S22.E07: Only The Lonely

[WendyCR72]

Airing November 10, 2022:

Quote

A crisis consultant who's made many enemies on behalf of her clients is murdered. Price and Maroun must set aside the potential damage to a witness's reputation in order to strengthen their case.

[dttruman]

21 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

A crisis consultant who's made many enemies on behalf of her clients is murdered. Price and Maroun must set aside the potential damage to a witness's reputation in order to strengthen their case.

I don't quite know what to expect from this episode.

[dttruman]

When the guys show that video of the client arguing with the deceased, was that security footage or what? If so I didn't know that kind of video has audio with it.

Wow, 3 minutes in and there is enough evidence to make an arrest. Is that a new record?

Are they trying to insert Business locations into the story backgrounds now? What's that car company that has those open air or clear plexiglass walls, that sells their cars and buys cars online?

Considering what is going on with the trial as the defendant is representing himself, does anyone know how realistic this is, or are they fudging this a little for effect?

Edited November 11, 2022 by dttruman

[dubbel zout]

This episode reminded me a bit of an earlier OG one, "Hubris," where Tim Guinee plays a conman who acts as his own attorney and flirts with the forewoman to mess up the trial. He also played the "I'm not a lawyer, so be kind to me" card.

I'd think that having a bunch of passports under false names would automatically be enough to hold someone without bail. 

I liked the break room talk with Maroun, Dixon, and Yee. I'm glad the show is slowing down a bit for those moments. It needs them.

[Door County Cherry]

2 hours ago, dttruman said:

Considering what is going on with the trial as the defendant is representing himself, does anyone know how realistic this is, or are they fudging this a little for effect?

So everything I know about law I learned from the original years of L&O.  I do believe he could represent himself.  I don't believe the judge would have let him do so without backup counsel, especially since he wasn't a member of the bar.  

I actually thought this episode was pretty good--perhaps the best of the run--up until 42 minutes in.  Then the nonsensical legal decision came in that I was dreading.  There's no way that the judge would toss a witness interview that took place in a restaurant because he wasn't read Miranda.  Just no.  

[dttruman]

3 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

I'd think that having a bunch of passports under false names would automatically be enough to hold someone without bail. 

I thought so also. That lady who guaranteed his bond of $1 million, did anyone else see her at the trial? I also thought the Judge for the trial granted the defendant a lot of latitude in order to be his own lawyer,

[The Wild Sow]

3 hours ago, dttruman said:

Are they trying to insert Business locations into the story backgrounds now? What's that car company that has those open air or clear plexiglass walls, that sells their cars and buys cars online?

That looked like an elevator parking garage (automated parking system, lift garage, other assorted names.)  Cars are driven onto the platform, then they go up or down to make room for the next customer.  Space saving over traditional lots or garages. 

[Frisky Wig]

Kudos to this show for featuring an adult who self-harms. Self-harming behavior is seen as a “teenager issue” and adults are vastly underrepresented, despite it being an issue. 
 

Also, Pierre stood WAY too close to the jurors/jury box. Every time a character in a show says they want to represent themself in court, I roll my eyes and sarcastically think “this is gonna go just great!” 

[Xeliou66]

Solid episode - interesting case, good detective stuff and trial scenes. I did guess the perp the minute he appeared onscreen, he’s a recognizable actor and he stood out as a suspect, but it was still a good case, I wasn’t sure what his motive would be or how they would prove he did it. There have been a few episodes where charismatic perps have represented themselves, I was reminded of season 11’s Hubris as well and it made for entertaining courtroom theater. I was kept in suspense about whether the con artist would get off or not and I was glad they found him guilty. 

I thought Judge Leone was very biased towards the defense, I couldn’t believe he excluded Shaw’s testimony based on nothing but the word of the defendant, taking the word of a known con artist over that of Shaw and Cosgrove and barring his testimony entirely was absurd. I get that pro se defendants are allowed some leeway but that was a bad decision by the judge. 

Jack was awesome as always, I loved how he got Nolan on track and gave him the advice to track down whoever bought the fancy scarf that was the murder weapon, Jack may not have as many scenes as he used to but he’s still awesome in all of them.

I also liked the scene of Dixon, Maroun and Yee discussing the case, it’s nice to see interactions between police/DA’s and I like how they are giving Yee a bigger role. I also liked how they revealed Dixon has been married and divorced twice, I like how they give us tidbits of info about the characters without getting soapy or losing focus on the case.

Maroun has come into her own this season and I like how she’s more forceful and isn’t afraid to give her opinions and disagree with Nolan and Jack, she’s been developed more which is good as the second chair ADA is sometimes a bland role.

My nitpicks about the episode - I would’ve liked a scene of Cosgrove/Shaw visiting the ME instead of getting the autopsy report in an info dump from Dixon, I guess I still miss Rodgers and wish they would bring on a recurring ME. Also the foot chase was unnecessary, they’ve added in more action this season which isn’t really a good move, L&O has never been an action based show, it’s only a minor nitpick but the scenes of foot chases could be used to flesh out the case more. Also I wish they would go back to openings of people stumbling onto crime scenes instead of the openings showing one of the last moments of the victim’s life.

Overall this was a good episode and the show is really good right now - the characters have good chemistry and the cases flow nicely, I think the reboot has found it’s rhythm and I’m thoroughly enjoying having it back.

[MinorL]

If judges allowed defendants to represent themselves and then let them walk all over the process as a result, they would all represent themselves. I’m a civil attorney, not a criminal one, but I found this totally unrealistic. 
 

I also knew Mark Feuerstein was the baddie as soon as I saw him. 

Edited November 12, 2022 by MinorL
Misspelling of a name.

[vb68]

I also thought it was a good episode. It almost feels like classic Mothership again. It's not all the way there yet, but it's getting closer. Shaw is so good in the police half that it's hard to remember now that it was Bernard last year.

3 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

My nitpicks about the episode - I would’ve liked a scene of Cosgrove/Shaw visiting the ME instead of getting the autopsy report in an info dump from Dixon, I guess I still miss Rodgers and wish they would bring on a recurring ME.

I hear you about Rodgers especially. I miss her. But I was glad that Dixon had a little more to do. I miss the way Van Buren would know how to zero in on something that would invariably help the case or point the detectives in the right direction. Her line about shining their shoes because they were going to a restaurant that charges $3700  for dinner was very Anita-like. 

And they have have done a good job fleshing out Maroun lately. This was the first episode where I really found her likable and  easy to cheer on. Price remains something of a cipher. 

4 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

There's no way that the judge would toss a witness interview that took place in a restaurant because he wasn't read Miranda.  Just no.  

My biggest complaint was that judge was something of a dolt.  I did wonder if we were suppose to think the judge was drawn into Miller's charm for the lack of a better word. Both Mark Feuerstein and Alysia Reiner were good in their roles.  Feuerstein always seemed like he was on the verge of breaking out for bigger things, but it never really happened.

Edited November 11, 2022 by vb68

[dttruman]

5 hours ago, The Wild Sow said:

That looked like an elevator parking garage (automated parking system, lift garage, other assorted names.)  Cars are driven onto the platform, then they go up or down to make room for the next customer.  Space saving over traditional lots or garages. 

I know this is totally off topic. But with all that easy access or less than troublesome visual of the cars, wouldn't that encourage break-ins of the cars?

[shapeshifter]

6 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I thought Judge Leone was very biased towards the defense, I couldn’t believe he excluded Shaw’s testimony based on nothing but the word of the defendant, taking the word of a known con artist over that of Shaw and Cosgrove and barring his testimony entirely was absurd. I get that pro se defendants are allowed some leeway but that was a bad decision by the judge. 

Would the judge’s repeated granting of the Pro Se lawyer’s requests for exclusions and inclusions make an appeal impossible?
 

6 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

the foot chase was unnecessary, they’ve added in more action this season which isn’t really a good move, L&O has never been an action based show, it’s only a minor nitpick but the scenes of foot chases could be used to flesh out the case more.

So is it foot chases that have been eating up time that would have been used to fill in story details in the reboot?

And speaking of this episode’s foot chase:  
It ended with the killer physically attacking a detective with a tire iron. Shouldn’t the detectives testified about that at trial? Or was it decided off screen that the defendant would claim he was defending himself from expected brutality?

 

[Raja]

2 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Would the judge’s repeated granting of the Pro Se lawyer’s requests for exclusions and inclusions make an appeal impossible?
 

So is it foot chases that have been eating up time that would have been used to fill in story details in the reboot?

And speaking of this episode’s foot chase:  
It ended with the killer physically attacking a detective with a tire iron. Shouldn’t the detectives testified about that at trial? Or was it decided off screen that the defendant would claim he was defending himself from expected brutality?

 

Once again improving "Law" and meek "Order". At least the increased "action" makes for a better mix than whatever the problem was in season 21 after the revival. But then I am wondering again about Mehcad Brooks physical condition by the way he moves. There does seem to be an increase of suspects attacking police with lethal other than firearms or bladed weapons this TV season in general. But given the show format I think the assaults' on police would only come up as a slight consolation prize after the jury announces not guilty. Or to go back to the squad of bystanders pointing their phones at the fight. But that just happened Sunday night

[The Wild Sow]

4 hours ago, dttruman said:

That looked like an elevator parking garage (automated parking system, lift garage, other assorted names.)  Cars are driven onto the platform, then they go up or down to make room for the next customer.  Space saving over traditional lots or garages. 

4 hours ago, dttruman said:

I know this is totally off topic. But with all that easy access or less than troublesome visual of the cars, wouldn't that encourage break-ins of the cars?

Less so than surface lots or normal (enclosed) garages, I would think.  What's the thief going to do, clamber up the side of the elevator like King Kong? 😁

[dubbel zout]

3 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

And speaking of this episode’s foot chase:  
It ended with the killer physically attacking a detective with a tire iron. Shouldn’t the detectives testified about that at trial? Or was it decided off screen that the defendant would claim he was defending himself from expected brutality?

That was dropped completely. Maroun should have used it during the bail hearing as another reason to keep him in jail.

[dttruman]

16 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

4 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

And speaking of this episode’s foot chase:  
It ended with the killer physically attacking a detective with a tire iron. Shouldn’t the detectives testified about that at trial? Or was it decided off screen that the defendant would claim he was defending himself from expected brutality?

That was dropped completely. Maroun should have used it during the bail hearing as another reason to keep him in jail.

Do you think that would have given more fuel for the fire for the defendant to show that it was a police & prosecution conspiracy to frame him? He could argue that he was trying to protect himself, considering the way the writers were letting the judge give the defendant much more credence to the conspiracy theory.

[dttruman]

I wonder why they wouldn't list Elisabeth Röhm as the director of this episode? IMDB listed the director of "Dead Ball" on SVU, Michael Smith, but didn't list Rohm for Only the Lonely.

[Raja]

2 minutes ago, dttruman said:

I wonder why they wouldn't list Elisabeth Röhm as the director of this episode? IMDB listed the director of "Dead Ball" on SVU, Michael Smith, but didn't list Rohm for Only the Lonely.

I noticed her on the credits. I thought IMBD was crowd sourced and it would take one of us to list her. But then again the site looks different so that may have changed but I didn't care enough to notice

[blackwing]

Good episode.  I'm a bit skeptical that the girlfriend who was such a champion for women's rights would allow herself to be filmed on a sex tape.  She's known the guy for 10 months, she seems to be about 50 so it's not like she wouldn't be aware of the tenuous nature of relationships and the possibility of things going wrong and this tape being released.  Especially for someone who was so protective of her public image as a feminist lawyer.  I get what she was saying on the stand about how sometimes she's just a woman and wants to have fun, but I find myself still skeptical that she would have consented to allowing to be filmed.

12 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

I actually thought this episode was pretty good--perhaps the best of the run--up until 42 minutes in.  Then the nonsensical legal decision came in that I was dreading.  There's no way that the judge would toss a witness interview that took place in a restaurant because he wasn't read Miranda.  Just no.  

11 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I thought Judge Leone was very biased towards the defense, I couldn’t believe he excluded Shaw’s testimony based on nothing but the word of the defendant, taking the word of a known con artist over that of Shaw and Cosgrove and barring his testimony entirely was absurd. I get that pro se defendants are allowed some leeway but that was a bad decision by the judge. 

Agreed, this judge was extremely biased.  Price and Maroun argued that it was Miller's strategy to act as his own lawyer so he could be give wide latitude to do and say whatever he wanted... and then the judge allowed exactly that.  There's no way that Shaw's testimony should have been excluded.  Like Price said, Miller/Pierre wasn't even a suspect at the time, he was just some friend of the deceased trying to be helpful and provide some information.  How could the detectives have been required to Mirandize him?

12 hours ago, dttruman said:

I thought so also. That lady who guaranteed his bond of $1 million, did anyone else see her at the trial? I also thought the Judge for the trial granted the defendant a lot of latitude in order to be his own lawyer,

I was wondering why Maroun and Price didn't subpoena this woman.  Is she a new target/girlfriend?  What's her connection and why was she so willing to guarantee the bond?  In my mind, in the scenes that were edited out, they put her on the stand to ask about her relationship with Miller.  It would show that he has a pattern of conning multiple women at the same time.

5 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

And speaking of this episode’s foot chase:  
It ended with the killer physically attacking a detective with a tire iron. Shouldn’t the detectives testified about that at trial? Or was it decided off screen that the defendant would claim he was defending himself from expected brutality?

I didn't understand that either... he physically attacked a detective with a crowbar.  Shouldn't the detectives have been allowed to testify that they were at his home conducting a search (with a warrant) and when he saw them, he ran, and then attacked them?  This incident was completely separate from the conversation where he lied to them.

I'm wondering about the scarf.  I think more should have been done to establish that Miller went to the new boyfriend's home and disposed of the scarf in order to frame him.  I know there was some discussion about how they didn't find anything on camera, but surely there would have been some video of Miller in the vicinity of the new boyfriend's home.  But I guess it was enough for the attorney to say that Miller rushed out of the apartment with the scarf to establish that he was in possession of it.

[Route66]

25 minutes ago, blackwing said:

Good episode.  I'm a bit skeptical that the girlfriend who was such a champion for women's rights would allow herself to be filmed on a sex tape.  She's known the guy for 10 months, she seems to be about 50 so it's not like she wouldn't be aware of the tenuous nature of relationships and the possibility of things going wrong and this tape being released.  Especially for someone who was so protective of her public image as a feminist lawyer.  I get what she was saying on the stand about how sometimes she's just a woman and wants to have fun, but I find myself still skeptical that she would have consented to allowing to be filmed.

Agreed, this judge was extremely biased.  Price and Maroun argued that it was Miller's strategy to act as his own lawyer so he could be give wide latitude to do and say whatever he wanted... and then the judge allowed exactly that.  There's no way that Shaw's testimony should have been excluded.  Like Price said, Miller/Pierre wasn't even a suspect at the time, he was just some friend of the deceased trying to be helpful and provide some information.  How could the detectives have been required to Mirandize him?

I was wondering why Maroun and Price didn't subpoena this woman.  Is she a new target/girlfriend?  What's her connection and why was she so willing to guarantee the bond?  In my mind, in the scenes that were edited out, they put her on the stand to ask about her relationship with Miller.  It would show that he has a pattern of conning multiple women at the same time.

I didn't understand that either... he physically attacked a detective with a crowbar.  Shouldn't the detectives have been allowed to testify that they were at his home conducting a search (with a warrant) and when he saw them, he ran, and then attacked them?  This incident was completely separate from the conversation where he lied to them.

I'm wondering about the scarf.  I think more should have been done to establish that Miller went to the new boyfriend's home and disposed of the scarf in order to frame him.  I know there was some discussion about how they didn't find anything on camera, but surely there would have been some video of Miller in the vicinity of the new boyfriend's home.  But I guess it was enough for the attorney to say that Miller rushed out of the apartment with the scarf to establish that he was in possession of it.

I fail to understand why there are cameras everywhere in NY but not at the private residence of an obviously wealthy man. 

[Raja]

41 minutes ago, blackwing said:

Good episode.  I'm a bit skeptical that the girlfriend who was such a champion for women's rights would allow herself to be filmed on a sex tape.  She's known the guy for 10 months, she seems to be about 50 so it's not like she wouldn't be aware of the tenuous nature of relationships and the possibility of things going wrong and this tape being released.  Especially for someone who was so protective of her public image as a feminist lawyer.  I get what she was saying on the stand about how sometimes she's just a woman and wants to have fun, but I find myself still skeptical that she would have consented to allowing to be filmed.

With powerful men its called thinking with the little head.

[dubbel zout]

4 hours ago, dttruman said:

Do you think that would have given more fuel for the fire for the defendant to show that it was a police & prosecution conspiracy to frame him? He could argue that he was trying to protect himself, considering the way the writers were letting the judge give the defendant much more credence to the conspiracy theory.

The bail hearing judge and the trial judge were different judges. A bail hearing has a specific focus; I know in other episodes when some fact is brought up that doesn't really have anything to do with whether bail is granted, the hearing judge will say it's a matter for the jury.

[Door County Cherry]

3 hours ago, blackwing said:

I was wondering why Maroun and Price didn't subpoena this woman.  Is she a new target/girlfriend?  What's her connection and why was she so willing to guarantee the bond?  In my mind, in the scenes that were edited out, they put her on the stand to ask about her relationship with Miller.  It would show that he has a pattern of conning multiple women at the same time.

I believe they did talk about why they couldn't call current/previous girlfriends.  Just like the lawyer they had to convince to testify, his targets were accomplished women who don't want to look stupid.  Maroun felt most would probably testify that they gave their money and gifts freely. 

There are a few documentaries about these con artists. 

I don't think the judge was 'biased' necessarily.   I just think it's another example of the show doing dumb legal things to try and amp up the suspense.

[Morrigan2575]

17 hours ago, MinorL said:

I also knew Mark Fierstein was the baddie as soon as I saw him.

Same. As soon as I saw he wasn't a defense attorney I knew he was the killer 😆

[SoapDoc]

I liked the case. It does feel a bit more like the old school episodes. I thought of "Hubris" as well.

21 hours ago, blackwing said:

I'm wondering about the scarf.  I think more should have been done to establish that Miller went to the new boyfriend's home and disposed of the scarf in order to frame him.  I know there was some discussion about how they didn't find anything on camera, but surely there would have been some video of Miller in the vicinity of the new boyfriend's home.  But I guess it was enough for the attorney to say that Miller rushed out of the apartment with the scarf to establish that he was in possession of it.

The scarf was a point that stuck with me too. Establishing that the murder weapon was found at the home of a person that the defendant directed them to whom there was no reason for the defendant to be in contact with. It might not have kept the feminist lawyer off the stand, but I did think it was a point they could have utilized more during their strategy session instead of addressing it in 2 sentences.

IANAL but it bugged me.

[Aileen]

Fun episode, but it was obvious Mark Feuerstein was the bad guy as soon as he appeared on the screen. You don’t hire him if he’s not a big plot point.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Aileen said:

Fun episode, but it was obvious Mark Feuerstein was the bad guy as soon as he appeared on the screen. You don’t hire him if he’s not a big plot point.

Yeah, although Mark Feuerstein looked like he could outrun any other actor of any age playing a cop chasing a suspect, so I guess he could be hired as a red herring too. 😉

[Joimiaroxeu]

Eight aliases and nine dates of birth. Bet that was a lot of work to keep straight. The perp probably felt like he was earning all the money and other stuff he swindled. 😉

Since this episode was directed by Elizabeth Röhm, she of the infamous "is it because I'm a lesbian?" episode ending, I wonder why they had Price assume Maroun's date was with a man? Do we know for certain she's heterosexual?

Am not blaming the victim; I definitely believe Grace Pollard did not deserve to have such an intimate moment become public fodder in order to humiliate and discredit her. However, in agreeing to have those kinds of private moments to be recorded, I think you are always taking a risk the video will get released--especially in the digital age. It was unfortunate Pollard had given her consent, and it's even more unfortunate for the people who weren't able to consent because they didn't know a recording was being made.

Was anyone but me thinking Pollard was going to turn out to be a trans woman and that's what she didn't want to be revealed in court?

This was the second episode in a row that the defense attorney was basically allowed to go wild in court. I hope that isn't going to be a thing now due to weak writing for Maroun and Price.

[shapeshifter]

39 minutes ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

This was the second episode in a row that the defense attorney was basically allowed to go wild in court. I hope that isn't going to be a thing now due to weak writing for Maroun and Price.

Good point. Two of those kind of courtroom scenes per season seems like the maximum, and, really, for the sake of creativity, one should be sufficient, in which the judge allows the defense enough leeway to drive a truck through.

[Ailianna]

On 11/10/2022 at 10:41 PM, Door County Cherry said:

So everything I know about law I learned from the original years of L&O.  I do believe he could represent himself.  I don't believe the judge would have let him do so without backup counsel, especially since he wasn't a member of the bar.  

I actually thought this episode was pretty good--perhaps the best of the run--up until 42 minutes in.  Then the nonsensical legal decision came in that I was dreading.  There's no way that the judge would toss a witness interview that took place in a restaurant because he wasn't read Miranda.  Just no.  

On 11/10/2022 at 10:42 PM, dttruman said:

I thought so also. That lady who guaranteed his bond of $1 million, did anyone else see her at the trial? I also thought the Judge for the trial granted the defendant a lot of latitude in order to be his own lawyer,

On 11/11/2022 at 1:38 AM, MinorL said:

If judges allowed defendants to represent themselves and then let them walk all over the process as a result, they would all represent themselves. I’m a civil attorney, not a criminal one, but I found this totally unrealistic. 
 

I also knew Mark Feuerstein was the baddie as soon as I saw him. 

I am a criminal prosecutor in NY, so I thought I'd share on this point. A defendant does have the right to represent himself, but judges must make a "searching inquiry" to make sure they understand some basic concepts and more importantly, that they are at a significant disadvantage representing themselves.

They always have a lawyer to assist defendant; whether the defendant makes use of the attorney is their own call. They are called shadow counsel or standby counsel, or something similar. But they are only there to do what defendant asks. My experience is that they mostly don't ask or don't listen if they do.  (Yes, I have had a couple defendants who represented themselves in front of juries. The juries usually ended up hating them because they are slow, confusing, and usually end up admitting things by the way they ask questions-- real example: "You can't see my neck in this video [of the burglary] can you?")

Judges do tell pro ses they will be held to the same standards as a lawyer--but they never do. The judges give pro ses lots of leeway so they don't look too mean. What I've never seen allowed though is the mid trial suppression (totally voluntary statement, btw), or some of the stunts he tried. 

And a real pro se trial has plenty of drama without needing anything extra!

[dttruman]

1 hour ago, Ailianna said:

I am a criminal prosecutor in NY, so I thought I'd share on this point. A defendant does have the right to represent himself, but judges must make a "searching inquiry" to make sure they understand some basic concepts and more importantly, that they are at a significant disadvantage representing themselves.

They always have a lawyer to assist defendant; whether the defendant makes use of the attorney is their own call. They are called shadow counsel or standby counsel, or something similar. But they are only there to do what defendant asks. My experience is that they mostly don't ask or don't listen if they do.  (Yes, I have had a couple defendants who represented themselves in front of juries. The juries usually ended up hating them because they are slow, confusing, and usually end up admitting things by the way they ask questions-- real example: "You can't see my neck in this video [of the burglary] can you?")

Judges do tell pro ses they will be held to the same standards as a lawyer--but they never do. The judges give pro ses lots of leeway so they don't look too mean. What I've never seen allowed though is the mid trial suppression (totally voluntary statement, btw), or some of the stunts he tried. 

And a real pro se trial has plenty of drama without needing anything extra!

We had an actual pro se trial just recently going on here in the USA, where the defendant ran down and killed 8 people known as the Dancing Grannies in Wisconsin during a Christmas parade. I don't know if Law & Order took some ideas from this trial, but it sure had it's outrageous moments.

[Samsnee]

The judge in this case was ridiculous. He gave him way too much leeway to make false accusations and then allowing him to play a sex tape that had no real value beyond showing someone annoyed at being interrupted. The fact that she didn’t even know she was being filmed should have been enough to exclude. 
 

And Maroun needs to get a happier ending in one of these episodes eventually. 

Edited November 14, 2022 by Samsnee

[dubbel zout]

12 hours ago, Samsnee said:

The fact that she didn’t even know she was being filmed should have been enough to exclude. 

She did know she was being filmed.

[Samsnee]

2 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

She did know she was being filmed.

I thought they asked her if she didn’t give consent they could have it excluded

[dubbel zout]

I thought they were giving her a head's up that the video would be shown. The issue to me seemed to be that it didn't have probative value.

[Door County Cherry]

7 hours ago, Samsnee said:

I thought they asked her if she didn’t give consent they could have it excluded

They did as a way of asking her if she had consented or not.  She kind of shrugged to indicate she did know she was being filmed. 

[Tachi Rocinante]

On 11/11/2022 at 3:35 AM, vb68 said:

 Feuerstein always seemed like he was on the verge of breaking out for bigger things, but it never really happened.

He got 8 seasons as the lead in Royal Pains, so he's probably doing OK. That was a good USA Network show.

On 11/13/2022 at 12:53 PM, Joimiaroxeu said:

Since this episode was directed by Elizabeth Röhm, she of the infamous "is it because I'm a lesbian?" episode ending, I wonder why they had Price assume Maroun's date was with a man? Do we know for certain she's heterosexual?

I think it was vague on purpose.

[KeithJ]

On 11/11/2022 at 10:47 AM, blackwing said:

Agreed, this judge was extremely biased.  Price and Maroun argued that it was Miller's strategy to act as his own lawyer so he could be give wide latitude to do and say whatever he wanted... and then the judge allowed exactly that.  There's no way that Shaw's testimony should have been excluded.  Like Price said, Miller/Pierre wasn't even a suspect at the time, he was just some friend of the deceased trying to be helpful and provide some information.  How could the detectives have been required to Mirandize him?

This judge just set precedent that every single witness in a case now needs to be mirandized just in case they are actually the perp.