S22.E16: Deadline

[WendyCR72]

Airing March 23, 2023:

Quote

When a celebrated journalist is killed, Cosgrove and Shaw explore an unpublished report involving a prominent politician. Price and Maroun fight an uphill battle when their only credible witness is currently awaiting trial for another heinous crime.

 

[Xeliou66]

Price and Maroun having trouble with a witness just seems cliched, it happens too frequently, I hope this episode is a good one. 

[dubbel zout]

Why did the murder victim leave his door wide open? That's just asking for trouble, and trouble is what he got.

Ugh, Cosgrove is back to whistling for people. Please STAHP. It's so gross.

And again it seems as if Price and Maroun can't anticipate any objection the defense might have and are dismayed when one is raised and they lose. Whatever prep they're doing is wildly inadequate.

[stonehaven]

I swear the writers fall asleep on the "Order" side. The show I know would have had the prosecutors pulling out ALL the stops, case law, Supreme Courts, precedents to get that gun in and the traffic stop. Also, I hope Price went to the 19 year old girl's family to explain to them that "Yeah, you suffered a trauma and you get to relive it over and over because the guy will be set free because I am TOO F_ING DUMB to win a case on my own with a POS witness." I hope that POS' next victim sues the DA's office for injuries received during his next attack.

I swear they should rename this show "If looks could kill". It was like the writers couldn't think of dialogue so they said "Look ponderous and we'll turn up the cello music"...

I should learn by now to just stop watching once they get to the prosecution side. Oh look a preview has more Pryce.....ya..Thankfully Ghosts is back next week...

 

[Door County Cherry]

58 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

And again it seems as if Price and Maroun can't anticipate any objection the defense might have and are dismayed when one is raised and they lose. Whatever prep they're doing is wildly inadequate.

I do not think the knife should have been excluded. I don't think they could have prepared for the judge to make that choice. After the excellent 15th episode, we're back to stupid courtroom shenanigans in an attempt to make drama.  I'd think the neo-Nazi would have been enough.  

Speaking of him, he is definitely turning up in a future episode, right? At first, I suspected he might kill someone and this might be the thing that gets Pryce to walk away.  But then I saw the previews and now I have other theories. 

The detective stuff is nailed down but the law side of things really needs a shakeup.  Moreso in writing but I also can't help but think a new ADA would help. 

[WendyCR72]

Someone already addressed this, but where, oh where, are writers with some knowledge of precedent, i.e. bringing up past court decisions, etc., in an effort to get evidence submitted?!

One of the things in the show's original run that I liked was that mechanism of mentioning prior court cases that shape and change the law. The writers now seem very deficient in that area. And it shows.

[MerBearHou]

The writing and the casting on the Order side is weak, weak, weak.  Starting with Hugh Dancy.  I cannot believe him in this role.  Maroun is not good either.  

[The Wild Sow]

OK, so the Neo Nazi guy could describe the knife in detail (which was pointless because the jury hadn't seen the knife.)  But why the hell didn't Price ask him to at least describe the coat the guy was wearing, which they had seen?!

[Xeliou66]

Overall a pretty good episode - there were a few plot points in the legal side that were under-explored and flawed, but there was more good than bad here IMO. 
For one thing I was relieved there was no ending twist of the Nazi guy committing another crime, that’s what I thought would happen,  all too often we’ve had ending twists tacked on for shock value and I was relieved that didn’t happen here, the more low key ending worked much better. 
Another thing that was awesome was more Jack - he had a lot more lines than normal, and his scene in his office towards the end with Nolan was really strong, felt like classic L&O, one of the best Jack scenes of the season. Always awesome when they utilize Jack more.   
The case was good - I wasn’t sure where they were going, the part at the start with the victim being harassed by fans of the podcaster was inspired by Kanye and his anti Jewish crap no doubt, but I was glad that was a red herring and the case was about something else. Cosgrove and Shaw did a good investigation and they work well together, I think the investigation part continues to be better written than the legal part. 
There was a lot on the table in this episode - 2 murders plus the 6 deaths in the fire plus the Nazi who committed a hate crime. As a result it felt like certain aspects of the case weren’t explored enough, particularly the murder of the deputy mayor. There was a lot packed into this and maybe if they had thinned it out a bit it would’ve flowed smoother, but overall I liked it.   
I agree that the judge suppressing the murder weapon was done with haste and was also predictable, the DA’s should’ve had more arguments, case precedents etc, I thought the judge throwing it out was a mistake, Cosgrove and Shaw didn’t do anything underhanded, at the very least there should’ve been a motion hearing on it, but that would’ve taken up more time, another example of how this episode had a bit too much packed in to it.   
Also the journalist not naming the source was predictable.   
I don’t have the issues with Price/Maroun that others have, but I do think they are very low key and that, along with sometimes flawd logic in the court decisions, makes the legal part somewhat weaker than the detective part. But I still enjoy the show from start to finish, and I love Jack obviously, and his scenes alone make the legal side good.     
So overall this case had a lot crammed into it, perhaps too much, as a result some aspects were overlooked and there were some nitpicks with some of the legal stuff, but the good outweighed the bad in this episode IMO and I liked it well enough. 

[dubbel zout]

I thought the confidential source would have more of a role, but that was another thing that was brought up and then discarded. It was obvious the journalist wouldn't name the source, but why not have her call that person and see if something could be done? Agree to testify behind a screen or something? Testify on Zoom with the camera off? Something could have been arranged to protect anonymity, I think.

The writers do have a habit of throwing a lot of stuff against the wall to see what sticks, and that makes it hard to know what's actually important to the case.

[Raja]

12 hours ago, stonehaven said:

I swear the writers fall asleep on the "Order" side. The show I know would have had the prosecutors pulling out ALL the stops, case law, Supreme Courts, precedents to get that gun in and the traffic stop.

In this case they also dropped the ball on the Law side with a traffic stop by detectives coming out of nowhere. They acted like they were cops from another jurisdiction, like Pembleton in the Homicide Life on the Street crossover and didn't  have experience with New York Supreme Court judges. If they just walked up to interview him, in front of friends and family like they like to do arrest, then they would have had the same visual evidence that lead to the warrant

All just to drop in a "fruit of the poisons' tree" line. Jack you shouldn't have backed off and let your Executive ADA do the right thing. I seem to recall prior DA's putting their foot down.

I am noticing after the first season of the renewal they are back to "murder in the 2nd degree" as opposed to 1st which was done last season and I thought was the death penalty in New York from watching for over 20 years.

Edited March 24, 2023 by Raja

[shapeshifter]

Am I the only one who kept thinking we would see Price and/or Maroun with the assaulted Jewish woman (who will likely be in pain for the rest of her life due to her back injuries) asking for her to drop the charges against her neo-Nazi attacker because they needed the Nazi's testimony to convict the murderer of a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, who happens to be Jewish? 

I mean, that is a totally no-go bit of plot development for many reasons unless they want it to be the whole 42-minute story, but I kept thinking thinking about it.
And maybe a similar conversation with the murder victim's son? 

Or, a way to get justice for the assaulted woman and put away the neo-Nazi before he assaults someone else: 
If the killer testifies at a new trial against the neo-Nazi that the killer only got into Jacob's apartment because the door was left open after Jacob came out to see what the neo-Nazi had spray painted on his house, doesn't that make the neo-Nazi also guilty of Felony Murder since Jacob died as a result of the Nazi's hate crime?
Like, maybe give the killer Life Without Parole instead of the Death Penalty in exchange for his testimony against the Nazi?

 

At least kudos for the writing when the Nazi was on the stand:
The defense attorney gets the Nazi to admit he's testifying in exchange for having an assault case dismissed.
But then Nolan redirects and gets the neo-Nazi to admit on the stand that he is a neo-Nazi who would prefer to "lie to protect" someone who kills a "prominent Jewish figure like Jacob Ackerman," and we (and the jury) get to hear the Nazi say: "I hate that I'm testifying against him. But I saw what I saw..."
And the jury buys it. 

And I did like this Classic L&O style dialog, reminiscent of Lennie Briscoe:

• [COSGROVE AT THE SCENE OF THE MURDERED PULITZER PRIZE WINNING JOURNALIST] 
  Man was a legend; Now he's a headline.

And

• [SHAW COLLARING THE FLEEING NEO-NAZI SUSPECT] Nope. Nope. Not today sweetheart....
• [NEO-NAZI] This is a movement; Revelation is coming.
• [COSGROVE] I think you mean incarceration.

Edited March 24, 2023 by shapeshifter

[storyskip]

And after Fear and Loathing gave a glimmer of hope, we're back to everything that makes the reboot so facepalm inducing.

I know it is easy to point the finger at the actors/characters, and I do it myself with my dislike of Maroun, but I think the real culprits are the writers and directors.

I'm saying this because the episodes where Pamela Wechsler is credited along with Eid and Wolf (Eid in particular) seem to be tighter/more balanced/more 'old school feel'. Not all of them are diamonds, but we tend to have more scenes where everybody is working together instead of this hard cut "okay perp arrested, we never see the detectives again, it's all the DAs".  It's this hard stop "no more Law, all Order now" that seems to back the story into these convoluted resolutions, where if the DAs went back to the detectives and said "we lost X, we need to see if we can get back to Z without having to deal with Y" we'd have more balance.

The episodes with Wechsler writing tend to have more instances where the DAs and the detectives work together to sort out the challenges that come up during trial, which in turn tend to be better episodes.

Second comes the director.  The Order side of the episodes seem very stylized. Like the director wants dramatic images, especially in and around the courtroom, and uses the actors the same as set pieces to get certain shots.  Jack tends to escape this because we don't see him around the courtroom much and also because Sam Waterson carries a lot of good fan will, but Hugh Dancy seems to get the worst of it; example the 'studying the jury' shots from this episode. 

In "Fear and Loathing" maybe because he had quite a few scenes away from the courtroom, Dancy's Price seemed like a different character.  It felt like the director let all the actors loosen up a bit and bring their characters more alive I'm thinking particularly the scene in the dinner with Dancy, Donovan and Brooks. There were so many little nuances that we've NEVER scene in other episodes that suggest to me the director said "okay, you three have this dialogue, here is your setting, do what you need to do to get from point A to point B" and then let them do their thing.  There was more character development between those 3 in that one scene then we've seen in the entire reboot, because it feels like the director got out of the way and let the actors breath life into the characters.

I honestly feel that bringing in new characters/actors wouldn't fix the problems we're seeing in the reboot, because the problem is with the writers/directors.  The writers aren't writing entertainment, they're writing social commentary and the directors aren't directing entertainment, they're framing the social commentary against dramatic set pieces.  You could replace all the actors/all the characters and you're going to end up with the exact same picture.

[Samsnee]

Enough with the foot chases!

[Door County Cherry]

13 hours ago, The Wild Sow said:

OK, so the Neo Nazi guy could describe the knife in detail (which was pointless because the jury hadn't seen the knife.)  But why the hell didn't Price ask him to at least describe the coat the guy was wearing, which they had seen?!

I would think they could get the knife readmitted with this testimony as once he identifies the guy as being at the crime scene with a knife, that would have given the police a reason to search the house. 

3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

It was obvious the journalist wouldn't name the source, but why not have her call that person and see if something could be done? Agree to testify behind a screen or something? Testify on Zoom with the camera off? Something could have been arranged to protect anonymity, I think.

A defendent has the right to confront their accuser so the source couldn't be a anonymous in court. 

[Xeliou66]

2 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Am I the only one who kept thinking we would see Price and/or Maroun with the assaulted Jewish woman (who will likely be in pain for the rest of her life due to her back injuries) asking for her to drop the charges against her neo-Nazi attacker because they needed the Nazi's testimony to convict the murderer of a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, who happens to be Jewish? 

I mean, that is a totally no-go bit of plot development for many reasons unless they want it to be the whole 42-minute story, but I kept thinking thinking about it.
And maybe a similar conversation with the murder victim's son? 

Or, a way to get justice for the assaulted woman and put away the neo-Nazi before he assaults someone else: 
If the killer testifies at a new trial against the neo-Nazi that the killer only got into Jacob's apartment because the door was left open after Jacob came out to see what the neo-Nazi had spray painted on his house, doesn't that make the neo-Nazi also guilty of Felony Murder since Jacob died as a result of the Nazi's hate crime?
Like, maybe give the killer Life Without Parole instead of the Death Penalty in exchange for his testimony against the Nazi?

 

At least kudos for the writing when the Nazi was on the stand:
The defense attorney gets the Nazi to admit he's testifying in exchange for having an assault case dismissed.
But then Nolan redirects and gets the neo-Nazi to admit on the stand that he is a neo-Nazi who would prefer to "lie to protect" someone who kills a "prominent Jewish figure like Jacob Ackerman," and we (and the jury) get to hear the Nazi say: "I hate that I'm testifying against him. But I saw what I saw..."
And the jury buys it. 

And I did like this Classic L&O style dialog, reminiscent of Lennie Briscoe:

• [COSGROVE AT THE SCENE OF THE MURDERED PULITZER PRIZE WINNING JOURNALIST] 
  Man was a legend; Now he's a headline.

And

• [SHAW COLLARING THE FLEEING NEO-NAZI SUSPECT] Nope. Nope. Not today sweetheart....
• [NEO-NAZI] This is a movement; Revelation is coming.
• [COSGROVE] I think you mean incarceration.

There was so much crammed into this episode that they didn’t have time to explore all of the plot points - I agree that a conversation with the woman who was attacked by the Nazi scumbag would’ve been interesting, and I thought the journalist’s source would’ve played more of a role, and I thought the judge’s decision to toss out the knife deserved a motion hearing at least, and I would’ve liked for Price/Maroun to go back to Cosgrove/Shaw after the murder weapon was tossed in order to get more evidence, I always like scenes where detectives and DA’s interact. But there was so much packed into this one they didn’t have time for it.

The Nazi guy wasn’t responsible for the victim’s death - the killer had already killed the politician and was going to kill the journalist no matter what, he just happened to do so shortly after the Nazi vandalized his house. There was no way they could prosecute him because he had no involvement in the journalist’s murder. And NY doesn’t have the death penalty, the harshest punishment they have is life without parole, so they couldn’t threaten anyone with a death sentence.

I also liked the parts of the writing you mentioned, Price’s re-direct of the Nazi was good and I liked the classic wisecracks at the start. My favorite scene though was with Jack/Nolan in Jack’s office towards the end, that really felt like classic L&O, and as I said above, the more Jack the better.

[dubbel zout]

37 minutes ago, Door County Cherry said:

A defendent has the right to confront their accuser so the source couldn't be a anonymous in court. 

Isn't making the source available satisfying that right?

At any rate, it made no difference here since that plot point was dropped.

[Raja]

1 hour ago, Samsnee said:

Enough with the foot chases!

I was hoping for a car chase, but then no bad fruit 

[Route66]

19 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

Someone already addressed this, but where, oh where, are writers with some knowledge of precedent, i.e. bringing up past court decisions, etc., in an effort to get evidence submitted?!

One of the things in the show's original run that I liked was that mechanism of mentioning prior court cases that shape and change the law. The writers now seem very deficient in that area. And it shows.

McCoy would have argued "Inevitable Discovery". After "Molineux" that was his biggest weapon. 

[shapeshifter]

19 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

Someone already addressed this, but where, oh where, are writers with some knowledge of precedent, i.e. bringing up past court decisions, etc., in an effort to get evidence submitted?!

One of the things in the show's original run that I liked was that mechanism of mentioning prior court cases that shape and change the law. The writers now seem very deficient in that area. And it shows.

16 minutes ago, Route66 said:

McCoy would have argued "Inevitable Discovery". After "Molineux" that was his biggest weapon. 

Maybe TPTB ordered the writers to nix past court decisions and precedents because case law is boring and viewers are easily distracted? If so, they're not wrong, but maybe give the writers a chance to write it in an interesting way?

 

[WendyCR72]

14 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Maybe TPTB ordered the writers to nix past court decisions and precedents because case law is boring and viewers are easily distracted? If so, they're not wrong, but maybe give the writers a chance to write it in an interesting way?

 

Not sure I buy that since TPTB did those precedent court cases the previous 20 seasons. I think the current crop of writers just aren't familiar with that. If not, they need to find some people who are.

[Chyromaniac]

A Goodwill receipt?  As evidence in a murder trial?  Sure, because no one has ever falsified one of those…

[Raja]

2 hours ago, Chyromaniac said:

A Goodwill receipt?  As evidence in a murder trial?  Sure, because no one has ever falsified one of those…

If the Grand Jury will indict anyone the trial jury will use anything for their reasonable doubt 

[mythoughtis]

5 hours ago, Chyromaniac said:

A Goodwill receipt?  As evidence in a murder trial?  Sure, because no one has ever falsified one of those…

And they don’t list anything in detail anyway.  You just attach your own handwritten list to it later.  

I spent most of the episode thinking a twist was coming and that the confidential source was actually the embezzler/ murderer and was framing the defendant. 

 

[theartandsound]

On 3/23/2023 at 10:05 PM, Door County Cherry said:

The detective stuff is nailed down but the law side of things really needs a shakeup.  Moreso in writing but I also can't help but think a new ADA would help. 

PLEASE GET LINUS ROACHE BACK!!!! I usually like Hugh Dancy in his other work, but Price is a horrible character. I would say bring Alana De La Garza back too but she's locked down with the FBI show.

Also, bold move, but they're giving Sam Waterston so much less to do here than his predecessors, he should step down. I love Jack McCoy but it's painful to see the character now. I wish they didn't kill of Claire Kincade because I'd kill to see Jill Hennessy back.

Edited March 27, 2023 by theartandsound

[Raja]

1 minute ago, theartandsound said:

PLEASE GET LINUS ROACHE BACK!!!!

They promoted him over on SVU. Going back down would feel like the second half season from Law & Order : LA  in the soft reboot when Alfred Molina resigned as a LA County Deputy DA to become a LAPD Robbery Homicide Division detective again.

[theartandsound]

2 minutes ago, Raja said:

They promoted him over on SVU. Going back down would feel like the second half season from Law & Order : LA  in the soft reboot when Alfred Molina resigned as a LA County Deputy DA to become a LAPD Robbery Homicide Division detective again.

Good to know! I stopped casually watching SVU after Meloni left. I enjoyed the early years of CI but never watched TBJ or LA. The mothership has been my bread and butter.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Price not anticipating that the journalist's testimony would be useless took me right out of the episode. I also wondered why she agreed to testify since she knew the defense would want to know who her source was.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Joimiaroxeu

[GiandujaPie]

Lots of problems with this episode, many already pointed out by others. I thought the knife should have included and even if it were tossed based on that one faulty search warrant, I too was waiting for Price to argue inevitable discovery. They had the defendant's name, and would have done more investigation that would have led to another search warrant which would have led to the discovery of the knife because the defendant clearly wasn't going to get rid of it. 

The confidential source was also not handled properly. I can go along with the journalist refusing to divulge the confidential source's name, but they should have then asked her how she verified the source's story and then through that, maybe would have cme up with more evidence of wrongdoing and other witnesses who may have overheard that same conversation. Or are they saying the journalist just took the confidential source at their word? The journalist must have done more investigating to verify and corroborate the source's story. 

And finally, I thought it was disgusting that the Jewish assult victim was just discarded. Where was her justice? Surely there had to be a way around using that Nazi witness. If he saw the defendant, maybe others did too. Just disappointing all around. 

[watcher1006]

I also don't see how the knife should be excluded. What Shaw and Cosgrove did might have been stretching their jobs a bit, but it seemed to me that they still stayed within the boundaries. Does the judge give motorists the automatic right to bend the traffic laws of NYC?

It feels as if Maroun has been de-emphasized somewhat recently, with Exec ADA Price taking the more active role. Who knows, from the preview it looks like she'll have a big part in the next episode.

[Raja]

12 minutes ago, watcher1006 said:

I also don't see how the knife should be excluded. What Shaw and Cosgrove did might have been stretching their jobs a bit, but it seemed to me that they still stayed within the boundaries. Does the judge give motorists the automatic right to bend the traffic laws of NYC?

It feels as if Maroun has been de-emphasized somewhat recently, with Exec ADA Price taking the more active role. Who knows, from the preview it looks like she'll have a big part in the next episode.

The judge is taking the defense plea that the detectives lied to have probable cause to stop. That detectives don't normally stop folks is sort of proof.

After a couple of episodes where ADA Maroun was pushed forward and channeling Abby Carmichael she has been pushed back again.  I can't remember LT Dixon's involvement this episode a couple of weeks after seeing it. 

[shapeshifter]

9 minutes ago, Raja said:

I can't remember LT Dixon's involvement this episode a couple of weeks after seeing it. 

It's almost like we're being punished for complaining about Olivia's outsized role in comparison to Cragen's. 😉

[Raja]

24 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

It's almost like we're being punished for complaining about Olivia's outsized role in comparison to Cragen's. 😉

I stopped watching SVU even before Captain Benson started climbing the ranks but when I turn by I wonder who does the paperwork in that office. It is like The Closer where a chief seems to be doing basic detective stuff

[mythoughtis]

On 3/29/2023 at 10:38 AM, Raja said:

I stopped watching SVU even before Captain Benson started climbing the ranks but when I turn by I wonder who does the paperwork in that office. It is like The Closer where a chief seems to be doing basic detective stuff

While also handling the DA’s function. 

[Xeliou66]

On 3/26/2023 at 9:50 PM, theartandsound said:

PLEASE GET LINUS ROACHE BACK!!!! I usually like Hugh Dancy in his other work, but Price is a horrible character. I would say bring Alana De La Garza back too but she's locked down with the FBI show.

Also, bold move, but they're giving Sam Waterston so much less to do here than his predecessors, he should step down. I love Jack McCoy but it's painful to see the character now. I wish they didn't kill of Claire Kincade because I'd kill to see Jill Hennessy back.

Strongly disagree about Jack - I don’t find it painful to see him now, I think he’s just as awesome as he’s always been. It doesn’t matter to me that he’s in fewer scenes now, he’s a legendary character and he’s the glue that holds the legal side together. I hope Sam Waterston sticks with the show for as long as he can - I’m afraid the legal side would be bad without him - I don’t dislike Price/Maroun the way some do, but they are very low key, and the writing on the legal side can be shaky at times - if Jack left and a new DA was brought in I’m afraid that would be awful - it takes good writing and good acting to get the DA role right as it’s a tricky balance to pull off between the DA character caring about justice while also being mindful of all other things affecting the office. Jack and Adam Schiff handled it perfectly, and I liked Arthur as well although he was polarizing and at times a hardass. Nora was just dull and weak. So I’m afraid if Jack left, the legal side would collapse completely as I don’t trust the writers to pull off a good DA character - I’m afraid they will either go for someone very polarizing or someone weak, and the legal side would collapse completely. Jack is awesome and I hope he stays with the show for as long as he can.

[blackwing]

I'm getting really tired of the pattern of a half episode of decent detective work, followed by some judge making some ridiculous decision just to cause problems and drama.  That knife shouldn't have been excluded. The judge agreed it was an illegal stop?  Whatever.

The killer claiming he donated his coat to Goodwill some weeks ago?  Um ok.  The receipt was introduced into evidence at trial, and Price didn't object, meaning he had been aware of it in advance.  Why wasn't there any follow up?  Did the police go to the Goodwill location and show the photo of the guy?  Seemed like a fairly distinctive coat, they could have at least found out who was working and if they had remembered the guy or the coat.

The reporter refusing to reveal her source was predictable, but in that case, her character was a complete waste of time.  Why not spend more time fleshing out other aspects of the trial.  In particular, I don't understand why Price and McCoy thought the Neo Nazi would make such a good witness?  He was caught spray painting the victim's house.  He claims to have seen a guy with a knife outside the house.  And.....?  The knife wasn't even admitted in the trial.  So the accused was supposedly outside the apartment.  The jury had already seemed to accept his explanation that he liked to go for long runs to explore different areas of the city.  It's not a crime to be somewhere where you don't live.  It might not even be a crime to carry a knife, as long as you don't use it.  

In other episodes we are told that there isn't enough evidence to convict.  Here, it seemed like there was nothing entered into evidence except the testimony of a thug who testified in exchange for having charges against him dropped.  I guess I don't understand how the jury found the accused guilty, based on this thug's statement that he hated the fact that he had to testify against the accused because he admitted he agreed with the accused's actions in killing the victim.  That doesn't seem enough to me.