Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
WendyCR72

S01.E04: A View From The Bus

Recommended Posts

To air on October 14, 2019:

Quote

When a jury's field trip to a crime scene takes a dramatic turn, Judge Lola Carmichael must determine if the trip she granted helped the defendant or biased the jury. Also, Mark is ready to take down a reputed crime boss, but discovers it's more complicated after he learns that a cop may have tampered with the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post

This show is starting to frustrated me. I am really liking the characters but hating all the shenanigans that happen in the main cases. Judge Carmichael continually makes bad decisions and is saved by unrealistic circumstances. I know that juries do occasionally travel to the scene but if this was an accurate representation I don’t understand how it would ever be allowed. All the attorneys, the judge and the jury riding on the same bus. The jury was brought out to the bus just in time to see the handcuffed defendant loaded into a car. On the bus the defense attorney and the court reporter are openly discussing the case, the jury and the prosecutor within feet of the jury. Even without the active shooter situation it was a mess. But the jury somehow came to the right verdict so apparently all is forgiven.

Then you have her decision not to expose the corrupt cop ending up biting Mark in the ass.

I do like that they are expanding Reggie Lee’s role since he was one of my favorites on Grimm. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know how Carmichael got to be a judge.  Mark and Lopez would make better judges.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, TigerLynx said:

I don't know how Carmichael got to be a judge.  Mark and Lopez would make better judges.

Simple, she knows somebody who knows Gov Newsom

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Dani said:

This show is starting to frustrated me. I am really liking the characters but hating all the shenanigans that happen in the main cases.

I feel the same way.  I keep hoping the show improves with regards to the courtroom stuff but so far, no dice.  In the meantime, I'd settle for more time spent on the Lola/Mark friendship but their scenes are too brief and too few that I'm not sure it's worth putting up with the rest.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I thought that the jury demonstration was going to be a bust, in that some on the jury said they heard the gun shots, and there would start this huge debate about if the conditions really matched the conditions of the night in question or if jury members were suggestible and convinced themselves they heard the shots because they were prejudiced by the location or having seen the defendant in cuffs.  I expected an interesting series of courtroom arguments, even after the whole "active shooter" incident.  But that didn't happen.  There were the jury interviews, a quick dismissal of two of the jurors, and that was it. 

I think Mark and Lola's friendship is going to be a real issue later on.  They're really not being all that sneaky.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

This show wasn't what I expected. It really does have a more ABC show vibe. Trouble is, those shows annoy me. LOL! And this seems to be following suit. Lola hardly seems impartial, IMO, as someone in her position should be.

I'll keep watching for now...but I'm not sure just for how long.

Share this post


Link to post

I like that this show seems committed to happy endings. Sure, it takes the suspense out, but I watch tv to have a good time!

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Dani said:

This show is starting to frustrated me. I am really liking the characters but hating all the shenanigans that happen in the main cases. Judge Carmichael continually makes bad decisions and is saved by unrealistic circumstances. I know that juries do occasionally travel to the scene but if this was an accurate representation I don’t understand how it would ever be allowed. All the attorneys, the judge and the jury riding on the same bus. The jury was brought out to the bus just in time to see the handcuffed defendant loaded into a car. On the bus the defense attorney and the court reporter are openly discussing the case, the jury and the prosecutor within feet of the jury. Even without the active shooter situation it was a mess. But the jury somehow came to the right verdict so apparently all is forgiven.

The inaccuracies don't bother me on the this show anymore than they do on every other show that I watch. It's pretty par for course for legal dramas, cop shows, and medical dramas to have a lot of procedural inaccuracies. I'm willing to roll with it in exchange for good character development, feel good endings, and a timely message on our justice system.

18 hours ago, TigerLynx said:

Mark and Lopez would make better judges.

IMO, Lopez would not be better as a judge. Although, she's gotten better, she was pretty much a mess as a public defender in the first episode. She needs to walk first, then she can learn how to run. 

ETA:

I like Judge Carmichael's comments to the bailiff about becoming a prosecutor instead of a defense attorney. She had a great point.

I also like how both Mark and Judge Carmichael's bosses aren't blocking their attempts pursue justice. They push back when necessary, and give tough criticism, but they appear to be equally interested in seeing justice done, even if they know it makes their job 10x harder. It's nice for all of the main characters to be good guys.

Edited by piccadilly83
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, piccadilly83 said:

IMO, Lopez would not be better as a judge. Although, she's gotten better, she was pretty much a mess as a public defender in the first episode. She needs to walk first, then she can learn how to run. 

I didn't say Lopez would make a good judge.  I said she would be better than Carmichael because Carmichael is a lousy judge.  Mark and Lopez are actually doing their jobs.  Mark refused to use tainted evidence, and Lopez represents her client's interests instead of taking every plea deal that comes along.  Carmichael is horrible at her job.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TigerLynx said:

I didn't say Lopez would make a good judge.  I said she would be better than Carmichael because Carmichael is a lousy judge.  Mark and Lopez are actually doing their jobs.  Mark refused to use tainted evidence, and Lopez represents her client's interests instead of taking every plea deal that comes along.  Carmichael is horrible at her job.

I don't see Carmichael as a lousy judge. An unconventional judge? Yes. A realistic judge? No. But it seems to me her end goal is ensuring that justice is served, which so far she has managed to do in every case that has appeared in her court.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, piccadilly83 said:

I don't see Carmichael as a lousy judge. An unconventional judge? Yes. A realistic judge? No. But it seems to me her end goal is ensuring that justice is served, which so far she has managed to do in every case that has appeared in her court.

No, she hasn't.  Carmichael has gotten lucky that her dumbass rulings haven't come back to bite her, and the defendants, in the ass.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, TigerLynx said:

No, she hasn't.  Carmichael has gotten lucky that her dumbass rulings haven't come back to bite her, and the defendants, in the ass.

And Mark, as an officer of the court, got lucky that his dad didn't file a police report after Mark decided to physically assault him in public. And Lopez has gotten lucky with the million and one mulligans Judge Carmichael has given her over these past four episodes. Without any of those I don't see how Lopez could have won any of her cases. Also, Mark got lucky when his whole Jedi mind trick thing worked on that defendant from an episode or two back. A defendant that smart, with a whole case locked up the way he had it, would not have fallen for that trick.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, piccadilly83 said:

And Lopez has gotten lucky with the million and one mulligans Judge Carmichael has given her over these past four episodes.

Which is another reason Carmichael is horrible at her job.  Carmichael is the judge.  She is not supposed to give the defense or the prosecution what they want.  She is supposed to rule based on the law.  Carmichael is not supposed to be having ex-parte conversations with defendants, or letting them testify dressed up as an avatar.  As the judge, Carmichael is supposed to keep the courtroom from turning into a three ring circus.  Not make the ridiculousness happen.

Lopez is supposed to zealousy defend her client.  If what she suggests is out of bounds, Carmichael shouldn't indulge her.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, TigerLynx said:

No, she hasn't.  Carmichael has gotten lucky that her dumbass rulings haven't come back to bite her, and the defendants, in the ass.

This is my biggest problem. The outcomes have been right only because the other characters are manipulated to bring about that outcome. 

In the ICE episode she was able to guilt the prosecutor into going along with her plan. In the one where she lets the victim testify as her avatar the defense attorney actually lets her client plead guilty to a felony even though the trial was going in their favor. Then this week it felt like the not guilty verdict was just because that was the only outcome that would save Carmichael’s ass. 

I don’t need shows like this to be completely realistic but it always can’t be complete fantasy. It doesn’t help that each episode involves multiple people pointing out the problems. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, piccadilly83 said:

And Mark, as an officer of the court, got lucky that his dad didn't file a police report after Mark decided to physically assault him in public.

Mark’s father is a career criminal. The likelihood of him voluntarily going to the police to file charges is nearly nonexistent. 

2 hours ago, piccadilly83 said:

Also, Mark got lucky when his whole Jedi mind trick thing worked on that defendant from an episode or two back. A defendant that smart, with a whole case locked up the way he had it, would not have fallen for that trick.

The defendant wasn’t actually that smart which is why he fell for Mark’s trick. He was only winning because that judge was punishing Mark for personal reasons. From what we saw the defendant had no actual defense or evidence. The show said he was winning but the jury would have to be complete idiots to think he wasn’t guilty. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/16/2019 at 2:20 AM, piccadilly83 said:

I don't see Carmichael as a lousy judge. An unconventional judge? Yes. A realistic judge? No. But it seems to me her end goal is ensuring that justice is served, which so far she has managed to do in every case that has appeared in her court.

Yeah, I’m enjoying the show and Carmichael, mainly because of the cast. I love the diversity, but race only rarely comes up as a central issue, eg Luke getting arrested because he was jogging while black. 

I do think the writing could be better, so hopefully that will improve. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Binged first 4 episodes. Actually really like this.  I know it's far fetched but it substitutes for We the People.

I'm sticking around.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/14/2019 at 11:30 PM, Dani said:

Then you have her decision not to expose the corrupt cop ending up biting Mark in the ass.

She only had evidence that the cop had falsified evidence in her one case. She is also a brand new judge being leaned on by the police chief for questioning the integrity of a venerated detective. The fact that she did not feel able to pursue a full out investigation of the detective's work at that moment in time does not bother me in the least. 

If the DA's decision to review all of Detective Leyland's cases (which really the DA isn't even going to do. The police chief said it would be handled internally) serves to bite Mark in the ass, that's the fault of the police officers who would rather hold a grudge against a clean prosecutor than take issue with a dirty cop.

On 10/16/2019 at 2:40 AM, Dani said:

In the ICE episode she was able to guilt the prosecutor into going along with her plan.

I didn't see her guilt the prosecutor. I saw her remind the prosecutor that she worked for the people of the state of California, not the federal government. She was effectively trying to dismantle/counteract the intimidation tactics enacted by the ICE agent upon the prosecutor. When she asked the prosecutor about her family history it was an attempt to remind the prosecutor of the larger issue at hand.

On 10/16/2019 at 2:40 AM, Dani said:

Then this week it felt like the not guilty verdict was just because that was the only outcome that would save Carmichael’s ass.

I would have been crushed if the defendant was convicted guilty, but I wouldn't have blamed it on Judge Carmichael (JC) anymore than I would have blamed it on the PD. Why didn't Lopez ask for a mistrial? She basically relies on JC to get the best verdict for her client instead of proactively protecting her client's rights. 

Also, I don't see how JC can be blamed for the shooting that took place outside the jury view. How was she to predict there would be a shooting in the middle of the day? She couldn't help that it was in a bad neighborhood. Other than instructing the prosecution and defense to videotape a simulation outside the nightclub and present their audio recordings to the court in lieu of going to the scene of the crime, I'm not really sure what more she could have done to prevent what happened. As it was, after the shooting she reminded the jury of its legal duty to only consider the evidence at hand and she conducted a thorough questioning of each jury member with both sides' counsel present. As a result of those interviews she dismissed one or two more jurors I believe.

On 10/14/2019 at 11:30 PM, Dani said:

I know that juries do occasionally travel to the scene but if this was an accurate representation I don’t understand how it would ever be allowed. All the attorneys, the judge and the jury riding on the same bus. The jury was brought out to the bus just in time to see the handcuffed defendant loaded into a car. On the bus the defense attorney and the court reporter are openly discussing the case, the jury and the prosecutor within feet of the jury.

I don't know if it was an accurate representation either, but most of the things you listed did not bother me because they were not central to the plot. Lopez and the court reporter talking about the case at the front of the bus was the biggest issue to me, but I can easily fan wank that they were not in ear shot of the jury considering how noisy the bus was. The show could have had a separate scene with Lopez and Sara taking the temperature of the jury on the way to the courthouse, but having it on the bus allowed them to kill two birds with one stone. The inaccuracies on a show like CSI or NCIS bother me a lot more because they're often central to the plot.

On 10/16/2019 at 12:45 AM, TigerLynx said:

Which is another reason Carmichael is horrible at her job.  Carmichael is the judge.  She is not supposed to give the defense or the prosecution what they want.  She is supposed to rule based on the law.  Carmichael is not supposed to be having ex-parte conversations with defendants, or letting them testify dressed up as an avatar.  As the judge, Carmichael is supposed to keep the courtroom from turning into a three ring circus.  Not make the ridiculousness happen.

From what I've seen so far, she has ruled based on law. She comes up with creative legal solutions to problems that have previously been managed in ways that did not prioritize just outcomes. I really couldn't care less if her court room becomes a three ring circus if the outcome is a fair verdict. 

On 10/16/2019 at 2:57 AM, Dani said:

Mark’s father is a career criminal. The likelihood of him voluntarily going to the police to file charges is nearly nonexistent. 

Yes, Mark’s dad is a career criminal and was probably in a dive bar with a bunch of other career criminals who would be loathe to testify at trial, but at the end of the day you never know who is watching.

Also, Mark got lucky in the previous episode when he caught the reflection of the EXIT sign on the checkout screen Sara was using. Without that, he would have had no case since his defendant, who he was warned was not prepared to testify, decided to bail.

On 10/16/2019 at 2:57 AM, Dani said:

The defendant wasn’t actually that smart which is why he fell for Mark’s trick. He was only winning because that judge was punishing Mark for personal reasons. From what we saw the defendant had no actual defense or evidence. The show said he was winning but the jury would have to be complete idiots to think he wasn’t guilty. 

The defendant exposed Mark as the son of an organized crime figure. Maybe he found out because he did some digging, maybe he came across it by getting lucky. I don't know. What is true is that he most likely knew that fact going into the case and he knew making Mark testify to that fact would hurt the prosecution's case. It fit into his whole "the system is corrupt, and I am just a little pawn" narrative that he had built for himself. If he didn't have Judge Lasky, he most likely would have never been able to get Mark on the stand, but he may have found another way to introduce that evidence or besmirch the state's integrity. I will give you this though, he couldn't have been that smart of a criminal if he hadn't set up a fake alibi. Everyone knows only the best of the best detectives can pick those apart. Have Murder, She Wrote and Columbo taught us nothing?!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, piccadilly83 said:

Also, I don't see how JC can be blamed for the shooting that took place outside the jury view. How was she to predict there would be a shooting in the middle of the day? She couldn't help that it was in a bad neighborhood. Other than instructing the prosecution and defense to videotape a simulation outside the nightclub and present their audio recordings to the court in lieu of going to the scene of the crime, I'm not really sure what more she could have done to prevent what happened. As it was, after the shooting she reminded the jury of its legal duty to only consider the evidence at hand and she conducted a thorough questioning of each jury member with both sides' counsel present. As a result of those interviews she dismissed one or two more jurors I believe.

I’m not blaming her for what happened. I’m blaming the writers. I like Judge Carmichael. My problem is the writers are trying so hard to show her to be unconventional and to give a sense of tension in the middle of the episode that it impacting my enjoyment of the show.  

I would have less of a problem if the last two episodes had come later in the season. The first two cases worked better for me because the drama came from the case itself and not from Carmichael’s decisions. 

I think the writers are doing a wonderful job on the relationships between the characters but the rest of the writing just isn’t working for me. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Dani said:

I’m not blaming her for what happened. I’m blaming the writers. I like Judge Carmichael. My problem is the writers are trying so hard to show her to be unconventional and to give a sense of tension in the middle of the episode that it impacting my enjoyment of the show.  

This.  They have good characters that are interesting.  I really like the actress who plays Carmichael.  The writers are the ones failing here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Mark and Lola continue to be a highlight, and I generally like all of the characters, and its really whats working best for me with the show so far. I do wonder if/when Mark will end up in Lola's courtroom, it seems inevitable, even with the clear conflict of interest. No way could a show hold back on such potential drama! They have a great friendship but it would be interesting to see if it gets tested in a professional setting.

Glad that the defendant got off, that prosecutor really was going hard on "make him look like a scary black man" in a way that seemed to go way beyond just arguing about evidence. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

Mark and Lola continue to be a highlight, and I generally like all of the characters, and its really whats working best for me with the show so far. I do wonder if/when Mark will end up in Lola's courtroom, it seems inevitable, even with the clear conflict of interest. No way could a show hold back on such potential drama! They have a great friendship but it would be interesting to see if it gets tested in a professional setting.

From where All Rise sits on the relative realism scale I doubt if the B.F.F.'s end up in the same court, or  if they do it would be just long enough for the DA and/or the Presiding Judge to send in a replacement.   Los Angeles County is not Picket Fences and Rome Wisconsin with only one judge and one prosecutor in the county.

Share this post


Link to post

The characters are all great. Mark and Lola are very strong characters, with each other as well as apart. 

My issue still remains with the cases that Lola is assigned. My biggest issue I find, and I don't know how realistic it is to actual judges IRL, is that Lola is a biased judge. She says that she's not and she tries to remain as unbiased as possible, but the show is writing her with these implicit biases toward which side of the case that she's on. Because she needs to be a part of the show in some way, she can't be completely unbiased, because then she has far less interactions with people. 

In this episode, we already know what side Lola is on; of course she wants to get the guy off. We know he didn't commit murder, and we know the prosecutor has her own biases and racist inclinations, but as a judge, Lola should try not to already have her mind made up...yet she does. We know she does through her conversation with Sherri about how she doesn't want the defendant put in jail and not just because of what happened when she took the jury to the crime scene.

Hence, why I don't feel like having the judge as a lead character is a good idea. And it's not a knock on Lola as a character. She's great but her job hinders her in certain ways, especially for a television show. And perhaps I am completely ignorant and am unaware of the full specifications of the job of a judge so maybe I'm totally wrong. But there is a disconnect with Lola's job as a judge. Not because of the methods she uses, although some of them I have questioned, but because she obviously has a bias that is needed in order for her character to work and not feel disconnected from the rest of the cast, but that also adds a sense of farfetchedness.

Luckily, I do like the characters and so I have to find a way to accept that this isn't going to be a realistic show in any way. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size