S02.E07: Eugene’s Story

[Snazzy Daisy]

Two-Hour Season Finale

Quote

A jewelry store owner (Ken Jeong) is put on trial after interfering with his wife’s dicey past.

Air Date: Dec 03, 2024

 

Cast — Ken Jeong (Eugene), Jamie Chung (Grace), Zane Holtz (Rex), Keong Sim (Lee), Vicki Kim (Hannah).

 

Edited December 3 by Snazzy Daisy

[Halting Hex]

Again, everything the DA asks Eugene on the stand is something Eugene would have already testified to on direct.  How tough can it be to put a few "Mr. Park, you claim that blah blah"s  in there, or to show the direct examination (where Eugene presents his story) and then have the DA grill him on cross (about how his finger was on the trigger, although you would think that he'd claim that the gun only went off when Rex was trying to take it away so perhaps Rex actually caused it to fire), but nope.  Lazy writing, as usual.

Also, it's not Keong Sim[who played the father]'s fault that he can't cry on command (although many actors learn the skill) but seeing his squeezing his eyes so hard to try and get one out that his skin looks like a raisin really took me out of the moment.  Give the man some glycerin drops and have done with it, Chiklis!  Sheesh.

(Soooo…Grace didn't know that her own father's store had security cameras??  She didn't know enough to pull the "robbery" when Hannah wasn't next door?  She couldn't have given Rex the codes and taken Hannah out clubbing so he could work in peace?

I'm not saying she was "too stupid to live", but…)

Next, Sci-Fi! 

(Sci-Fi??????  Is Hawkman going to make the arrest?)

Edited December 4 by Halting Hex

[Madding crowd]

This was a weird episode. Ken’s acting was terrible in this and I never believed he and Grace were a married couple. We saw no evidence of a defense, are we supposed to believe Rex was never questioned on the stand? Why would the jury believe a convicted murderer over Eugene? Also didn’t get the point of the Hannah character who always seemed to be lurking around. 

[Spartan Girl]

4 hours ago, Madding crowd said:

Why would the jury believe a convicted murderer over Eugene?

That annoyed me too. You'd think the jury would have been repulsed by him and Grace basically playing Eugene for a mark, but evidently not.

As bad as I felt for Eugene and that it really was an accident, the prosecutor was right. If you bring a gun to a situation, even if it goes off by accident, it's still your fault and you have to face the consequences. 

[Snazzy Daisy]

Eugene’s downfalls are his idealism, his high expectations and his love for Grace.

Quote

“I pretended politeness was the same as happiness.”

Well Eugene, this is why many choose to stay in a loveless marriage.

It’s refreshing to see Ken Jeong in a more dramatic role. But his lack of chemistry with Jamie Chung has taken me out of this story for a bit.

They should’ve used this story as a season2 finale instead. Bad call.   
 

[Chicago Redshirt]

On 12/3/2024 at 8:57 PM, Halting Hex said:

Again, everything the DA asks Eugene on the stand is something Eugene would have already testified to on direct.  How tough can it be to put a few "Mr. Park, you claim that blah blah"s  in there, or to show the direct examination (where Eugene presents his story) and then have the DA grill him on cross (about how his finger was on the trigger, although you would think that he'd claim that the gun only went off when Rex was trying to take it away so perhaps Rex actually caused it to fire), but nope.  Lazy writing, as usual.
....
(Soooo…Grace didn't know that her own father's store had security cameras??  She didn't know enough to pull the "robbery" when Hannah wasn't next door?  She couldn't have given Rex the codes and taken Hannah out clubbing so he could work in peace?

I'm not saying she was "too stupid to live", but…)

I really don't know  why this show has such a love for portraying defense attorneys as ineffectual and for downplaying/mishandling the actual court stuff. It would be pretty easy to use the court stuff better as a framing device and to make it clearer what was cross, what was direct, to have semi-realistic plots and twists etc. Hell, if you're out there on this forum for some reason, Accused writers, I will volunteer my script doctoring services for cheap! PM me!

Anyway, I'm not sure how we are supposed to understand the anvilliciously named Grace and her past. Father-in-law and Grace both didn't mention she had been in a romantic relationship with a convicted murderer when talking about her past? Are we supposed to believe that Grace hadn't reformed? Was still hot for Rex? Or was she just trying to buy Rex's silence by pulling one more job? Of all the places she could have picked to rob, she does her dad's jewelry store? And does so super-incompetently as you pointed out?  But let's say she and Rex had pulled off the perfect heist. What was their plan from there? Just drive to St. Louis and try to start up a new life with the couple hundred thousand (say) that they robbed her old man of? Was a relationship with Rex possibly worth it? And quite the whiplash from "I'm going to turn myself in for that old murder" to "I guess I'm going to leave my husband and rob my dad."

It also seems an epic character contrivance for Eugene to go from upbeat, mild-mannered confirmed Christian to "I'm going to be toting this gun and dealing with a convicted murderer." 

On 12/4/2024 at 6:15 AM, Madding crowd said:

This was a weird episode. Ken’s acting was terrible in this and I never believed he and Grace were a married couple. We saw no evidence of a defense, are we supposed to believe Rex was never questioned on the stand? Why would the jury believe a convicted murderer over Eugene? Also didn’t get the point of the Hannah character who always seemed to be lurking around. 

So this episode (like I think at least one or two previous ones) is about a concept in the law called felony-murder. The idea is that if someone dies -- even accidentally, even if you personally did not kill them, even if you didn't intend them to die -- while you are committing a dangerous felony, you are guilty of felony-murder. One example: if John and Fred are robbing a bank together and a cop shoots Fred, John is guilty of felony-murder. 

So in this case, arguably it does not matter that Rex is a convicted murderer and a thief and generally untrustworthy if Eugene was committing a dangerous felony during which someone died, he's likely guilty of felony murder.

The trouble with this case, as far as I could see, is that Eugene was not committing an underlying dangerous felony. Yes, he took his father-in-law's gun. But I don't think they are arguing that the gun was stolen or that it was the underlying felony. I'm thinking they are trying to claim that confronting Rex with a gun in and of itself is the dangerous felony. But that would basically upgrade any killing with an illegal gun to felony murder.

Once again, Accused doesn't really bother to delve into the defense of the accused. There seemingly would be a few of them: duress, self-defense, temporary insanity. 

[MMEButterfly]

11 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I really don't know  why this show has such a love for portraying defense attorneys as ineffectual and for downplaying/mishandling the actual court stuff. It would be pretty easy to use the court stuff better as a framing device and to make it clearer what was cross, what was direct, to have semi-realistic plots and twists etc. Hell, if you're out there on this forum for some reason, Accused writers, I will volunteer my script doctoring services for cheap! PM me!

Anyway, I'm not sure how we are supposed to understand the anvilliciously named Grace and her past. Father-in-law and Grace both didn't mention she had been in a romantic relationship with a convicted murderer when talking about her past? Are we supposed to believe that Grace hadn't reformed? Was still hot for Rex? Or was she just trying to buy Rex's silence by pulling one more job? Of all the places she could have picked to rob, she does her dad's jewelry store? And does so super-incompetently as you pointed out?  But let's say she and Rex had pulled off the perfect heist. What was their plan from there? Just drive to St. Louis and try to start up a new life with the couple hundred thousand (say) that they robbed her old man of? Was a relationship with Rex possibly worth it? And quite the whiplash from "I'm going to turn myself in for that old murder" to "I guess I'm going to leave my husband and rob my dad."

It also seems an epic character contrivance for Eugene to go from upbeat, mild-mannered confirmed Christian to "I'm going to be toting this gun and dealing with a convicted murderer." 

So this episode (like I think at least one or two previous ones) is about a concept in the law called felony-murder. The idea is that if someone dies -- even accidentally, even if you personally did not kill them, even if you didn't intend them to die -- while you are committing a dangerous felony, you are guilty of felony-murder. One example: if John and Fred are robbing a bank together and a cop shoots Fred, John is guilty of felony-murder. 

So in this case, arguably it does not matter that Rex is a convicted murderer and a thief and generally untrustworthy if Eugene was committing a dangerous felony during which someone died, he's likely guilty of felony murder.

The trouble with this case, as far as I could see, is that Eugene was not committing an underlying dangerous felony. Yes, he took his father-in-law's gun. But I don't think they are arguing that the gun was stolen or that it was the underlying felony. I'm thinking they are trying to claim that confronting Rex with a gun in and of itself is the dangerous felony. But that would basically upgrade any killing with an illegal gun to felony murder.

Once again, Accused doesn't really bother to delve into the defense of the accused. There seemingly would be a few of them: duress, self-defense, temporary insanity. 

And Eugene was the manager of a store being robbed. To confront the robbers with a gun would probably be legal--not sure of local regulations. 

[Chicago Redshirt]

On 12/6/2024 at 10:54 AM, MMEButterfly said:

And Eugene was the manager of a store being robbed. To confront the robbers with a gun would probably be legal--not sure of local regulations. 

In this case, the confrontation happened at a motel, completely separated in time and space from the break-in. I would think that it would be tough to justify going to another's property armed with a gun under these circumstances rather than just calling the police and letting them know that the two of them were there.