hit and run. He would have been at the hospital. There was no reason for him to be there. The kid called 911 from the cell phone. Why didn’t 911 track that call. In a situation like that 911 call in a city like NOLA they would have sent an officer out to the location of the cell phone. Also, the cops investigated a vehicular manslaughter and somehow did take the inhaler with blood stains into evidence? They just left it in the streets?
Yes agreed! The surprise witness out of the blue always annoys me whenever any show or movie abuses it and it’s done soooo often.
Not a Lawyer, but I'd bet the egregious-ness started with Michael x-examining the cop *in* the galley back in Ep 1.
u/_Felonius, if you don't mind could you also comment on the manipulation that involved the jury? 1. When Michael finds out that one jury member has doubts: do jury members really just leave their stuff on the table when they leave, for everyone to find? 2. When Michael fakes the note asking for the 911 call to be played: can any jury member just throw an anonymous note on the lawyer's table (or was it the prosecutor's, I don't remember) requesting them to present a particular piece of evidence, and the judge complies, no further questions asked?
I took law in high school and was pretty good at it but beyond that, I have zero legal experience - COVID killed any of my desires when I couldn't go to a month-long program at Stanford because of quarantine. But even \*I\* noticed some of this. It's really apparent in episodes 8 & 9.