S22.E17: Bias

[WendyCR72]

Quote

When a public defender is murdered, Cosgrove and Shaw are surprised to find Price at the crime scene. His involvement in the trial compromises the case.

 

[dubbel zout]

There was a lot of green screen use in this episode. Is this new, or am I only now noticing it?

On 3/29/2023 at 8:19 PM, WendyCR72 said:

His involvement in the trial compromises the case.

How was Price allowed anywhere near this case? There's no way Jack wouldn't have heard immediately that he found the body.

And again with the terrible trial preparation.

This is turning into a hate watch for me, and I never thought that would happen with the mothership.

 

[psychfan]

That was just ridiculous. There’s no way he’d have been able to try that. Or that Jack McCoy wouldn’t have known that from the start. And if somehow not then, for sure when his prosecutor became a witness. Gah.

[storyskip]

How the hell did Jack not know his ADA found a murder victim???  Not knowing about the  prior relationship I’ll buy but not knowing about Nolan finding the body?? Especially on such a high profile case as this?

Not a good look for Jack.

[MerBearHou]

Such a frustrating episode.

I missed something at the almost-end — why did Maroun say she hoped Rachel wasn’t looking down on the results of the trial?  The judge was found guilty.  

I kept looking at the clock, wondering how they were going to wrap this thing up with only 3 minutes left before the end of the episode.

[storyskip]

5 minutes ago, MerBearHou said:

Such a frustrating episode.

I missed something at the almost-end — why did Maroun say she hoped Rachel wasn’t looking down on the results of the trial?  The judge was found guilty.  

I kept looking at the clock, wondering how they were going to wrap this thing up with only 3 minutes left before the end of the episode.

Because Nolan skated a very sketchy ethical line in not disclosing the bell-hop witness to the defense attorney.

Rachel was a public defender. A witness like the bell-hop would have given the defense a huge avenue to prove reasonable doubt. As a public defender she would have wanted that leverage, so what Nolan did would have been extremely distasteful. 

She wouldn't have liked HOW he won.

Edited March 31, 2023 by storyskip

[MerBearHou]

3 minutes ago, storyskip said:

Because Nolan skated a very sketchy ethical line in not disclosing the bell-hop witness to the defense attorney.

Rachel was a public defender. A witness like the bell-hop would have given the defense a huge avenue to prove reasonable doubt. As a public defender she would have wanted that leverage, so what Nolan did would have been extremely distasteful. 

She wouldn't have liked HOW he won.

Thank you, storyskip.  I have to go back and rewatch that part — I completely missed the bellhop portion of the show.  

[buttersister]

25 minutes ago, storyskip said:

Not a good look for Jack.

Neither was that haircut. Was Jack out of town? Or about to retire? Glad the judge was found guilty but maybe during the trial, they  hammered the footprint and knife cut. 

Edited March 31, 2023 by buttersister

[storyskip]

Okay. Now that I got my initial 'where is Jack McCoy and who is this pod person we had in this episode' a few more thoughts.

Cosgrove, Shaw and Maroun all get a pass, but otherwise? Wow ... everybody on the Order side was on the wrong side of the ethics board tonight.

No way Nolan should have been prosecuting this case. 

How the hell did Jack NOT know his lead prosecutor had found the body? Let alone the body of a public defender in a murder case with a JUDGE as the suspect? What rock was he under?  He's the DA, the buck stops on his desk.

The judge trying the case, should absolutely have recused himself.  Again, how the hell did Jack hear about Nolan and the trial judge tangling over the judge's association with the case and JACK DIDN'T KNOW NOLAN FOUND THE BODY????

The clerk needs to be disbarred, at least. If you're going to start going corrupt early at least be more discreet my man.

I was okay with suspending my disbelief, except for Jack. 

On the side of the good, any time Donovan and Dancy get to exchange back and forth I'm happy. It was irregular and ethically dodgy and all that jazz, but I enjoy Nolan interacting with Cosgrove and Shaw. I enjoy the chemistry between the actors. I just wish the writers would get their heads out of their ...

1 minute ago, buttersister said:

Neither was that haircut. Was Jack out of town? Or about to retire? Glad the judge was foundguity

LOL!!!

Yeah, I honestly cannot recall any of Jack's predecessors being painted as so completely out of touch with the cases their ADAs were trying.  Even back when the likes of Ben Stone and Jack McCoy were taking these wild risks.

It's like the writers wrote the episode and were like "Oh wait, why didn't Jack blow the whistle on this BS before the case got this far?? Uhhhhhhhhh don't know. EUREKA! We'll just say he didn't know!  Yeah, that's great!"

I'm sorry but this cast of actors is way too good for these idiot writers.  I started watching this reboot because of Donovan, Dancy, Waterson, Manheim and now Brooks ... but what a waste of a good cast.

[storyskip]

Oh. And also a criminal waste of Tim DeKay.

[buttersister]

Just now, storyskip said:

criminal waste of Tim DeKay.

OMG, he looked familiar! Yes. Thanks!

[storyskip]

3 minutes ago, buttersister said:

OMG, he looked familiar! Yes. Thanks!

Yep!  The minute I saw him and got over my initial excited noises ( I loved Peter Burke and White Collar ) I knew who the suspect was going to be! 

I almost wish they'd written in a small arc for this story and let us see some cat and mouse between Nolan and DeKay's judge. But that would have required actual writers. 

[Xeliou66]

Wow, the legal side of this episode was a total fucking trainwreck. I mean SVU levels of bad for the legal side. First of all - how the fuck did Jack not know Nolan found the body and had a prior relationship with the victim? That made no sense at all. Also, how was the defense allowed to subpoena Price in the middle of the trial with no warning beforehand, and then even afterwards Price continued to be involved with the case?! What the fuck? How was Jack so out of touch with the case? After a great week for Jack last week this week he was criminally misused, not to mention he should’ve been more involved given that a judge was on trial. And it seems like a mistrial would’ve been declared once Price’s involvement came to light. And the judge presiding was a joke who should’ve stepped down from the case, and it would seem like Jack would intervene and use his power to press the judge to step aside. And it appears Nolan was taken off the case, so it would’ve been Maroun’s call about whether to turn the witness over to the defense, not Price’s. And how did they not find the witness sooner? What a disaster of a plot, more plot holes than I can remember in a Mothership episode.

I did enjoy the detective side of it, Shaw/Cosgrove are a very good pairing, and I liked their detective work, Dixon should’ve been more involved when the judge became a suspect, she was barely in the episode, but the episode was derailed completely when it came to the legal side.

I’ve enjoyed the revival a lot more than most it seems but this episode was a gigantic misfire. Hopefully the show will get back on track next week. 

[Door County Cherry]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

How was Price allowed anywhere near this case? There's no way Jack wouldn't have heard immediately that he found the body.

And again with the terrible trial preparation.

The fact that no one told Jack or had second thoughts of Price prosecuting the case, is ridiculous.  Maroun should have intervened.  

And frankly, Price should have been fired for the shenanigans he pulled in this episode.  

48 minutes ago, storyskip said:

The judge trying the case, should absolutely have recused himself.  Again, how the hell did Jack hear about Nolan and the trial judge tangling over the judge's association with the case and JACK DIDN'T KNOW NOLAN FOUND THE BODY????

The clerk needs to be disbarred, at least. If you're going to start going corrupt early at least be more discreet my man.

I don't necessarily think the judge should have recused himself.  All of the judges there are going to have a relationship with the man on trial and Price didn't have evidence of how close the two were.  He just saw a picture and made an inference.  One would think he would have investigated that before the trial started.  

I did like Jack's yelling at Price for that.  

I also think the clerk should have been disbarred.  I have a hard time believing there's no cameras near the courthouse that could have shown the clerk leaving without the judge.  

1 minute ago, Xeliou66 said:

And how did they not find the witness sooner? What a disaster of a plot, more plot holes than I can remember in a Mothership episode.

The proposal took place at a park a few blocks from where she was murdered and some time before.  I can buy they didn't find the witness because they didn't know to look there until the clerk mentioned the place.  

[Clawdette]

I had been given the mistaken impression that Jack was going to question Price on the stand.  Now, that would have been worth the price of admission.

[TakomaSnark]

It was just so bad. Price never would have been allowed near the prosecution. Jack never would have *not* known Price found the body.

I'm going to go back and watch vintage L&O. They knew how to craft stories from beginning to end.

[Raja]

1 hour ago, Door County Cherry said:

I don't necessarily think the judge should have recused himself.  All of the judges there are going to have a relationship with the man on trial and Price didn't have evidence of how close the two were.  He just saw a picture and made an inference.  One would think he would have investigated that before the trial started. 

How many folks have pictures of someone, not their family on their desk? Jack or Mr. Stone would not just have walked into trial the next day. If not them they would have kicked the outrage upstairs and DA Shiff would have put the fear of the gods onto that judge.

[Kleav]

Doorman, not bellhop.

[watcher1006]

I couldn't see how Price /Maroun could have possibly gotten a conviction in this case, given all the stumbles and Price's compromised position. Speaking of which wouldn't there be grounds for appealing the verdict?

As this episode struggled towards its conclusion I started wondering whether the biased judge would overrule a guilty verdict handed down by the jury.

[Andyourlittledog2]

This episode is an example of how these Law and Order writers are determined to have clever twists and turns with no regard to how they line up with the law or the practice of it. It's frustrating and makes a great show into a mockery of its former self.

I've been watching old Law and Order reruns on Sundance and WE and Peacock and they are sooooo good. This new iteration just seems like a modern slicked down version with writers who think they are really clever with their plots and twists. I will still watch it because it matters to me but I am really disappointed.

[TakomaSnark]

1 minute ago, Andyourlittledog2 said:

This new iteration just seems like a modern slicked down version with writers who think they are really clever with their plots and twists. I will still watch it because it matters to me but I am really disappointed.

Honestly, it feels like they plundered the writers room of Criminal Minds. Massive leaps of logic and dramatic swelling music in place of plot/character development. It's embarrassing to have the L&O imprimatur on these weekly train wrecks. It has so little relation to the original DNA.

[Raja]

2 hours ago, Clawdette said:

I had been given the mistaken impression that Jack was going to question Price on the stand.  Now, that would have been worth the price of admission.

When Jack said he had 20 others he could have replaced Price with and he came back with I'm the best I thought for a second there we would get the second ADA firing.

 

[shapeshifter]

8 hours ago, Raja said:

When Jack said he had 20 others he could have replaced Price with and he came back with I'm the best I thought for a second there we would get the second ADA firing.

Is there a chance that Price just meant "I'm the best" to try that case because he knew and cared about the victim and others would be more inclined to believe in the innocence of a sitting judge??
Even if so, it seems a prosecutor with less Bias/concern for the victim and against the judge would have worked harder to get more evidence before charging the judge with murder.
(I realize the title of the episode, Bias, actually refers to the trial judge.)
 

[dubbel zout]

12 hours ago, storyskip said:

The judge trying the case, should absolutely have recused himself.

I go back and forth on this, mostly because I think all of the judges are at least aware of one another. They probably socialize at professional events and stuff like that, so it would be almost impossible to find a completely neutral judge for the trial. On the other hand, given that the trial judge had a picture of of himself with the accused in his chambers, that should have been enough.

The reboot loves to throw this gimmicky stuff at the prosecution, and it does them no favors.

[MaryHedwig]

3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

They probably socialize at professional events and stuff like that, so it would be almost impossible to find a completely neutral judge for the trial

Not if the trail was moved to another county. It happens all the time in my state.

 

[dubbel zout]

In NYC, at least, it's pretty uncommon. 

I also wondered if the rancor between the public defenders office and the NYPD/DA's office would go so far as to cause a lesser investigation. An attack on one lawyer is an attack on all lawyers, and it's not as if the DAs don't get their fair share of disgruntlement. 

[Raja]

26 minutes ago, MaryHedwig said:

Not if the trail was moved to another county. It happens all the time in my state.

 

It happens occasionally on Law & Order, what happened in this poor Order episode?

[jalady]

You all have pretty much covered it but the legal side of this case was so bad on SO many levels, it was beyond laughable.  And I disagree that the doorman’s testimony would have been exculpatory in any possible way.  How would seeing them (judge and victim) have an argument be exculpatory, even if he did have a prior restraining order?  I thought they were going to make the defendant the judge who issued the restraining order against him (the doorman) but I guess they realized that would be a bridge too far.  But in this mess of an episode, that would have been on brand.  I’m surprised Price was sitting in the gallery during the verdict instead of at counsel table 🙄.

[Andyourlittledog2]

48 minutes ago, jalady said:

 I’m surprised Price was sitting in the gallery during the verdict instead of at counsel table 🙄.

Well, once he actually testified the case was turned over to Maroun. She was lead and finished up the case in the courtroom. That's why he was no longer at counsel table and he congratulated her on the job she did alone. That's what I got out of that anyway.

I try so hard to make sense of this mess.

I also agree that the scene with McCoy was done without Waterston actually present. The lighting of McCoy was that weird pasted in kind to the background that seems to be used a lot these days. It's obvious and cheap looking and I wish shows would knock it off. I do hope it wasn't done that way because the actor is having problems. He's over ninety now. I want him to live forever. 

[storyskip]

1 hour ago, jalady said:

You all have pretty much covered it but the legal side of this case was so bad on SO many levels, it was beyond laughable.  And I disagree that the doorman’s testimony would have been exculpatory in any possible way.  How would seeing them (judge and victim) have an argument be exculpatory, even if he did have a prior restraining order?  

My take, given the argument Maroun made for disclosure, is that since the doorman had priors for stalking, harassing women, the defense could have used the argument of "Well look here, here is this man who was also one of the last people to see the victim alive, and he has priors for stalking, harassing women. Maybe he's the one who stalked and killed her."

It doesn't need to be an argument that makes a whole lot of sense, it just needs to sow the seed of doubt in the mind of the jury. Remember the burden is on the prosecution to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that someone is guilty, especially of murder. The doorman presenting another viable suspect could have provided doubt.

That was why Maroun argued that the defense should be allowed to review the doorman and make a decision if they wanted to introduce him as a witness FOR the defense; "hey, here's this other suspect!" But Price held his position that it wasn't exculpatory and so he would not disclose that they (the DA) had located this additional witness.

[dubbel zout]

Color me shocked Maroun found out the doorman had a history of abuse arrests, since that's the sort of thing the show has ignored in the past for "drama."

[WendyCR72]

1 hour ago, Andyourlittledog2 said:

I do hope it wasn't done that way because the actor is having problems. He's over ninety now. I want him to live forever. 

Sam Waterston is elderly, but not that elderly yet! Per the 'net, he was born 11/15/40, making him 82.

ETA: Wow, so he was 53/54, when he started! He looked younger then to me.

[bluegirl147]

21 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

 

This is turning into a hate watch for me, and I never thought that would happen with the mothership.

 

Every couple years I do a complete rewatch of the mothership.  I never get tired of watching those seasons.   But after I watch one of these episodes I completely forget it.  They don't make an impression on me other than well that was another disappointment.   I used to hope for an L & O revival and now I'm sorry that it happened.

[WendyCR72]

2 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I used to hope for an L & O revival and now I'm sorry that it happened.

Yeah, I never wanted a revival in my heart of hearts, and this is why. Always afraid it would tarnish the previous 20 seasons...

[Door County Cherry]

I don't get the "tarnish previous seasons" argument.  I still love them.  And I still have hope for this series.  The original did go through some not so great seasons during its 20 years.  

And the 15th episode showed me that this crew is capable. 

[TakomaSnark]

4 hours ago, Andyourlittledog2 said:

I also agree that the scene with McCoy was done without Waterston actually present. The lighting of McCoy was that weird pasted in kind to the background that seems to be used a lot these days. It's obvious and cheap looking and I wish shows would knock it off. I do hope it wasn't done that way because the actor is having problems. He's over ninety now. I want him to live forever. 

I still suspect that Waterston is doing a Fred MacMurray on My Three Sons, i.e., filming all of his scenes for the season at once (or rather, in a short amount of time) and then the rest of the cast films the rest of the scenes for the episode that don't involve McCoy later.

[Xeliou66]

30 minutes ago, Door County Cherry said:

I don't get the "tarnish previous seasons" argument.  I still love them.  And I still have hope for this series.  The original did go through some not so great seasons during its 20 years.  

And the 15th episode showed me that this crew is capable. 

Agreed. I don’t get the “tarnishes previous seasons” argument either - the first 20 seasons are still great, and I don’t think the revival is terrible, it’s definitely not as good as classic L&O but it’s had some good episodes, and I like the cast pretty good. This episode was a trainwreck, but I don’t think it’s representative of the revival as a whole. There are some flaws in the writing for the legal side in many episodes, but I’m enjoying the revival pretty good. I don’t think it’s tarnishing the show’s legacy - it’s not nearly as bad as what SVU has done, talk about a show trashing it’s reputation! 

[WendyCR72]

2 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

I don't get the "tarnish previous seasons" argument.  I still love them.  And I still have hope for this series.  The original did go through some not so great seasons during its 20 years.  

And the 15th episode showed me that this crew is capable. 

I admit, episode 15 was good. But it is increasingly clear that this bunch cannot maintain quality. I don't pretend to know the answer, but something needs to change.

[shapeshifter]

6 hours ago, storyskip said:

7 hours ago, jalady said:

I disagree that the doorman’s testimony would have been exculpatory in any possible way.  How would seeing them (judge and victim) have an argument be exculpatory, even if he did have a prior restraining order?  

My take, given the argument Maroun made for disclosure, is that since the doorman had priors for stalking, harassing women, the defense could have used the argument of "Well look here, here is this man who was also one of the last people to see the victim alive, and he has priors for stalking, harassing women. Maybe he's the one who stalked and killed her."

It doesn't need to be an argument that makes a whole lot of sense, it just needs to sow the seed of doubt in the mind of the jury. Remember the burden is on the prosecution to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that someone is guilty, especially of murder. The doorman presenting another viable suspect could have provided doubt.

That was why Maroun argued that the defense should be allowed to review the doorman and make a decision if they wanted to introduce him as a witness FOR the defense; "hey, here's this other suspect!" But Price held his position that it wasn't exculpatory and so he would not disclose that they (the DA) had located this additional witness.

Thanks, @storyskip, for explaining the reason Maroun was so upset at Price for not turning over the information about the doorman's past to the defense. 
I missed that rationale.
Does anyone here think this was obvious and that I just missed it? 

So then, Price clearly believed he was not violating rules of discovery by Not informing the defense about the doorman with the past of stalking and harassing women (which could give them an alternate theory of the crimeᵀᴹ ˢᵗᵒʳʸˢᵏᶦᵖ). 
I don't understand how Price and Maroun could have such different opinions about the legality of how to handle gathered evidence. 
I can imagine that Price might feel it was payback for the trial judge not allowing the murdering judge's ex-wife to testify that he stalked her and threatened to kill her, even though that was because it would prejudice the jury against the defendant. 
IDK.
These flawed scripts seem to be a mix of things left out that needed to be explained and things put in that don't seem possible. 
Either that or the writers assume anyone watching L&O has a L&O degree — as we often claim, heh.
But did they ever even try to find the murder weapon? 

[wknt3]

On 3/30/2023 at 10:31 PM, Clawdette said:

I had been given the mistaken impression that Jack was going to question Price on the stand.  Now, that would have been worth the price of admission.

Actually after watching this episode I was thinking the way to go would have been to have Price bow out - voluntarily, but after a nudge from McCoy, and Maroun to first chair. Then after the shenanigans and SImpsons level "boys will be boys" rulings McCoy takes over and basically leaves everyone - witness, judge, and defense attorney battered and bloody. We could still have the discovery issue too (although they would have had to take another pass so it was a little more of a gray area) since old school McCoy was certainly willing to push the envelope on this sort of thing on occasion. You could have done just about all the personal dynamics and even done the "I'm the best" thing as the ending.  Jack scolds Price for even considering taking the case. Tells him he has 20 other prosecutors. Price says that he's the best in the office though. McCoy simply responds "Second best" and heads into his office. Reaction shot of an amused Maroun and slightly taken aback Price.  Fade to Executive Producer Dick Wolf title card. Bam.

Edited April 3, 2023 by wknt3

[Raja]

8 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

So then, Price clearly believed he was not violating rules of discovery by Not informing the defense about the doorman with the past of stalking and harassing women (which could give them an alternate theory of the crimeᵀᴹ ˢᵗᵒʳʸˢᵏᶦᵖ). 
I don't understand how Price and Maroun could have such different opinions about the legality of how to handle gathered evidence. 

I don't feel like going Google-Fu on the subject right now but I am reasonable sure Jack McCoy had been in the Price role and got his hands slapped along with one of the ADAs in prior episodes.

[Route66]

On 3/30/2023 at 7:13 PM, MerBearHou said:

Such a frustrating episode.

I missed something at the almost-end — why did Maroun say she hoped Rachel wasn’t looking down on the results of the trial?  The judge was found guilty.  

I kept looking at the clock, wondering how they were going to wrap this thing up with only 3 minutes left before the end of the episode.

Presumably she meant they should have turned over the doorman's testimony. 

[Joimiaroxeu]

What a frustrating episode. Were we supposed to sympathize with Price because I sure wasn't feeling it. By the time it got to the point where the defense brought in an old photo of him publicly making out with the victim, I wanted to reach into the TV screen and smack Price upside the head. That guilty verdict was a shocker to me because Price almost single-handedly wrecked the case. Luckily the jury saw through the nonsense and was able to hold the judge accountable. But geez, I don't know how Price wasn't fired or at least suspended afterward.

[stonehaven]

I really like the partnership of Cosgrove and Shaw but the rest? Meh. Half the time I forget this revival is on. Meanwhile, I've been watching Season 4 this afternoon on cable and just am hooked even though I've seen those episodes a million times.

I sorta wanted a revival with the last season's cast as "Rubber Room" was a fantastic episode to go out on. Not sure I'd watch the finale of this one....

I didn't watch this episode because I was livestreaming a great concert so I thought I'd check here before I wasted my time on it. Thanks for saving me an hour....

[Samsnee]

Why is Price written to be so stupid? Like he really didn’t think they would find out he had a past relationship with the victim and that wasn’t going to be relevant?

This case really stretched believability. Both the presiding judge and Price should have recused themselves from the beginning. 

[illdoc]

Wasn't there a case with murders at the subway and Price was there and it was a big "you were there you need to recuse yourself" issue then?

 

[Xeliou66]

1 hour ago, illdoc said:

Wasn't there a case with murders at the subway and Price was there and it was a big "you were there you need to recuse yourself" issue then?

 

I don’t recall it being said he needed to recuse himself from that case, and to be honest I don’t think there was a need for him to in that case, he just happened to be in the area and arrived at the scene shortly after the shooting and helped out - he didn’t witness anything or know any of the victims, so it wasn’t a big deal that he prosecuted the shooter. But in this episode Price was the sole person to find the body and had a prior romantic relationship with the victim, he absolutely should’ve recused himself in this case, and it was totally unbelievable that Jack wouldn’t know about his involvement and that Price was still apparently calling the shots even after he was called as a witness. Just really poor writing in this episode.

[Chyromaniac]

On 4/1/2023 at 9:02 AM, Raja said:

I don't feel like going Google-Fu on the subject right now but I am reasonable sure Jack McCoy had been in the Price role and got his hands slapped along with one of the ADAs in prior episodes.

It was during the Jamie Ross era of the show.  McCoy was prosecuting a drunk driver who had ran over a man and his son on his way home from the airport.  Jack was essentially using the case as payback for the man who killed Claire.  He not only failed to disclose a statement he got from a flight attendant who could prove that the man was beyond intoxicated - he also advised the airline’s counsel that if they kept her out of the country (iirc it was an international airline from… South America?) she couldn’t be compelled back to the US to testify.  Eventually, Jack’s conscience got the better of him, and he revealed the truth during cross examination of the defendant.

However, Jack basically had an unspoken agreement with the trial judge to railroad the guy, and when Jack tanked the case, the judge became a recurring thorn in their side for the rest of that season.  Jack’s behavior also eventually came out, and landed him in front of the ethics board - which in turn got brought up on numerous other episodes.  Jamie was never implicated in the cover up, but she did have to testify against Jack at his hearing- I believe it was her last episode as an ADA, and the last scene of that season’s finale.

As for this episode- yeah, it’s just baffling how poorly the legal issues are being handled.  Yes, we need drama- but it should come from the case or the circumstances involved.  Instead it’s just week after week of the prosecutors getting waylaid by stuff they would realistically have been aware of.  Humbly, if you can’t write a story about legal bias without making your lead actor look incompetent (in the case above, McCoy was actually too good for his own sake), maybe pick a different subject.

Oh, and here’s a thought- check out the doorman. Make sure he was back on duty at the time of the murder, and had no ties to the victim.  And, if you really think the prior Protective Order would damage his credibility, bring it up yourself. Then if the defense tries to force the issue, it’s been “asked and answered.”  Also, who’s more likely to have killed this woman- her ex lover who stormed off and left her in tears, or this random stranger having a smoke?  Seems like it was a low enough hurdle to clear, but hey, everything I know about trials I learned from Law & Order…

Edited April 4, 2023 by Chyromaniac

[GiandujaPie]

Price should have never been allowed to prosecute this case and frankly the entire prosecution and trial should have been handed off to the AG's office, another county or a special counsel. The victim, the person who found the victim, the defendant and the judge were all part of the same system and all had relationships with the victim, the defendant and/or both. It should have been handed off. to a neutral third party. It's ridiculous that in NY the judge gets to rule on whether he should recuse himself or not. If he hasn't already recused himself, you really think they will admit they are biased? As we've seen in L&O, either the judge never recuses themselves or they err too much on the side of caution and recuse themselves for political reasons that have nothing to do with their actual bias or the case. In California, according to my husband who is an attorney, you can get a one-time pass to move a case from one particular judge. You don't actually have to cite a reason or have a hearing, you just file a 170.6 motion. 

Also, I agree with those who say that the doorman was not exculpatory. The defense could have found him themselves and found the CCTV footage if they thought it would help the defendant. They knew it would look bad for him that he lied about his alibi and went to see the victim even after she broke up with him. If they thought it would help his case they would have looked it for themselves. 

And I agree with everyone who says it's ridiculous that McCoy didn't know the extent of Price's involvement. It would have been big news and it's completely incompetent that McCoy wouldn't have known. 

[Morrigan2575]

I really enjoy the cop portion, I think the mother's hip would be better served going the CI and SVU way and just being 80-90% cop drama because these writers cannot handle the legal side.

Speaking of the cop portion...Detective Yee needs a raise.