S21.E02: Impossible Dream

[Door County Cherry]

March 3, 2022

Quote

The COO of a major tech company is found murdered in Central Park. Price and Maroun work to untangle a web of deceit to expose a cunning narcissist.

 

[Ms Blue Jay]

An episode about Theranos.  I didn't expect that one!

[dttruman]

11 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

An episode about Theranos.  I didn't expect that one!

They sure started the trial part early in this episode. Did Price make an opening statement last week? I notice there was no bail hearing here, are they doing away with that part of the procedure?

Sounds like this should have been an episode for SVU.

Edited March 4, 2022 by dttruman

[Arcadiasw]

Looks like someone watched the original episodes since the courtroom looks similar to the original sets. 

[Door County Cherry]

Much better episode than last week.  Ripped from the headlines but not heavy handed with it.  And good synergy with The Dropout on Hulu today.

I still can't quite get used to what sounds like the Knight Rider theme in the background of the L&O theme.

Some of the acting is still a little stiff.  It's as if they're trying to act instead of just letting it flow.  And this is from good actors. 

I do like that the episode toyed with an ethical and strategic angle of whether or not to attack the accusations of abuse just because they think she's lying but not having proof that she is.  I almost wonder if it would have been a more interesting case if they didn't get proof either way but instead argued that it didn't matter.  That isn't why she was going to kill Kyle. 

But this episode made me much more reassured that they'll establish a groove.  

And yay!  The good old fashioned beginning of two people doing a random thing and finding a random body.  

[scarynikki12]

That was much better. The credits are still weird but we had a more standard L&O opening and a straightforward case. Price caught the broken arm detail like Jack and Ben would have (I didn't watch the Cutter years) and it won the case for him. Well done.

[WendyCR72]

4 minutes ago, Door County Cherry said:

But this episode made me much more reassured that they'll establish a groove.  

And yay!  The good old fashioned beginning of two people doing a random thing and finding a random body.  

Yes, to both of these. Also like that the courtroom looked more "classic".

I did understand the whole wariness where Me Too was concerned. I am glad the prosecution pulled it out at the end, but - just me, to be clear - it seemed almost a little Deux Ex Machina at the end with the hospital stuff. Still, for the most part, the case was decent and Cosgrove seemed less douchey. Still like Dixon and still hate the new opening.

So, all in all, pretty decent.

[dttruman]

4 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

Price caught the broken arm detail like Jack and Ben would have (I didn't watch the Cutter years) and it won the case for him. Well done.

IMO, this seems like a very obvious fact that this lady's attorney should have known about and should have made sure she didn't bring it up during her testimony.

[dubbel zout]

46 minutes ago, dttruman said:

I notice there was no bail hearing here, are they doing away with that part of the procedure?

No, it was there. The prosecution got $5 million.

16 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

it seemed almost a little Deux Ex Machina at the end with the hospital stuff.

A little? It was way too convenient.

That said, this was a huge improvement over last week. Much more like the OG. We had a couple stumble over the body, people talking over food, and appropriate use of the CHUNG CHUNG. If they keep this up, I'll be a regular viewer.

 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Better episode tonight.

But just STOP! with all that dramaaaaatic music during the scenes with the cops investigating and even in Jack’s office! This is not Criminal Intent! TWICE they just switched to the tag without the CHUNG-CHUNG! and played stoopid music. Mike Post is still in charge of the music, so what the what, Mike?

I also thought they didn’t spend enough time during the Law portion; not even half way and we’re at trial? Maroun is still acting more and more like she should be a defense attorney instead of an ADA.

Show is still too…shiny. I really wish Eid and whoever would use the same type of film from the early to mid years.

And we have a return of show friend! Defense attorney appeared two times during the 20 year run.

 Courtroom looked much better, but only two people questioned on the witness stand? 

Then there’s the victim’s father telling Nolan how to do his job. 

Still, Nolan’s cross was good. The trial judge was just…there.

But baby steps.

OH! At least we got the classic cold open!

Edited March 4, 2022 by GHScorpiosRule

[dttruman]

6 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

No, it was there. The prosecution got $5 million.

That's what I get for stepping away for a few seconds!

[scarynikki12]

20 minutes ago, dttruman said:

IMO, this seems like a very obvious fact that this lady's attorney should have known about and should have made sure she didn't bring it up during her testimony.

Given NotHolmes' reaction to the verdict, and how the real Holmes behaved, I bet she never told her lawyer about the broken arm or just assumed that she had such power over everyone that she could say anything and get off.

[wknt3]

27 minutes ago, Door County Cherry said:

And yay!  The good old fashioned beginning of two people doing a random thing and finding a random body.  

I feel seen.
 

23 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Yes, to both of these. Also like that the courtroom looked more "classic".

I did understand the whole wariness where Me Too was concerned. I am glad the prosecution pulled it out at the end, but - just me, to be clear - it seemed almost a little Deux Ex Machina at the end with the hospital stuff. Still, for the most part, the case was decent and Cosgrove seemed less douchey. Still like Dixon and still hate the new opening.

So, all in all, pretty decent.

I liked it too. Especially since it seemed like they were going into another more focused on how things have changed while the show was off the air than the story and the topic at hand, but it settled into an actual nuanced exploration of the issue and how it related to the criminal justice system. I do kind of wonder if there wasn't an element of Rick Eid flipping the metaphorical bird at SVU with the lines about how there was more to it than the victim's truth and that anyone who really cares doesn't take issue with investigating and finding the truth?

[Halting Hex]

Holy crap, Eid!  Were you drunk when you wrote this?

ACT II:  The judge rules that the faulty test results are inadmissible.

ACT IV:  Price attacks Ellis's credibility by citing the faulty results. And, conveniently, the defense attorney misses about six opportunities to object.  And even more conveniently. Ellis makes up a story on the stand that she knows can be easily refuted.  Gee, why doesn't she just confess out of thin air?  Jack's gotten miracle confessions this way, as in "DNR".  If "prosecution wins by blind luck" is the standard, this is going to be a REAL wretched season.

It's not as if Price couldn't provoke the defendant into opening the "character" door.  Something like this (similar to what Jack pulled on the [far superior] Susan Misner in the [far superior] "Corner Office" ):  
 

Quote

PRICE:  You say Kyle beat you…are you aware there's no evidence?
ELLIS:  I know what happened!
PRICE:  We're just supposed to take your word?
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Your Honor, he's badgering her!
PRICE:  Withdrawn.  (Beat). Abuse is a horrible thing, Ms. Ellis, we all know that.  Which is why it would be terrible to think you might be lying about this.  How do we know you're not?
ELLIS (righteous):  I would never lie about that!
PRICE:  Not even if you're on trial for murder?
ELLIS:  I would never lie about something that important!

Price smiles.  He's got her.  Picks up the papers on his table.

PRICE:  Your Honor, at this time I would like to introduce People's Exhibits 32 through 98, the false negative results from a test Ms. Ellis has repeatedly claimed is "96%" accurate, a LIE that has cost thousands of—

DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  Objection! Prejudicial! Your Honor has already ruled on this!
PRICE:  The defendant just said "I would never lie about something that important".  Is counsel now claiming that thousands of unnecessary, avoidable deaths are unimportant???
JUDGE (nods):  She opened the door, Ms Whomever.

and so on.

I mean, it's not tough.  Every single one of us in this thread could probably write that.  (Many of us have seen "Corner Office" and similar episodes, no doubt.  [14.17 "Hands Free" features a similar "opened the door" moment, but that defendant survives the new evidence, anyhow]).

But instead we get this garbage.  Ugh.

Other problems:

• All the damn speechifying.  Such a bloated stall for time…there must be an easier way to make their points.  The last time I was this bored was when a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode was supposed to feature two popular returning guest stars, only to have one of them drop out at the last minute, so they covered by having the other constantly whine about how much he missed her.  (He literally did it in five straight scenes.  WE GET IT ALREADY, honest.)

This was more high-minded, but just as boring.  A pity this is basically Eid's show, or else somebody might have suggested an edit…or seven.

• "Special Guest Star:  Rachelle LeFevre"??  WTF?

I mean, I like Rachelle.  She has lovely hair and she's a decent actress.  But what has she done to deserve a "special guest-star" tag?  Get fired from The Twilight Saga because she asked for too much money?

•. The goals of the #MeToo movement are certainly laudable.  But it seems to have lost momentum over the last several years, as other causes have taken over the spotlight.  Would the D.A.'s office really be so fearful that someone might criticize their handling of the case?  Personally, I doubt it.  But JMO.

Rating?  Maybe 4/10…if I'm generous.

(Positives:  Cosgrove was pretty much okay, and Maroun had more to do.  But still.)

Edited March 4, 2022 by Halting Hex

[WendyCR72]

Just now, wknt3 said:

I do kind of wonder if there wasn't an element of Rick Eid flipping the metaphorical bird at SVU with the lines about how there was more to it than the victim's truth and that anyone who really cares doesn't take issue with investigating and finding the truth?

Ha! Now I hope this is the case!

[Prairie Rose]

"Just because it's new and shiny doesn't make it good." Ha! Was Det. Cosgrove talking for the audience? 😂

The original theme music was far more in the front of the mix in the opening, which is definitely a good thing. Not so good - too few scene transition cards, which means not nearly enough of the "chung-chungs"!!

Another good thing is that the lighting was a lot brighter, making it easier to actually see the squadroom, interrogation room and LT's office. The visuals still look too slick and film like, and can we just save the overdramatic musical stings for the end?

The acting, overall, still isn't gelling. I don't mean just the principals here - I mean everyone. It doesn't seem natural like it did before. Everyone, from the arraignment judges to the bailiffs to reporters, deliver and project their lines so (melo)dramatically it feels like they are auditioning for Broadway.

Still, they came a long way from the season premiere and there's nowhere to go but up!! Let's hope Wolf and Co. keep listening to their audience!!!

Edited March 4, 2022 by Prairie Rose

[stonehaven]

The only thing about the cop side I liked was CM. As I was watching, I was just waiting for the Order part to start.

I kept thinking that she shot her hubby in the park? She kept the coat with her blood? Did anyone hear the shot? Why didn't the cops do a voicematch on the call to 911 to see it it was her?

Also, why didn't she hire a hitman? She seemed like the kind to be above it all and she could easily hire someone, pay him a billion dollars to get out of Dodge.

The writing seemed sloppy but with Ghosts going on March Madness hiatus, this may be the onl thing on Thursday to watch...

[shapeshifter]

I am glad the show is back and happy to watch, but I'm just going to complain here except to chime in that I'm glad the cold open red herring was back.

Clunky writing and plotting is my main complaint. Again a case (2 for 2 episodes) in which it would be better (IMO) to make use of the female assistant prosecutor in order to not alienate the jury by having them see a man verbally going after the female defendant. 
I suppose the writers thought it is more interesting and challenging to write this way, but, ugh. 

 

2 hours ago, Halting Hex said:

"Special Guest Star:  Rachelle LeFevre"??

I missed that tag and spent the commercials trying to find the name of the awful Under the Dome star.
That is, Under the Dome was so awful, that I have no idea whether she was a good actor or not, and the writing for this episode was so clunky (IMO) that I still don't know.

Edited March 4, 2022 by shapeshifter

[Xeliou66]

This was good - an improvement over the first outing, and a solid, entertaining episode.

I liked the case, it was intriguing and had good investigation and good legal stuff. I was surprised that Nina went with a self-defense/battered wife argument when I thought she would have a better chance arguing that she didn’t kill Kyle, yes the blood evidence was damning and they had motive, but a good defense lawyer could argue she didn’t do it. I would’ve liked more explanation about her planting the gun in the sewer and trying to frame the ex-employee, what phone did she use to call the cops, surely not her cell? And how did she find the time to get up to Westchester after killing Kyle, or was it the next night that she went up there and planted the gun? And did they try to trace her movement via her car? I was wondering about these questions when they made the arrest and when the case started. But I guess Nina thought she would have a better chance at deceiving the jury with a story about being abused, but her huge ego came back to bite her in the ass. I liked how Price had the detectives dig into her story about the broken arm and prove it was a lie. 

I’m liking Price more and more, I thought he handled the case really well and I liked his dialogue about how their job was to put murderers away and get justice for victims, and not cater to movements, and I particularly liked his ending lines. Maroun came off as whiny part of the time, but overall I liked their dialogue about how to prosecute the case.

I’m still wanting more Jack, he got some good lines in this episode, but he wasn’t in it enough, I’m guessing Waterston wants a reduced workload given his age, but I’m used to having more of him in the episodes and I hope he gets some meatier stuff going forward. Still, some Jack is better than no Jack and I can’t imagine the show without him.

The writing for Cosgrove was much improved and him and Bernard have promise as a solid partnership. I thought things were a bit off with Dixon, with her saying they were going to arrest Nina regardless of what the DA’s thought, the police and DA’s should be working together so that part seemed screwy. But overall I like the chemistry of the cast and I think they gel well together.

I loved that we got a classic L&O opening of ordinary people stumbling onto a body!! And I laughed at the bit where Price brought in crickets for him and Maroun to eat, good comedic moment. 

So overall this was a solid episode, not flawless but good. It was a bit similar to last week’s episode with similar subject matter, I think this was intended to be the 3rd episode but they’ve shuffled episodes around. Overall I thought it was good and I think the show will continue to get better as it goes on. It’s great to have new episodes of the Mothership back!!

[Door County Cherry]

1 hour ago, dttruman said:

IMO, this seems like a very obvious fact that this lady's attorney should have known about and should have made sure she didn't bring it up during her testimony.

The attorney is in a difficult position.  She can't suborn perjury.  If her client tells her she never called the cops or went to the hospital, then I'm guessing she isn't going to want to investigate too deeply in case she discovers something that contradicts her client's claims.  The minute she discovers that, she wouldn't be able to ethically have her testify to abuse.

But I think not Holmes wasn't planning on bringing out the broken arm.  She did that when she felt challenged by Price. 

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I also thought they didn’t spend enough time during the Law portion; not even half way and we’re at trial? Maroun is still acting more and more like she should be a defense attorney instead of an ADA.

I think Maroun was right to question it, though.  It was about strategy.  She was not only afraid of what it could mean to future victims of abuse and their comfort in reporting, but of how doing that would play with the jury.  It's all about how you attack elements of her story.  

I agree with those that found the broken arm was too convenient because we'll never know if the decision to go after her abuse allegations was the correct one.  There were jury members who believed her. 

53 minutes ago, Halting Hex said:

Holy crap, Eid!  Were you drunk when you wrote this?

ACT II:  The judge rules that the faulty test results are inadmissible.

ACT IV:  Price attacks Ellis's credibility by citing the faulty results. And, conveniently, the defense attorney misses about six opportunities to object.  

Price wanted to include testimony from victims of the faulty tests because he knew it'd tug at the heartstrings.  But the judge was right to exclude it.  The motive wasn't whether or not the tests were fault; it was that someone was going to prevent the company going public because he believed they were. That's why I think they could talk about the idea of the faulty tests but not have testimony about whether or not they were actually faulty.  

[txhorns79]

1 hour ago, Halting Hex said:

ACT II:  The judge rules that the faulty test results are inadmissible.

ACT IV:  Price attacks Ellis's credibility by citing the faulty results. And, conveniently, the defense attorney misses about six opportunities to object. 

I think what the Judge had said was that witness testimony about faulty tests from victims was out.  You can always attack the credibility of the witness on cross, if there is evidence to show they haven't been honest about the main thing at issue in the case. 

I didn't love the episode.  At least in the past, a perp would go for self defense or insanity after indisputable evidence arose to show that they committed the murder.  Here, it appears she simply decided to admit to killing her boyfriend for no real reason.  I also don't buy for a moment that she would tell such an easily disproven story about her boyfriend breaking her arm, even if she felt attacked. 

I think the argument about when to believe someone who claims to be a victim of abuse would have worked better if there had been more shades of grey in the episode about the boyfriend's behavior.  I thought it was odd they didn't bring up that she tried to have her former co-worker framed for the murder with the call to the police and planting the weapon.  I don't think claiming abuse would have explained that behavior.   

40 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

I’m guessing Waterston wants a reduced workload given his age, but I’m used to having more of him in the episodes and I hope he gets some meatier stuff going forward. Still, some Jack is better than no Jack and I can’t imagine the show without him.

I don't know about Waterson wanting a reduced workload due to age.  He took on the DA role back in 2008, and then went on to be a regular on The Newsroom and Grace & Frankie after L&O originally ended.

[watcher1006]

i'm glad that this episode touched on the business of jury selection but I was left wondering. If the prosecution forms its selection criteria based on what it's expecting the defense to present and then the defense changes its case strategy after the jury is selected doesn't that leave the prosecution at a disadvantage?

Price mentioned early on that they should go for jurors without a too high level of education and who are not too wealthy. Seems like those are often characteristics of the way jury selection tilts.

[debraran]

5 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I think what the Judge had said was that witness testimony about faulty tests from victims was out.  You can always attack the credibility of the witness on cross, if there is evidence to show they haven't been honest about the main thing at issue in the case. 

I didn't love the episode.  At least in the past, a perp would go for self defense or insanity after indisputable evidence arose to show that they committed the murder.  Here, it appears she simply decided to admit to killing her boyfriend for no real reason.  I also don't buy for a moment that she would tell such an easily disproven story about her boyfriend breaking her arm, even if she felt attacked. 

I think the argument about when to believe someone who claims to be a victim of abuse would have worked better if there had been more shades of grey in the episode about the boyfriend's behavior.  I thought it was odd they didn't bring up that she tried to have her former co-worker framed for the murder with the call to the police and planting the weapon.  I don't think claiming abuse would have explained that behavior.   

I don't know about Waterson wanting a reduced workload due to age.  He took on the DA role back in 2008, and then went on to be a regular on The Newsroom and Grace & Frankie after L&O originally ended.

Time will tell with Waterson. He is 81.  I'm sure they paid him well since he was "Law and Order" to come back. His details probably were not to be overworked but I can't see him being a decoration either. The ratings need him to play a larger part every once in a while. In the later L&O I don't think he was in them as much. He did do Grace and Frankie a lot and I think that is still filming? They showed 4 to give fans a treat during Covid but still were filming then.  I think they wrapped up in Dec 2021 but not sure.

I'm glad they showed how a woman like this one can't use the "Me too" movement to get her way. Sure the pendulum has to swing when fairness was never there, in many situation that happens, but truth matters too. They made her less gray and unappealing so it was more satisfying. The only question was if the jury would buy it. They have their own filters. The broken arm seemed too "pat" too obvious but I could see a narcissist thinking she could get away with it.

Edited March 4, 2022 by debraran

[Prairie Rose]

At least one thing hasn't changed - the blatant ripped from the headlines aspect. So far, it's been Cosby, Elizabeth Holmes and judging by next week's promo, Gabby Pettito. 

[Raja]

I had no ideal this was ripped from the headlines but when she announced he was my fiancé I thought that's the one.  Smoothing out Detective Cosgrove helped a lot now to work on the A.D.A.s

Speaking of how things changed I noticed the juror announce guilty of First Degree murder. I thought that was death penalty as it was almost always 2nd degree 20 to life in the Stone, McCoy and Cutter era. Did New York change their law or am I just misremembering even with seeing episodes repeat over the past 25 years?

[preeya]

5 minutes ago, Raja said:

Speaking of how things changed I noticed the juror announce guilty of First Degree murder. I thought that was death penalty as it was almost always 2nd degree 20 to life in the Stone, McCoy and Cutter era. Did New York change their law or am I just misremembering even with seeing episodes repeat over the past 25 years?

New York no longer has the death penalty.

[dubbel zout]

11 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

But I think not Holmes wasn't planning on bringing out the broken arm.  She did that when she felt challenged by Price. 

Which was what he was hoping for, of course. Not the broken arm thing specifically, but something that broke through her control and got her to be reckless. I still thought it was way too convenient, but L&O sometimes does that.

[Prevailing Wind]

9 hours ago, watcher1006 said:

Price mentioned early on that they should go for jurors without a too high level of education and who are not too wealthy. Seems like those are often characteristics of the way jury selection tilts.

That's because the well-educated & somewhat wealthy folks find a way to get out of Jury Duty.

[peacheslatour]

Quote

Still, Nolan’s cross was good. The trial judge was just…there.

So was the defense attorney. I kept yelling "Objection! Is there a question in there Counselor?" 

[GHScorpiosRule]

15 hours ago, watcher1006 said:

Price mentioned early on that they should go for jurors without a too high level of education and who are not too wealthy. Seems like those are often characteristics of the way jury selection tilts.

The show had a few episodes where they actually filmed as part of the episode, jury selection. They even had a jury consultant in "God Bless the Child" where the consultant (who was a witness in "Point of View") recommending who they should drop and who they should keep; even had them in one of the hate crimes, and I seem to recall, I think it was Jack, objecting that the defense wanted people of the same age/race?

But yes, please stop with all that speechifying! First it was Bernard and Cosgrove, stretching out the scene when they went to arrest Nina/Not!Holmes, when in seasons past, they would just approach the suspects and just tell them they were under arrest, while said suspect would protest they had to go to A, or do B, etc. Then Nina's speechifying on the court room steps, which just made me 🙄. And what was that with the camera zooming in on one of the news microphones?

It just seems to me (and I hope they get better), that so far, the episodes seem rushed. The previous seasons seemed to pack so much more in and tell a more layered/complex story, with the cops arresting more than one person until we got to the actual guilty one; more than one arraignment hearings; scenes with both ballistics, trace evidence, and the ME; sarcastic quips at said arraignments. Boy do I miss our recurring and even gruff arraignment judges, as well as the trial judges with personalities.

I also didn't like Camryn's LT, telling Nolan and Maroun, how to do their job or who to prosecute. Cragen never did that; Van Buren, a few times, was called to the DA's office, and she would defend why they arrested or didn't arrest so and so. I can only remember one time, where she told Jack, you asked us to go get this guy; we got him. Now it's YOUR job to get him in court. I think that was "Monster" where the cops had the wrong killer of the raped and murdered 12 year old.

And I really miss the natural sounds we got when the cops were questioning witnesses or suspects: horns and/or sirens blaring, the sound of wind in the trees; the background noises of whatever is happening in whatever office or place the questioning is taking place. THAT was so much more natural and easy on my ears than this stupid ass ominous and dramaaaatic music score.

Edited March 4, 2022 by GHScorpiosRule

[peacheslatour]

Quote

And I really miss the natural sounds we got when the cops were questioning witnesses or suspects: horns and or sirens blaring, the sound of wind in the trees; the background noises of whatever is happening in whatever office or place the questioning is taking place. THAT was so much more natural and easy on my ears than this stupid ass ominous and dramaaaatic music score.

Agreed.

[WendyCR72]

Well, I hope NBC takes DVR and Peacock viewing into account, because the live-viewer rating of 0.4 is not great. Sigh. (Of course, this is the preliminary rating, and it can go up in the finals, but still...)

[Triviatrish2]

Better than last week, happy about that.  Not liking Anthony Anderson, never liked him earlier, either, Jeffrey Donovan was better this week. Liked the opening, acting, to me, still stilted, and something if off with the lighting. But, I am hopeful, at least I stayed awake this week, during the episode.

[Door County Cherry]

1 hour ago, WendyCR72 said:

Well, I hope NBC takes DVR and Peacock viewing into account, because the live-viewer rating of 0.4 is not great. Sigh. (Of course, this is the preliminary rating, and it can go up in the finals, but still...)

I wish they had just put a different episode into the pilot.  Yes, we'd miss out on some of the exposition but I think viewers would be okay with that. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Shallow, but I wish that Anderson would trim his beard.

[wknt3]

11 hours ago, Prairie Rose said:

At least one thing hasn't changed - the blatant ripped from the headlines aspect. So far, it's been Cosby, Elizabeth Holmes and judging by next week's promo, Gabby Pettito. 

Dick Wolf has to be kicking himself that he decided to start off going back a few years and didn't go with Boris Nemtsov.  If there is anything he loves more than Russian criminals it's the free "rippped from the headlines" promos!

[Morrigan2575]

I liked this episode, they lowered the antagonism between Bernard and Cosgrove. This was more of the partnership banter I always enjoyed.

I liked the trial part, I was with Price on this one.

I'm loving Camryn Manheim as Dixon. She's the perfect level of no bullshit cop. 

So far, I've been pretty happy to have the Mother Ship back

[Morrigan2575]

3 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

Well, I hope NBC takes DVR and Peacock viewing into account, because the live-viewer rating of 0.4 is not great. Sigh. (Of course, this is the preliminary rating, and it can go up in the finals, but still...)

 I just looked at SpoilerTV and 0.4 in Live+SD seems to be fairly middle ground for the night...the high was a 0.6. 

I don't think any network actually uses Live+SD anymore, last I heard they had moved to Live+7. I'm sure they're all using their streaming numbers as well. TV viewing has evolved, not even sure Neilson matters much anymore.

[Halting Hex]

13 hours ago, Raja said:

Speaking of how things changed I noticed the juror announce guilty of First Degree murder.

While the sentencing rules have changed, First Degree is still reserved for a variety of "special circumstances" cases.  As far as I can tell, this doesn't meet any of those.

A rough summary:

1.  Killing a police officer or a court officer (judge/bailiff/guard/parole officer) or a firefighter/medical first responder or a prison official, assuming that the victim was on-duty and that it was reasonable that the defendant knew the victim's status.

2.  If the defendant is already serving a life sentence.

3.  Killing a witness to another crime, or killing them after they testify in revenge, or killing their family as revenge.

4.  Murder for hire.

5.  Felony murder (in the course of robbery/burglary/kidnapping/arson/rape or other sexual offenses), or if you're fleeing arrest from the same.

6.  Multiple homicides

7.  If the defendant had already been convicted of another murder and was free on bail pending appeal, or awaiting sentencing or other reason.

8. Torture

9.  If it's part of a series of killings (two or more others in the previous two years), all part of an overall plan.  Kill one or two relatives to get a bigger share of an upcoming inheritance and it's murder-two; three or more, and it's murder one.

10.  Terrorism.

AFAICT, two bullets in your partner to save your company's finances doesn't tick any of those boxes, so I do think that "first degree" was an error.  Good catch.

[preeya]

1 hour ago, Halting Hex said:

AFAICT, two bullets in your partner to save your company's finances doesn't tick any of those boxes, so I do think that "first degree" was an error.  Good catch.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've heard the term "lying in wait" as a condition for 1st degree. Would that circumstance apply in this case?

[khyber]

The writing is so bad, I'm not sure why. Way too many people making speeches while they are talking to each other. Not warming up to the new cops and D.A.s yet.  Will give it a few more and then decide.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Nice old school opening but I think people tripping over a dead body in Central Park at night may be a bit trite at this point.

When they arrested Nina I got a feeling she was pregnant and her condition would be used in the trial to garner sympathy. Guess not.

Jack McCoy putting on his trademark Burberry trench. Be still my heart. 😙

Ehh, I wasn't into bringing #metoo into this. Is that what happened IRL with Elizabeth Holmes' trial? I didn't follow the news reports about it.

There wasn't really much in the way of big courtroom twists in this episode. I wonder if that's the new approach for the reboot.

And, I'm probably not supposed to ask this but why are there so many mods here? Is this show forum expected to be contentious or something? Just curious.

[dubbel zout]

18 minutes ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Ehh, I wasn't into bringing #metoo into this. Is that what happened IRL with Elizabeth Holmes' trial?

I'm not sure if #metoo was explicitly mentioned, but Holmes did claim she'd been physically abused by Sunny Balwani.

[peacheslatour]

26 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

I'm not sure if #metoo was explicitly mentioned, but Holmes did claim she'd been physically abused by Sunny Balwani.

It was mentioned several times.

13 hours ago, preeya said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I've heard the term "lying in wait" as a condition for 1st degree. Would that circumstance apply in this case?

In order to "lie in wait" the crime would by definition be premeditated, would it not?

Edited March 5, 2022 by peacheslatour

[Prevailing Wind]

50 minutes ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

And, I'm probably not supposed to ask this but why are there so many mods here? Is this show forum expected to be contentious or something? Just curious.
 

Because they're also people who watch TV and like L&O?  Just guessing.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

Because they're also people who watch TV and like L&O?  Just guessing.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way might be that this forum is being highly--for lack of a better word--policed. I'm hoping it's not the latter because I would find that off-putting given what the show is about. For a second or two I think I had flashbacks to TWoP. 😉

Anyhoo, I'm looking forward to next week's episode because those headlines being ripped from are pretty fresh. I sure hope Central Park isn't going to figure in it though. Maybe one of the bodies will be found upstate, lol.

[Prevailing Wind]

4 minutes ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

That's one way of looking at it. Another way might be that this forum is being highly--for lack of a better word--policed. I'm hoping it's not the latter because I would find that off-putting given what the show is about. For a second or two I think I had flashbacks to TWoP. 😉

Admins wouldn't be admins if they didn't like TV. I don't think it's feasible for them to have non-admin user IDs just to use the forums the way the rest of us do. Your seeming paranoia is unwarranted, in my opinion.

[gesundheit]

On 3/3/2022 at 9:00 PM, Door County Cherry said:

I still can't quite get used to what sounds like the Knight Rider theme in the background of the L&O theme.

Some of the acting is still a little stiff.  It's as if they're trying to act instead of just letting it flow.  And this is from good actors.  

And yay!  The good old fashioned beginning of two people doing a random thing and finding a random body.  

The Knight Rider theme! That's the perfect description. I hate it.

Agreed with you and many above on the opening. A dead body in Central Park, the staple we need!

On 3/3/2022 at 9:53 PM, Prairie Rose said:

The acting, overall, still isn't gelling. I don't mean just the principals here - I mean everyone. It doesn't seem natural like it did before. Everyone, from the arraignment judges to the bailiffs to reporters, deliver and project their lines so (melo)dramatically it feels like they are auditioning for Broadway.

There really is something very off about the acting, though I wonder if the editing is part of the problem. In other words, the shot lingers too long with the cut-away that "saves" the actor from a stilted, awkward delivery. Everything is held just a millisecond too long, so we have too much time to think about it.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

Your seeming paranoia is unwarranted

It'd be great not to have my mental or emotional status diagnosed over the internet by a stranger, absent my request.

Quote

don't think it's feasible for them to have non-admin user IDs just to use the forums the way the rest of us do.

Perhaps it's not feasible for the software running this site. It is possible though because I'm aware of it being done elsewhere to keep mods' comments from inadvertently having the imprimatur of being "official" or "correct." Letting it go now since this is veering off-topic.

[Halting Hex]

16 hours ago, preeya said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I've heard the term "lying in wait" as a condition for 1st degree. Would that circumstance apply in this case?

That might be the case in some states, but I didn't see anything like it in the New York statute (linked above).  Which is not to say I couldn't have missed it.  (There was a lot of it, as you might guess.)