S22.E05: 12 Seconds

[WendyCR72]

Airing October 27, 2022:

Quote

Cosgrove and Shaw piece together the clues of what happened to a murdered law student, uncovering a web of blackmail and lies; Price fights to have a piece of shocking testimony thrown out.

[dttruman]

4 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

Airing October 27, 2022:

Wow, the guy confesses on the stand to the murder and their was no surprise at all from his wife. Interesting?

[dubbel zout]

This was a dud case, I thought.

I know the defense was trying to paint Cosgrove as a racist, but the police don't decide who testifies at a trial.

[Broderbits]

1 hour ago, dttruman said:

Wow, the guy confesses on the stand to the murder and their was no surprise at all from his wife. Interesting?

His confession was just a strategy to save their son, they obviously discussed it before court.

[EtheltoTillie]

Yet another case where the kid did it and the parents cover up. How many times have we seen this?  Come on, show, give us a new plot. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

10 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

His confession was just a strategy to save their son, they obviously discussed it before court.

4 minutes ago, EtheltoTillie said:

Yet another case where the kid did it and the parents cover up. How many times have we seen this?  Come on, show, give us a new plot. 

Season three’s “Skin Deep”  comes to mind. But that one was most EXCELLENT.

[Xeliou66]

This was another good episode IMO, while the plot of parents covering for a kid has been done before, this was a good episode and I didn’t see it coming that the kid was the killer until a couple of minutes before it was revealed. Solid case and investigation, I thought it was compelling from start to finish, and I like the chemistry of the whole cast.

It was nice to see a background character in Detective Violet Yee get more of a role and even interact with Maroun. And Cosgrove and Shaw are making for a great pairing and have really gelled well, I enjoy their investigations, and the DA’s were good as well with entertaining court scenes. It was also nice to see a familiar face in defense attorney Seaver, he’s a recurring lawyer who’s been on both the Mothership and SVU a few times. And I liked the scene in Jack’s office when Nolan was venting and Jack calmed him with his advice.

I liked how Cosgrove did on the stand when Seaver was calling him a bigot, Cosgrove firmly but calmly stood his ground and didn’t lose any points with the jury. The Cosgrove we were shown at the start of season 21 might’ve lost his cool, another way Cosgrove has been fleshed out nicely. But he still has his edge, as he bluntly asked the professor about whether he was sleeping with the victim. 

I laughed when they said Hudson U was the best law school in America! We all know that place is a cesspool of shady characters and criminals and nonstop controversy, that has to be an inside joke between the writers and viewers every time something goes down at Hudson! Also, is the word “faggot” not allowed on regular tv now? I know the word has been used in past episodes, but they went out of their way to avoid having the witness say it tonight. And the show borrowed a page from another Dick Wolf show, FBI, with its foot chase near the start with a suspect that was a red herring.

Not a whole lot else to say here, good episode, nothing spectacular and yes past episodes have dealt with similar themes, but this was a solid case that flowed well and was enjoyable to watch play out from start to finish. 

[Diana Berry]

3 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

This was another good episode IMO, while the plot of parents covering for a kid has been done before, this was a good episode and I didn’t see it coming that the kid was the killer until a couple of minutes before it was revealed. Solid case and investigation, I thought it was compelling from start to finish, and I like the chemistry of the whole cast.

It was nice to see a background character in Detective Violet Yee get more of a role and even interact with Maroun. And Cosgrove and Shaw are making for a great pairing and have really gelled well, I enjoy their investigations, and the DA’s were good as well with entertaining court scenes. It was also nice to see a familiar face in defense attorney Seaver, he’s a recurring lawyer who’s been on both the Mothership and SVU a few times. And I liked the scene in Jack’s office when Nolan was venting and Jack calmed him with his advice.

I liked how Cosgrove did on the stand when Seaver was calling him a bigot, Cosgrove firmly but calmly stood his ground and didn’t lose any points with the jury. The Cosgrove we were shown at the start of season 21 might’ve lost his cool, another way Cosgrove has been fleshed out nicely. But he still has his edge, as he bluntly asked the professor about whether he was sleeping with the victim. 

I laughed when they said Hudson U was the best law school in America! We all know that place is a cesspool of shady characters and criminals and nonstop controversy, that has to be an inside joke between the writers and viewers every time something goes down at Hudson! Also, is the word “faggot” not allowed on regular tv now? I know the word has been used in past episodes, but they went out of their way to avoid having the witness say it tonight. And the show borrowed a page from another Dick Wolf show, FBI, with its foot chase near the start with a suspect that was a red herring.

Not a whole lot else to say here, good episode, nothing spectacular and yes past episodes have dealt with similar themes, but this was a solid case that flowed well and was enjoyable to watch play out from start to finish. 

I want Detective Violet’s job looking at the cameras,etc.  She’s the one that ends up putting the case together.  
 

good ol’ Hudson U.  I wonder how they would do on College Bowl? 

[dttruman]

5 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

This was another good episode IMO, while the plot of parents covering for a kid has been done before, this was a good episode and I didn’t see it coming that the kid was the killer until a couple of minutes before it was revealed. Solid case and investigation, I thought it was compelling from start to finish, and I like the chemistry of the whole cast.

It was nice to see a background character in Detective Violet Yee get more of a role and even interact with Maroun. And Cosgrove and Shaw are making for a great pairing and have really gelled well, I enjoy their investigations, and the DA’s were good as well with entertaining court scenes. It was also nice to see a familiar face in defense attorney Seaver, he’s a recurring lawyer who’s been on both the Mothership and SVU a few times. And I liked the scene in Jack’s office when Nolan was venting and Jack calmed him with his advice.

I liked how Cosgrove did on the stand when Seaver was calling him a bigot, Cosgrove firmly but calmly stood his ground and didn’t lose any points with the jury. The Cosgrove we were shown at the start of season 21 might’ve lost his cool, another way Cosgrove has been fleshed out nicely. But he still has his edge, as he bluntly asked the professor about whether he was sleeping with the victim. 

I laughed when they said Hudson U was the best law school in America! We all know that place is a cesspool of shady characters and criminals and nonstop controversy, that has to be an inside joke between the writers and viewers every time something goes down at Hudson! Also, is the word “faggot” not allowed on regular tv now? I know the word has been used in past episodes, but they went out of their way to avoid having the witness say it tonight. And the show borrowed a page from another Dick Wolf show, FBI, with its foot chase near the start with a suspect that was a red herring.

Not a whole lot else to say here, good episode, nothing spectacular and yes past episodes have dealt with similar themes, but this was a solid case that flowed well and was enjoyable to watch play out from start to finish. 

You pretty much covered this episode. Nothing outrageous, a good investigation part with that nice little extra from Yee. Her involvement was subtle, but very important otherwise this episode would have fallen apart. The one thing that had me scratching my head though were the videos of the kid in the vicinity of the crime and disposing of the murder weapon. It suppose to be between 5am and 6am, I thought it's suppose to be a lot darker at that hour. Unless it was the summer solstice, but even then it would still be dark.

[Route66]

Reasonably good episode.

I only disliked it when the law student said she wasn't aware of Professor Nichols work on gay rights law, while Shaw said he was well known in the civil rights community and inspired Shaw to be a lawyer. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Route66

[TV Diva Queen]

I know I can google it, but anyone know off hand who played the professor?  He's just so good looking and has a presence about him. I enjoyed this episode, and was strangely sad when it turned out to be the son, not sure why, but it bothered me.  His whole trajectory of life is over.  

[blackwing]

I greatly enjoyed this episode, but it left me heartbroken.  Just like Samantha said at the end, a man is dead, a family destroyed, all because of something a good man said.  Ezra was right, in today's cancel culture, the media is very unforgiving and his career would have been over.  The victim was a bad guy, taking advantage of a man's ill-advised remark for his own personal gain.

This is one of the few episodes where I found myself actually sorry for the murderer.  13 year old boy just trying to help his parents get out of a bad situation.  The blackmailer was in the wrong, but that didn't mean he deserved to die.

It's really too bad that Ezra didn't own up to his remark.  He could have issued a press release acknowledging that he had had a bit too much to drink at an event and said something that he regrets.  He doesn't mean it, etc. but he is submitting his resignation.  He could have talked with the school officials in advance and told them that this student had been blackmailing him.  Then the school refuses to accept the resignation, says they stand behind him, everyone is human and is allowed to make mistakes.  And expels Pell for blackmailing.  Make an example of him by saying he is not a kind of person they want representing their institution.

9 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

It was nice to see a background character in Detective Violet Yee get more of a role and even interact with Maroun. And Cosgrove and Shaw are making for a great pairing and have really gelled well, I enjoy their investigations, and the DA’s were good as well with entertaining court scenes. It was also nice to see a familiar face in defense attorney Seaver, he’s a recurring lawyer who’s been on both the Mothership and SVU a few times. And I liked the scene in Jack’s office when Nolan was venting and Jack calmed him with his advice.

I liked how Cosgrove did on the stand when Seaver was calling him a bigot, Cosgrove firmly but calmly stood his ground and didn’t lose any points with the jury. The Cosgrove we were shown at the start of season 21 might’ve lost his cool, another way Cosgrove has been fleshed out nicely. But he still has his edge, as he bluntly asked the professor about whether he was sleeping with the victim. 

Agree about Cosgrove.  Wasn't there an episode last season where Cosgrove was painted as a racist?  I think he accounted for himself very well.  

I did like seeing that Detective (?) Yee is getting ever more increasing screentime.  She's always extremely integral to the case, she always finds the evidence that wins it for them.

39 minutes ago, Route66 said:

Reasonably good episode.

I only disliked it when the law student said she wasn't aware of Professor Nichols work on gay rights law, while Shaw said he was well known in the civil rights community and inspired Shaw to be a lawyer. 

Was she a law student?  I missed her introduction and am too lazy to go back and watch, but I thought she was just a waiter who was hired to work the event.  If she was a law student, surely she would know who he was, and since he was a well respected professor, she would have wanted to learn more about him.

[EtheltoTillie]

I too thought the waiter witness was not a law student, but she was implied to be a student of some kind who worked such jobs part time.  As for the kid killer plot, I thought it came out of nowhere, and of course, the last minute solution with detective work mid trial always strains credulity.

[shapeshifter]

10 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I didn’t see it coming that the kid was the killer until a couple of minutes before it was revealed.

1 minute ago, EtheltoTillie said:

As for the kid killer plot, I thought it came out of nowhere,

Because I was watching on a gigantic screen, I knew it was the kid as soon as they briefly flashed a blurry image of a family photo portrait (I think when first searching the house?) showing a son big enough to possibly use a pipe as a murder weapon——probably more easily than the older parents unless they worked out at the gym regularly.
I wondered if they cast the mom looking younger than the dad to bolster her as the red herring by making it look like maybe she could have swung a death blow? 

Also: I thought it seemed the nanny would want to protect the children she cares for. 
 

We never got the son saying the usual: I just wanted to scare him. I didn't mean to kill him. 
So at the end I was left wondering if the son was more of a sociopath that the parents knew. Heh. I watch too much TV.
 

13 hours ago, Broderbits said:

His confession was just a strategy to save their son, they obviously discussed it before court.

Yes.
On an old L&O episode they had 2 people confess to the same crime to cancel each other out. I don't recall the specifics. But I did wonder if they were going for something similar.

[blackwing]

5 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

On an old L&O episode they had 2 people confess to the same crime to cancel each other out. I don't recall the specifics. But I did wonder if they were going for something similar.

Yes, it seems to be a well-trod plot device on legal dramas.  I swear they used it on "L.A. Law" back in the day.  But it's always similar.  Wife is accused of murder.  Husband is granted immunity before testifying.  Then claims that he is the killer.  He has immunity so he can't be prosecuted and wife gets off because husband confessed.  

Edited October 28, 2022 by blackwing

[illdoc]

13 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Also, is the word “faggot” not allowed on regular tv now?

Just the other night, I watched a rerun (from 1986) in which the bonus at the end had (as the O word) "Oriental". At least, I assume that's what it was--they had blacked it out, but the clues were "Asian", "Chinese", "Japanese". The contestant got it, but they muted her response, so you couldn't hear her say it. Now, if "Oriental" isn't allowed, I doubt "f....t" (or "n....r") would be allowed.

[faithie]

2 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

On an old L&O episode they had 2 people confess to the same crime to cancel each other out. I don't recall the specifics. But I did wonder if they were going for something similar.

SVU had something like this just a couple weeks ago.  Not one but TWO adult women confessed to murdering their kidnapper in order to protect a little girl - (she looked about 10-11 years old).

[shapeshifter]

13 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Also, is the word “faggot” not allowed on regular tv now? I know the word has been used in past episodes, but they went out of their way to avoid having the witness say it tonight.

The word does not appear in the script; as you said, "they went out of their way to avoid having the witness say it tonight."
So it seemed to be self-censoring rather than not being "allowed."
However, I don't know if the writers chose to self-censor out of support for the LGBT+ community, or whether some Powers That Be in production thought it was just a good policy, or perhaps smart policy. 
But it doesn't appear to be a network thing. 

[shapeshifter]

Anyone else get a kick out of the guy playing the maintenance worker, Larry Brand, and his delivery of this punch line?

• [DETECTIVE] Maintenance worker. Name's Larry Brand.
• I showed up to do repairs on the dock at 7:30. Dead guy was floating right next to it. I called 911 right away.
• [DETECTIVE] You recognize him?
• Nope. All these Hudson kids look the same to me.
• [DETECTIVE] Did you see anything unusual when you got here?
• Yeah. [PAUSE]
  A dead guy.

I don't know who the actor is, but his acting chops in delivering that line made me wonder if he would have a bigger role, if not be the killer.
Later the kid with the stolen cell phones identified Larry as the guy he bought them from, but, alas, the actor who played Larry didn't get another speaking part that made it to the final cut.

But I have been noticing lately that sometimes a known actor will have a tiny role as a red herring.
Only Murders In The Building kind of riffed on this as a feature in both of their 2 seasons with Sting and Amy Schumer.

Edited October 28, 2022 by shapeshifter

[shapeshifter]

5 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Because I was watching on a gigantic screen, I knew it was the kid as soon as they briefly flashed a blurry image of a family photo portrait (I think when first searching the house?) showing a son big enough to possibly use a pipe as a murder weapon

The family photo is in the Dad’s office (too?).

Does anyone recognize the art on the wall in his office?

Edited October 28, 2022 by shapeshifter

[blackwing]

7 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

The family photo is in the Dad’s office (too?).

Does anyone recognize the art on the wall in his office?

I don't know the artwork, but I was fascinated by it too.  I kept trying to determine if every figure is unique or if it was just a repeating pattern.  There has to be a story behind this painting, maybe the artist has a connection to the show producers, like she is a cousin's wife's sister or something.

[MarylandGirl]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

The family photo is in the Dad’s office (too?).

Does anyone recognize the art on the wall in his office?

Out of curiosity, I tried a Google Lens search. It appears to be "CNR, Love One Another" by Laura James. It appears in this PDF.

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, blackwing said:

There has to be a story behind this painting, maybe the artist has a connection to the show producers, like she is a cousin's wife's sister or something.

2 hours ago, MarylandGirl said:

It appears in this PDF.

Thank you for finding that, @MarylandGirl! I especially appreciate that you found its provenance too! 

@blackwing, on that PDF it says: "The painting is now permanently installed in Gill Library on the College’s main campus in New Rochelle, NY."

Could they have shot the scene for the professor's office in the Gill Library of the College of New Rochelle? 
Otherwise it would have been a print, which, for various reasons, seems unlikely, especially since the commercial version of the print is cropped much smaller: https://www.allposters.com/-sp/Love-One-Another-Posters_i16184707_.htm

[Door County Cherry]

It feels like there's a legal decision made in every episode that irks me.  In this one, it's the judge deciding to throw out the recording of the professor saying a slur because it was said to his wife.  I have a hard time believing a judge would make that privacy is expected in a room for of 100s of people (some who may be able to read lips), reporters, recording devices and possibly hot mics. 

I still feel like the mysteries feel a little empty.  Is it weird I want more suspects?  Or more steps before they decide on a perp? 

[Samsnee]

12 hours ago, TV Diva Queen said:

I know I can google it, but anyone know off hand who played the professor?  He's just so good looking and has a presence about him. I enjoyed this episode, and was strangely sad when it turned out to be the son, not sure why, but it bothered me.  His whole trajectory of life is over.  

I don’t know his name but he was in Top Gun Maverick and played Warlock

Not the best episode or twist but I enjoyed it. The message on cancel culture was a little heavy handed and I wasn’t sure what they were trying to do with making Cosgrove appear as a racist. 
 

Also the police work was shoddy in this episode. They catch a guy with the cell phone of the victim and the first question wasn’t where he got it? No one checked the video cameras around the neighborhood of the accused or the murder scene around the time of the murder?

And why didn’t the DA call the other detective, who is black, to corroborate Cosgrove’s testimony?

Edited October 29, 2022 by Samsnee

[Xeliou66]

14 minutes ago, Samsnee said:

I don’t know his name but he was in Top Gun Maverick and played Warlock

Not the best episode or twist but I enjoyed it. The message on cancel culture was a little heavy handed and I wasn’t sure what they were trying to do with making Cosgrove appear as a racist. 
 

Also the police work was shoddy in this episode. They catch a guy with the cell phone of the victim and the first question wasn’t where he got it? No one checked the video cameras around the neighborhood of the accused or the murder scene around the time of the murder?

And why didn’t the DA call the other detective, who is black, to corroborate Cosgrove’s testimony?

I think they were giving Cosgrove some more character development with him staying cool under the pressure of being smeared as a bigot by the defense, as I said in my original post, Cosgrove was more hot headed when we were first introduced to him and he’s gotten fleshed out - I really liked seeing him firmly but calmly refute Seaver’s allegations and not lose points with the jury. And I agree that Price should’ve called Shaw to corroborate Cosgrove’s testimony about the nanny.

But I have questions about the nanny - was she in on the cover up and the parents told her what to say, and that’s why she fled? Because it seems her story had to be false since it appeared the mother never left the house but the son who committed the murder did. But this was never cleared up. Maybe they could’ve given more clarity if they hadn’t wasted time on the foot chase of the red herring suspect, that chase was unnecessary. 

[shapeshifter]

6 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

But I have questions about the nanny - was she in on the cover up and the parents told her what to say, and that’s why she fled? Because it seems her story had to be false since it appeared the mother never left the house but the son who committed the murder did. But this was never cleared up.

I assumed the nanny was paid off?? But maybe she returned to Poland penniless.
It seems all of the episodes in the reboot have left dangling, peripheral story lines——which is probably how it works IRL cases. 

[illdoc]

The Professor: Charles Parnell https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0663174/?ref_=tt_cl_t_7

While looking at his filmography, I discovered he was on the soap I watched (AMC), which is probably why he looked familiar to me!

[Joimiaroxeu]

Hudson U. was described as having the best law school in the country. So has it moved to Connecticut? Or Massachusetts? 😉 I hope that remark was meant to be funny because even if Hudson = Columbia University the brag still doesn't quite work.

Detective Shaw was looking relatively svelte in this episode. Guess Mechad's seriously been hitting the gym.

Foiled by the cattail fluff. Curses!

Nice to see Michael Boatman pop up on L&O again as an attorney since his role as a lawyer on The Good Fight no longer exists due to the series ending in a couple of weeks.

The ADAs should've known the nanny would disappear. She had too much hanging over her head.

What was with that dagger point-shaped hairline on the nape of Cosgrove's neck? Is that symbolic of something?

Hugh Dancy had an interesting pronunciation of the word "anything." Was that his British accent coming through?

It was the son?!!!??? Poor kid's life is ruined because his father's indiscretion. (And because he murdered a guy.) I didn't care for his being used as a deus ex machina and wish the writers had done a better job of setting him up as a possible suspect. It didn't make sense to me that a straight arrow kid who was probably a bit sheltered decided that killing someone was a solution. 

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

wish the writers had done a better job of setting him up as a possible suspect. It didn't make sense to me that a straight arrow kid who was probably a bit sheltered decided that killing someone was a solution. 

The show has been leaving too much to the viewers' imaginations, IMO, but I can't blame them since saying "my degree is from the school of L&O" has become a well-known figure of speech.

If this episode had been produced 10 years ago, we would have at least had a few lines explaining that the pipe was a weapon of opportunity, and so the murder was not premeditated. And maybe the son would have given some explanation of how it happened——like maybe the son thought he could reason with the blackmailer, but then the blackmailer called him a rich N-word or something. But now we don't get that level of exposition anymore.

[Zaffy]

Even if got who the killer was the moment they showed us the family photo, I think this was a decent episode. Probably the revival's best so far, not that it was anything special..

[AvidFan]

On 10/28/2022 at 11:44 AM, shapeshifter said:

On an old L&O episode they had 2 people confess to the same crime to cancel each other out. I don't recall the specifics. But I did wonder if they were going for something similar.

That episode was Justice Swerved:  Victor Sifuentes defends Mrs. Lafferty, one half of a married couple accused of murdering their infant son.  In court, a doctor offers evidence of abuse on the Laffertys' son, though Victor argues that the boy died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and was bruised from the CPR attempts.  On the stand, Mr. Lafferty describes the night of his son's death, and the prosecutor highlights the baby's serious medical problems and suggests that he murdered him to avoid future bills and stress. He denies it, but admits that he attempted to put the child up for adoption without his wife's knowledge, but was told that he could not be placed.

 Mrs. Lafferty visits Victor privately and explains that she found an article about SIDS in her husband's desk that predates the baby's death, suggesting that he did indeed kill him and made it look like crib death. She admits that he entered the nursery alone that night, and Victor pushes her to repeat her story on the stand, though she is distressed at the thought of accusing her husband. She goes through with it, however, admitting in court that she is now unsure of his innocence because of the article and the adoption reveal. Mr. Lafferty's lawyer John Trischuta berates Victor for tricking them, but Victor protests that he is compelled to defend his client to the best of his ability.

 On the stand, Mr. Lafferty suggests that his wife is now accusing him to cover up her own guilt, stating that she planted the SIDS article and was in fact seeing a therapist because she felt that she did not love her child.  Victor and the prosecutor deliver their closing arguments, pointing out how both spouses have blamed the other for the crime.  Mr. and Mrs. Lafferty are both found not guilty, as the evidence does not clearly point to one or the other, and when Victor spots them subtly touching hands in the elevator, he realizes that they were working together all along. 

[Xeliou66]

5 minutes ago, AvidFan said:

That episode was Justice Swerved:  Victor Sifuentes defends Mrs. Lafferty, one half of a married couple accused of murdering their infant son.  In court, a doctor offers evidence of abuse on the Laffertys' son, though Victor argues that the boy died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and was bruised from the CPR attempts.  On the stand, Mr. Lafferty describes the night of his son's death, and the prosecutor highlights the baby's serious medical problems and suggests that he murdered him to avoid future bills and stress. He denies it, but admits that he attempted to put the child up for adoption without his wife's knowledge, but was told that he could not be placed.

 Mrs. Lafferty visits Victor privately and explains that she found an article about SIDS in her husband's desk that predates the baby's death, suggesting that he did indeed kill him and made it look like crib death. She admits that he entered the nursery alone that night, and Victor pushes her to repeat her story on the stand, though she is distressed at the thought of accusing her husband. She goes through with it, however, admitting in court that she is now unsure of his innocence because of the article and the adoption reveal. Mr. Lafferty's lawyer John Trischuta berates Victor for tricking them, but Victor protests that he is compelled to defend his client to the best of his ability.

 On the stand, Mr. Lafferty suggests that his wife is now accusing him to cover up her own guilt, stating that she planted the SIDS article and was in fact seeing a therapist because she felt that she did not love her child.  Victor and the prosecutor deliver their closing arguments, pointing out how both spouses have blamed the other for the crime.  Mr. and Mrs. Lafferty are both found not guilty, as the evidence does not clearly point to one or the other, and when Victor spots them subtly touching hands in the elevator, he realizes that they were working together all along. 

This wasn’t an L&O episode - what show are you describing? 

[AvidFan]

14 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

This wasn’t an L&O episode - what show are you describing? 

Sorry, replied to wrong part of the post, the original post also referred to a LA Law episode but the poster did not remember the details.

Edited November 1, 2022 by AvidFan

[CrystalBlue]

21 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

This wasn’t an L&O episode - what show are you describing? 

This is an L.A. Law episode from 1990, one that I'll never forget.

[Mellowyellow]

Late to the party as I'm only watching now but this was a pretty good episode.

Basic crime, simple motive, heartbreaking ending no matter what. They don't need all the weird, wacky, heavy, trying to be epic episodes. This ep is that law and order does best.

I found myself clinging onto the fact that the kid's record will be sealed and maybe he won't get too harsh of a sentence. I didn't care for the victim😅

I'd be a terrible juror 🤣