WendyCR72 November 30, 2019 Share November 30, 2019 To air on December 9, 2019: Lola exercises a rarely used judicial power when she fires a lawyer for failing to provide a robust defense for his client. Also, Mark’s dad, Vic, is arrested for murder. Link to comment
topanga December 10, 2019 Share December 10, 2019 Poor Lola. I don’t think she’s guilty of judicial misconduct. I do think she talks too much during her trials. But it is her show, so I guess she has to talk. I hope Mike’s (?) dad didn’t commit murder. But an ADA wouldn’t be able to provide a good defense for his own father. The best he can do is hire a great criminal defense attorney for him. 1 6 Link to comment
Irlandesa December 10, 2019 Share December 10, 2019 There's no way a judge would interrupt a case to go watch a car chase involving a former defendant in her courtroom. That was ridiculous. She takes so many "I feel like it" recesses. I loved Mark in the witness box. 5 Link to comment
Dowel Jones December 10, 2019 Share December 10, 2019 So Mark can't advocate for the defense of his father, but he can advocate for the defense of the sleepwalker? That didn't make sense. Poor Sherry. Thrown out of the car on a procedural action, and has to kibitz from the sidelines until Lola gets her courtroom back. Life is so unfair. 🙂 I hope the Deputy takes the warning to heart about unqualified legal advice. That could backfire in a huge way if he were to continue with it. I thought the same thing about Lola leaving the courtroom for the car chase tv. Even more so, why would the court reporter even consider interrupting her during a trial? What difference would it have made? Wait til they have a break. 3 Link to comment
illdoc December 11, 2019 Share December 11, 2019 2 hours ago, Dowel Jones said: Even more so, why would the court reporter even consider interrupting her during a trial? It was Sheri who brought in the video, interrupting the trial. 1 Link to comment
possibilities December 11, 2019 Share December 11, 2019 Mark didn't advocate for the defense of the sleepwalker. He found the evidence was unconvincing and as a prosecutor he decided to drop the case. He can't take on his father's defense while still working as a DA-- his JOB is to prosecute. Lola said he'd have to resign if he decided to take the job of acting as a defense attorney in a murder case. It makes sense to me. He can't argue against the state's prosecution while being a state prosecutor. Also, I'd think it would be considered a conflict of interest to represent his father, but no one seemed to say that was an issue. 8 Link to comment
Dowel Jones December 11, 2019 Share December 11, 2019 The way it was shown in the episode, he found the evidence, presented it as though he was acting on behalf of the sleepwalker, and then dismissed the charges. At least, that's how it appeared to me. Procedurally, he should have given the evidence to the defense and let them show that there was a legitimate reason for the breaking and entering. Conversely, he could have appeared in court, stated simply that "in light of new evidence and in the interests of justice, the People drop the charges", and leave it at that. 1 Link to comment
tennisgurl December 11, 2019 Share December 11, 2019 Poor Lola, I dont think she has really broken any rules that would require her to get fired. She does tend to get a bit too involved/chatty during trails, and there was no reason for her to take a recess to watch a car chase, but its nothing that bad! Mark hanging in the witness box with Lola was fun, I hope that his dad didnt murder anyone, mostly for his sake. His dad might not be a good guy or parent, but it would really hurt him even more if dad wasnt just a low level crook and was an actual murderer. I dont think he can be a lawyer for his father (both because of being a prosecutor and because its his own father) but he can still probably help him. Lola needs to work with someone organized and into rules, it balances out her super chill "Imma cool judge" vibe. 3 Link to comment
luvly December 13, 2019 Share December 13, 2019 (edited) It felt like they were juggling too many stories in the episode. Lola had 2/3 stories, Mark had 2 stories and Emily had 2/3 stories. We weren't shown nearly enough of Lola's first case for me to have any kind of emotional investment about car theft guy's actions later on, certainly not enough to overlook interrupting an ongoing case to keep abreast of his car chase. Conversely, I really would have liked to know more backstory about Emily's client, the death of her brother and how she's felt the system failed her but it was just used a vehicle to introduce the ethics complaint. On 12/10/2019 at 9:02 PM, Dowel Jones said: The way it was shown in the episode, he found the evidence, presented it as though he was acting on behalf of the sleepwalker, and then dismissed the charges. At least, that's how it appeared to me. Procedurally, he should have given the evidence to the defense and let them show that there was a legitimate reason for the breaking and entering. Conversely, he could have appeared in court, stated simply that "in light of new evidence and in the interests of justice, the People drop the charges", and leave it at that. Do you mean presented to the court or presented to us, the viewers? Though not explicitly stated, it seemed like this was taking place before the prelim/probable cause hearing was even held because the grand theft of the ring was what took the misdemeanor trespassing charges up to felony burglary. With the "theft" outed as fraud and his own expert claiming there was no intent, he would have been foolish to waste the court's time by waiting until the hearing to drop the charges. Edited December 14, 2019 by luvly 2 Link to comment
greekmom December 13, 2019 Share December 13, 2019 Loved it overall and hated the ending. I don't get how these lawyers can just add up the complaints about Lola. She is more chatty than usual judges but she never broke the rules. 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts