S24.E18 Inherent Bias

[Xeliou66]

Episode description 

A rising basketball star is shot dead, leaving the squad in a desperate scramble for leads. When the capture of a suspect doesn’t go as planned, Shaw and Riley each take a firm stand on what they believe they witnessed. 

[MediaZone4K]

Silly me for believing tonight's episode would result in a verdict other than guilty.

It would've been more compelling if the verdict were not guilty, and the prosecution actually lost the case for once. The hung jury break in Luigi episode was a welcome change.

I sympathize with Jalen in this episode, but I can see why his partner mentioned Jalen's comment about a black suspect being bad for the community.

[Spartan Girl]

If that guy really was telling the truth, then he kind of screwed himself by tossing the floppy into the river.

[Diana Berry]

I went back and looked at the scene by the water.  Shaw was quite a ways back from Riley.  I really don’t think he would be able to tell the difference if it was weapon or a hard drive just that something was thrown.  Riley would have had a significantly better view.  I wonder if this will affect their friendship? 

[MediaZone4K]

20 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

If that guy really was telling the truth, then he kind of screwed himself by tossing the floppy into the river.

Exactly.

[Xeliou66]

Pretty good episode tonight -  it was an interesting case with good investigative and trial scenes and no glaring flaws. 

But Shaw was a bit irritating at the end, Riley was right to tell Price about his comment and if Shaw doesn’t trust the jury’s decisions he’s probably not in the right line of work. I was certain the guy was guilty, he had the victim’s blood on his pants which even he couldn’t explain away, he had motive, he lied about not being at the arena, and yeah he likely threw the gun into the river, Riley was way closer than Shaw to him and the guy would be epically dumb to throw a hard drive into the water. The jury got the right verdict. And Shaw shouldn’t have had beef with Riley, Riley was right that inherent bias works both ways. And if anyone had a bias it was Shaw not Riley, Shaw said he didn’t want the guy to be guilty, Riley didn’t care, and Shaw’s concern should be on finding the culprit not on society’s reaction. 

And Maroun should be a defense lawyer, no way should they dismiss the case just because Shaw had doubts about what he saw. I liked Price in this one and I liked Baxter’s scenes as well, and I like how their relationship has evolved.

So while the case was interesting and the plot flowed well, I don’t really like the direction they are going with Shaw, I hope he doesn’t become another Paul Robinette who does a 180, that’s what he was starting to remind me of. I hope this doesn’t sour the Shaw/Riley partnership as I like them together a lot. 

Edited April 11 by Xeliou66

[Irlandesa]

2 hours ago, MediaZone4K said:

Silly me for believing tonight's episode would result in a verdict other than guilty.

I sympathize with Jalen in this episode, but I can see why his partner mentioned Jalen's comment about a black suspect being bad for the community.

I actually felt he wasn't guilty and I hope they revisit this case.  When is the last time we had the prosecution prosecute the wrong person only to reveal the real culprit towards the end?  I feel like it has been a while.  I used to love those cases in the original run.

I actually don't think Riley should have mentioned that comment.  What Shaw said was a philosophical opinion.

1 hour ago, Xeliou66 said:

He had the victim’s blood on his pants which even he couldn’t explain away, 

Riley was right that inherent bias works both ways. And if anyone had a bias it was Shaw not Riley, Shaw said he didn’t want the guy to be guilty, Riley didn’t care, and Shaw’s concern should be on finding the culprit not on society’s reaction. 

I'm trying to remember but wasn't the shooter pretty far away to get blood on him?

Inherent bias does work both ways but it doesn't disadvantage both ways.  We didn't see Shaw do anything to prevent the case from going forward.  He did do his job.  But after sitting in court, he started to doubt the strength of the evidence and probably did have doubts about what was thrown into the river but deferred to the partner he trusted.

A dogmatic adherence to initial conclusions is why the wrong people end up convicted.  Maybe this guy is guilty but Shaw having questions isn't a character flaw, IMO.

Edited April 11 by Irlandesa

[The Wild Sow]

I rewound it too, even before the hard drive came up in court. I agree with Shaw — it didn’t  look like a gun to me.  Looked rectangular, like a hard drive. 

[mommalib]

That case was circumstantial as hell but I knew the guy was gonna be found guilty and unfortunately that's realistic. And when the verdict was read I can tell by the look on Nolan and Riley's faces that they knew what happened and why. I look at a character like Shaw and wonder what it's like in the real world to be a Black cop, lawyer, judge etc and know that you work for a system that was designed to kick you people in ass. And then be surrounded by the Riley's and Nolan's of the world who are unsympathetic and don't understand because they don't really want to. 

Edited April 11 by mommalib

[marc20]

run baby run

[dubbel zout]

14 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

he lied about not being at the arena

That was never satisfactorily dealt with by the defense, IMO. The arena guy said the system was only a year or so old and it was 98 percent accurate, so even though I agree inherent bias is inadvertently baked into the algorithm, it seems highly unlikely the defendant just happens to be part of the 2 percent that is wrongly IDed. I guess there isn't really a way to counter that point, though, except by saying the accuracy is so high that a mistake is statistically unlikely.

12 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I'm trying to remember but wasn't the shooter pretty far away to get blood on him?

It was hard to tell because we only saw the shooting on video. It wasn't point-blank, but it also wasn't from 100 feet away, I don't think. A couple of bloodstains on the pants doesn't seem like enough to definitely place the guy as the shooter, but it was another item for the circumstantial evidence pile.

Edited April 11 by dubbel zout
corrected my mixed metaphor

[Raja]

We get the story that the WNBA is now starting to get notice but then after a public murder the ex-boyfriend and business partner seem all so surprised when the police show up with questions

[shapeshifter]

20 hours ago, MediaZone4K said:

Silly me for believing tonight's episode would result in a verdict other than guilty.

Same for me.
I think we were supposed to be surprised?

 

 

20 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

If that guy really was telling the truth, then he kind of screwed himself by tossing the floppy into the river.

He tossed the external hard drive in the river because he had prior convictions and the hard drive was stolen, and he thought that’s what they were coming after him about. 

[Spartan Girl]

1 minute ago, shapeshifter said:

He tossed the external hard drive in the river because he had prior convictions and the hard drive was stolen, and he thought that’s what they were coming after him about. 

Still a stupid thing to do. Better a theft conviction than a murder conviction.

[dubbel zout]

He didn't know that's why the police were chasing him, though. He thought it was because of the stolen hard drive.

[Xeliou66]

1 minute ago, dubbel zout said:

He didn't know that's why the police were chasing him, though. He thought it was because of the stolen hard drive.

I didn’t for one second buy his story of the stolen hard drive and not knowing why the police were after him. He wanted to ditch the murder weapon. He was clearly guilty IMO. I am surprised so many here seem to think this dude was innocent. 

[Irlandesa]

7 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

The arena guy said the system was only a year or so old and it was 98 percent accurate, so even though I agree inherent bias is inadvertently baked into the algorithm, it seems highly unlikely the defendant just happens to be part of the 2 percent that is wrongly IDed. I guess there isn't really a way to counter that point, though, except by saying the accuracy is so high that a mistake is statistically unlikely.

That's if we believe the 98% accuracy assertions.  And that it's "never been wrong."  This might be a bit outside the episode but I've seen AI tools tout their accuracy  (AI detectors for one) but external trials don't match their claims and there are circumstances that affect reliability.  For AI detectors, it's whether or not English is someone's first language. 

The reason I'd like them to revisit this is because black men have been arrested solely on the basis of bad AI identification.   They've spent time in jail before something comes up to take them put of contention.

There was more circumstantial evidence in this case but it's a good case to do a ripped from the headlines message about AI and policing.

[dubbel zout]

3 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

That's if we believe the 98% accuracy assertions. 

Oh, definitely. But the accuracy wasn't challenged by the defense.

It's another example of the writers throwing in stuff and not following through.

[Raja]

3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Oh, definitely. But the accuracy wasn't challenged by the defense.

It's another example of the writers throwing in stuff and not following through.

Yes it was challenged that was the main defense. The specific point was that the A.I. like its presumably White programmers made mistakes when identifying Black people. Complete with a stack of studies from real world universities, I didn't notice Hudson. To which the witness said those studies were 3 years old and the A.I is better than it was in 2021.

Either the jury didn't believe it was ever a thing or believed in the exponential growth of the A.I. capabilities. Which would realistically make any study obsolete the day it was published.

[edhopper]

By his reaction to the verdict, I think he is innocent.

The blood, if he were guilty he might come up with a better lie. But he did interact with Adler regularly.

And the face recognition. They did not even have any video that the AI identified. Just fed his picture and the program said there was a match in the system.

The Garden gets over 15,000 people at a game. 2% means misidentifing 300 people.

The show has spent over 20 years without dealing with wrongful conviction. Now they have.

[CrystalBlue]

OK, so let's say defendant Cain really is not guilty and that he threw the stolen hard drive into the East River and not the murder weapon.  Who then really murdered Adler?

[Cobb Salad]

8 hours ago, edhopper said:

And the face recognition. They did not even have any video that the AI identified. Just fed his picture and the program said there was a match in the system.

The Garden gets over 15,000 people at a game. 2% means misidentifing 300 people.

Yeah, when they talked about the facial recognition I knew it was going to be a problem.  I read a book about Clearview AI (the facial recognition company who has had contracts with law enforcement) and its problematic history.  It included a story about a black man who was wrongly accused of a crime and he had to fight tooth and nail to prove his innocence.  
Then they didn’t show the video.  Couldn’t they have shown it and let the jury agree or disagree that it’s the defendant?  I wasn’t convinced by the witness statement that the program they use is better than what’s been used in the past, how?  There’s still going to be a margin of error, I think there will always will be one.  

[marny]

4 hours ago, CrystalBlue said:

OK, so let's say defendant Cain really is not guilty and that he threw the stolen hard drive into the East River and not the murder weapon.  Who then really murdered Adler?

It sounded like there was at least some question about her manager. But it isn’t the defense’s job to solve the case. I think this is one that showed we do need more prosecutors like Maroun who question the strength of cases and whether to bring certain charges. Justice is convicting the person who is doubtlessly guilty for the offense they are doubtlessly guilty of. If the prosecutor has doubts, it’s unethical to go forward with the case. Period. You don’t just throw mediocre cases out there and say “Well, let’s let the jury decide.”  That’s what prosecutorial discretion is all about, and prosecutors take a special oath about that.  
And I thought it was shitty of Riley to act as though Shaw’s comment about hoping the guy was innocent was evidence that Shaw would lie about what he saw. He was talking generally about the societal impact of the Black man being the perpetrator, not a plan to hide his guilt. Shaw has every right to be pissed that Riley would use that to discredit him and his reputation. 

[Xeliou66]

1 hour ago, marny said:

It sounded like there was at least some question about her manager. But it isn’t the defense’s job to solve the case. I think this is one that showed we do need more prosecutors like Maroun who question the strength of cases and whether to bring certain charges. Justice is convicting the person who is doubtlessly guilty for the offense they are doubtlessly guilty of. If the prosecutor has doubts, it’s unethical to go forward with the case. Period. You don’t just throw mediocre cases out there and say “Well, let’s let the jury decide.”  That’s what prosecutorial discretion is all about, and prosecutors take a special oath about that.  
And I thought it was shitty of Riley to act as though Shaw’s comment about hoping the guy was innocent was evidence that Shaw would lie about what he saw. He was talking generally about the societal impact of the Black man being the perpetrator, not a plan to hide his guilt. Shaw has every right to be pissed that Riley would use that to discredit him and his reputation. 

The manager had an alibi. There were no real alternate suspects besides the defendant.  
And Riley didn’t accuse Shaw of lying, he was just saying that Shaw might’ve had an unconscious bias and saw what he wanted to see given that he wanted the guy to be innocent. Again, Shaw shouldn’t have been concerned with that, his job is to find the guilty party not worry about society’s reaction to them doing so. And Shaw was the one who first tried to discredit Riley. 

[marny]

2 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

The manager had an alibi. There were no real alternate suspects besides the defendant.  
And Riley didn’t accuse Shaw of lying, he was just saying that Shaw might’ve had an unconscious bias and saw what he wanted to see given that he wanted the guy to be innocent. Again, Shaw shouldn’t have been concerned with that, his job is to find the guilty party not worry about society’s reaction to them doing so. And Shaw was the one who first tried to discredit Riley. 

They explained why the alibi was meaningless though. And as for Shaw, he was just making a personal comment to a friend about race, not actually worrying— he’ll never trust Riley again as someone he can speak freely to. As for discrediting Riley, Shaw was simply saying he believes he saw something different. The cross examination was implying Shaw intentionally lied to help a black man. He didn’t think Riley was lying, just mistaken. The two are not the same. 

[storyskip]

If the defense had been able to pursue a viable alternative suspect they could have easily raised reasonable doubt. The case the prosecution had was built on a lot of circumstance. 
 

But the defense attorney was so focused on the idea of inherent bias that he didn’t craft reasonable doubt. He kept trying to pin the crime on someone who had a rock solid alibi.  
 

Let’s say, for instance, that the business manager did hire someone to shoot the victim. Instead of grandstanding on “white men don’t get their hands dirty”, follow the money trail. Hit men don’t work for free.

But once again the L&O writers are too focused on their soap box dramatics, they fail to craft a well plotted story.

Full credit to Cain’s actor. His breakdown after the verdict was read convinced me that he was probably innocent. The business manager probably did hire someone, but the defense attorney botched the job.

10 minutes ago, marny said:

They explained why the alibi was meaningless though. And as for Shaw, he was just making a personal comment to a friend about race, not actually worrying— he’ll never trust Riley again as someone he can speak freely to. As for discrediting Riley, Shaw was simply saying he believes he saw something different. The cross examination was implying Shaw intentionally lied to help a black man. He didn’t think Riley was lying, just mistaken. The two are not the same. 

Except Shaw has form for letting his own inherent bias affect his professional conduct, and Price has had to pick up the pieces on 2 or 3 occasions as a result.

I really enjoyed Shaw in his first season, and Machad is such a good actor. But these last few seasons Shaw has become as much of a sjw/set himself up as judge and jury, as St Olivia. It’s soured me on the character.

[Xeliou66]

40 minutes ago, marny said:

They explained why the alibi was meaningless though. And as for Shaw, he was just making a personal comment to a friend about race, not actually worrying— he’ll never trust Riley again as someone he can speak freely to. As for discrediting Riley, Shaw was simply saying he believes he saw something different. The cross examination was implying Shaw intentionally lied to help a black man. He didn’t think Riley was lying, just mistaken. The two are not the same. 

The alibi was iron clad, the defense didn’t even argue otherwise, they just said the guy might’ve hired a hitman to do it which was pretty absurd. 
And no one is saying Shaw intentionally lied, just that inherent bias works both ways, Shaw implied that Riley saw the gun because he expected to see it because he believed the guy to be guilty, and Price’s cross of Shaw implied that he believed he saw something other than a gun because he wanted the guy to be innocent. 
 

 

34 minutes ago, storyskip said:

If the defense had been able to pursue a viable alternative suspect they could have easily raised reasonable doubt. The case the prosecution had was built on a lot of circumstance. 
 

But the defense attorney was so focused on the idea of inherent bias that he didn’t craft reasonable doubt. He kept trying to pin the crime on someone who had a rock solid alibi.  
 

Let’s say, for instance, that the business manager did hire someone to shoot the victim. Instead of grandstanding on “white men don’t get their hands dirty”, follow the money trail. Hit men don’t work for free.

But once again the L&O writers are too focused on their soap box dramatics, they fail to craft a well plotted story.

Full credit to Cain’s actor. His breakdown after the verdict was read convinced me that he was probably innocent. The business manager probably did hire someone, but the defense attorney botched the job.

Except Shaw has form for letting his own inherent bias affect his professional conduct, and Price has had to pick up the pieces on 2 or 3 occasions as a result.

I really enjoyed Shaw in his first season, and Machad is such a good actor. But these last few seasons Shaw has become as much of a sjw/set himself up as judge and jury, as St Olivia. It’s soured me on the character.

I don’t agree that the guy was innocent, his breakdown meant nothing, plenty of defendants react emotionally after being convicted because they are going to prison. There was too much strong evidence against the defendant and no proof that the business partner or anyone else could’ve been behind the murder other than the defense lawyer’s speculations. 
But I’m starting to agree about Shaw, while I really liked him at first and I think Mehcad is a great actor, Shaw is starting to come off as overly biased and concerned about stuff other than arresting the right person and that annoys me - he’s nowhere near Olivia Benson levels of annoying but I’m not really liking where they are going with Shaw lately and I hope he doesn’t become another Paul Robinette, that’s what I’m worried about - I hated how they basically turned Robinette into a more radical “angry black guy” stereotype who came to despise the DAs office without explanation, and I really don’t want that to happen with Shaw. 

[marc20]

fyi....next week's episode is a crossover with SVU, and it's two-parter...the first hour is L&O, followed by SVU for its conclusion...I don't think any of L&O is on the second part, but not sure

[Xeliou66]

51 minutes ago, marc20 said:

fyi....next week's episode is a crossover with SVU, and it's two-parter...the first hour is L&O, followed by SVU for its conclusion...I don't think any of L&O is on the second part, but not sure

I think it will be more like a 2 hour movie with characters from both shows in both hours, I know Price will be working with Carisi in the legal portion so I’m sure they’ll both be in hour 2 and Baxter as well. I know Benson and Brady will work together and I’m not sure how the detectives from SVU will pair up with Riley/Shaw. 

[marc20]

17 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

I think it will be more like a 2 hour movie with characters from both shows in both hours, I know Price will be working with Carisi in the legal portion so I’m sure they’ll both be in hour 2 and Baxter as well. I know Benson and Brady will work together and I’m not sure how the detectives from SVU will pair up with Riley/Shaw. 

my mom hated those crossovers with Baltimore...given how many people here hate Benson I imagine this week could get nasty

remember the three-parter in/with L.A.?...with the murderer film director

of course there was Logan's two hour special after he left...never liked that one

I do prefer everything tied up in an hour

Edited April 12 by marc20

[Xeliou66]

14 minutes ago, marc20 said:

my mom hated those crossovers with Baltimore...given how many people here hate Benson I imagine this week could get nasty

remember the three-parter in/with L.A.?...with the murderer film director

of course there was Logan's two hour special after he left...never liked that one

I do prefer everything tied up in an hour

Part of what makes L&O so good is the formula, and by having the episodes go over an hour/into another show, it tampers with the formula and frequently makes for a less good storyline. 
I remember the LA 3 parter in season 7 well, I’ve seen it a couple of times recently, I actually like the storyline overall minus the Rey Curtis personal stuff.  
The Homicide crossovers were a mixed bag storyline wise but Lennie and Munch together was a treat.

But yeah given how unbearable modern day Benson is, I’m afraid this crossover will suck especially given that the previews basically show a Benson crusade. I’m afraid it will be 2 hours of mostly Benson and her usual crap with everyone else on the sideline, I just hope they don’t make Mothership characters look bad to make St Olivia look even holier. 

[Irlandesa]

The biggest problem with the crossovers is having to find the part 2s which were impossible before Homicide landed on Peacock.

[Cobb Salad]

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

The biggest problem with the crossovers is having to find the part 2s which were impossible before Homicide landed on Peacock.

This is also a problem with the airings on Sundance/WE/BBC America as none of them show Homicide.  It’s not even worth the time to watch the L&O part of the episode in that case. 

[Xeliou66]

I’ve seen some promo pics from the upcoming crossover episode - Riley and SVU’s Silva are working together it seems, and Price/Carisi are sitting at the prosecution table in court - I’m looking forward to seeing that if nothing else, it will be interesting to see them team up. And Benson/Brady seem to be working closely together. 

[MediaZone4K]

On 4/10/2025 at 9:08 PM, MediaZone4K said:

Silly me for believing tonight's episode would result in a verdict other than guilty.

It would've been more compelling if the verdict were not guilty, and the prosecution actually lost the case for once. The hung jury break in Luigi episode was a welcome change.

I sympathize with Jalen in this episode, but I can see why his partner mentioned Jalen's comment about a black suspect being bad for the community.

I made this comment having missed last week's episode. The one week I miss law and order the verdict is not guilty!!

[SAS]

13 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I’ve seen some promo pics from the upcoming crossover episode - Riley and SVU’s Silva are working together it seems, and Price/Carisi are sitting at the prosecution table in court - I’m looking forward to seeing that if nothing else, it will be interesting to see them team up. 

Yes! Looks like Carisi is sitting second chair to Price; looking forward to this. I hope he asks Carisi if Benson is always trying to tank his cases too XD

[Zaffy]

On 4/13/2025 at 4:24 AM, Xeliou66 said:

And Benson/Brady seem to be working closely together. 

Remembering their ER years?

Ok, even if I am getting really tired from having a debate/dilemma in every freaking episode, I liked this one.
I think it was well made for once.
My only objection was the jury deciding  guilty. I expected at least a hang jury cause I do not think the evidence from the prosecution  were strong enough.

Edited April 14 by Zaffy

[Xeliou66]

On 4/12/2025 at 2:22 PM, marc20 said:

fyi....next week's episode is a crossover with SVU, and it's two-parter...the first hour is L&O, followed by SVU for its conclusion...I don't think any of L&O is on the second part, but not sure

Just read an article that confirms that this crossover is like a 2 hour movie, with characters from both L&O and SVU appearing in both parts. The two detective squads will be working together and Price/Carisi will prosecute the case together. I’m looking forward to seeing the character interactions, I just hope Benson doesn’t hijack the episode and make it all about her. 

[Cobb Salad]

Even though it seems like every episode now has to have a foot chase at least this one had an important role in the rest of the episode. 

[watcher1006]

I went through most of the trial part of the episode thinking that Cain was guilty but when the business of the hard drive was raised I started thinking that the defense could have a case there... The blood evidence was hard to explain but it seemed difficult to explain even with the way the prosecution portrayed it, given the distance between the shooter and the victim. Cain's attorney was clearly going for some kind of jury nullification strategy, bringing up the race angle at every opportunity (think O.J. Simpson trial). I think that the D.A.'s office would have been highly concerned about the makeup of the jury, and even if there was no time to delve into the jury selection process I thought that it deserved at least a few lines of dialogue.

Regarding the crossover, I'm not enthusiastic about it. In spite of the efforts of the writers, it seems that the characters from the other show or shows usually feel out of place on the show of focus and often their portrayals don't sink with their development on their primary show.

[marc20]

20 hours ago, Cobb Salad said:

Even though it seems like every episode now has to have a foot chase at least this one had an important role in the rest of the episode. 

it's clear Wolf and others had a conversation that ended with 'we need more action', every week...astonishing to me, never would have predicted it

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, watcher1006 said:

Regarding the crossover, I'm not enthusiastic about it. In spite of the efforts of the writers, it seems that the characters from the other show or shows usually feel out of place on the show of focus and often their portrayals don't sink with their development on their primary show.

This👆and I choose not to watch SVU because the subject matter is too triggering for me. I regretted watching a similarly-themed episode of OG FBI recently. No torture or sicko serial killer stuff for me. No graphic violence. I prefer my dead bodies already dead.
So maybe I'll skip it? 
Or maybe I'll violate my personal rule of avoiding spoilers and check them out for this crossover, and then decide whether or not to watch based upon that. 
Or I'll just read the thread here first.
I usually watch on Peacock the next day anyway, because Thursdays I watch a bunch of CBS "cozy" TV shows.

[Cobb Salad]

I won’t be watching.  I used to watch SVU ages ago but I stopped when it seemed like in most episodes Stabler was going off on a suspect way too much.  

 I’ll likely be watching some true crime show on either ID or Oxygen.  Maybe there will be a movie on I’d like to watch.  Who knows. 

[Joimiaroxeu]

IRL would detectives who are partners be basically allowed to testify against each other?

Frankly I don't see how Shaw and Riley can trust each other after this. It's being speculated that the show is laying the groundwork for Jalen's exit at the end of this season.

I kept waiting for Baxter to mention his high society connection to something about this case.

[Raja]

20 minutes ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

IRL would detectives who are partners be basically allowed to testify against each other?

Of course, they could give inconsistent testimony, and both are expected to tell the whole truth as they saw it. The state just has to believe that Detective Shaw is wrong in order to go ahead with the prosecution.

[Joimiaroxeu]

11 hours ago, Raja said:

Of course, they could give inconsistent testimony, and both are expected to tell the whole truth as they saw it. The state just has to believe that Detective Shaw is wrong in order to go ahead with the prosecution.

Okay but it just seems to me the DA and the NYPD wouldn't want to help give the public perception that their detectives can't be trusted to give reliable testimony. Or are perhaps deliberate liars. Yeah, I know that's probably naïve on my part.

[Raja]

7 minutes ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Okay but it just seems to me the DA and the NYPD wouldn't want to help give the public perception that their detectives can't be trusted to give reliable testimony. Or are perhaps deliberate liars. Yeah, I know that's probably naïve on my part.

They have to help, that is the discovery process of giving everything the state has to the defense. The defense gets to go for the win, the state has to go for the truth.

[blackwing]

I didn't buy at all that the defendant was innocent.  His lawyer made a valiant effort, but I agree with the comment upthread that he made a claim that the facial recognition made errors.  He provided studies, but then when the security guy pointed out that all of those studies were old and that their system was new, he didn't pursue it further.  If he really was trying to use this to prove his case, he should have pursued it a lot more.  Instead, he went with the "all Black people look alike to white people and computers programmed by white people" argument.  His "you don't know when that blood got on his clothes, it could have been weeks ago" also seemed like grasping at straws.

On 4/10/2025 at 10:43 PM, mommalib said:

That case was circumstantial as hell but I knew the guy was gonna be found guilty and unfortunately that's realistic. And when the verdict was read I can tell by the look on Nolan and Riley's faces that they knew what happened and why. I look at a character like Shaw and wonder what it's like in the real world to be a Black cop, lawyer, judge etc and know that you work for a system that was designed to kick you people in ass. And then be surrounded by the Riley's and Nolan's of the world who are unsympathetic and don't understand because they don't really want to. 

Wasn't that the issue with the Black cop from some weeks back?  Young Black female, initially accused but it turns out she was working undercover.  I forget the details, but she I think she refused to testify because she said she wasn't going to help put another Black man in prison.

On 4/11/2025 at 5:17 PM, dubbel zout said:

He didn't know that's why the police were chasing him, though. He thought it was because of the stolen hard drive.

On 4/11/2025 at 5:21 PM, Xeliou66 said:

I didn’t for one second buy his story of the stolen hard drive and not knowing why the police were after him. He wanted to ditch the murder weapon. He was clearly guilty IMO. I am surprised so many here seem to think this dude was innocent. 

Unless he lives in a hole, he would have heard about the murder of the WNBA star, who was someone he knew well.  He ran as soon as he saw them.  I don't buy the story that he was concerned about being booked for theft.  He knew she had been killed and since he stole a hard drive to get some records because of a dispute, he should have known that would make him a suspect. 

On 4/15/2025 at 9:09 PM, Joimiaroxeu said:

IRL would detectives who are partners be basically allowed to testify against each other?

Frankly I don't see how Shaw and Riley can trust each other after this. It's being speculated that the show is laying the groundwork for Jalen's exit at the end of this season.

If Mehcad Brooks is leaving the show for whatever reason, I hope they promote Connie Shi / Violet Yee to Junior Detective.

[Xeliou66]

2 minutes ago, blackwing said:

I didn't buy at all that the defendant was innocent.  His lawyer made a valiant effort, but I agree with the comment upthread that he made a claim that the facial recognition made errors.  He provided studies, but then when the security guy pointed out that all of those studies were old and that their system was new, he didn't pursue it further.  If he really was trying to use this to prove his case, he should have pursued it a lot more.  Instead, he went with the "all Black people look alike to white people and computers programmed by white people" argument.  His "you don't know when that blood got on his clothes, it could have been weeks ago" also seemed like grasping at straws.

Wasn't that the issue with the Black cop from some weeks back?  Young Black female, initially accused but it turns out she was working undercover.  I forget the details, but she I think she refused to testify because she said she wasn't going to help put another Black man in prison.

Unless he lives in a hole, he would have heard about the murder of the WNBA star, who was someone he knew well.  He ran as soon as he saw them.  I don't buy the story that he was concerned about being booked for theft.  He knew she had been killed and since he stole a hard drive to get some records because of a dispute, he should have known that would make him a suspect. 

If Mehcad Brooks is leaving the show for whatever reason, I hope they promote Connie Shi / Violet Yee to Junior Detective.

Agreed this defendant was guilty - there was way too much evidence against him and no other viable suspects. The jury got the right verdict.   

In the other case you are talking about, episode 10 from this season, the one where the guy shot the mogul based on Diddy who was trafficking his daughter, and the undercover cop lied on behalf of the defendant because she didn’t think the guy should go to jail for killing the dirtbag even though it wasn’t self defense. In that episode I thought Riley had a great line about how if they occasionally didn’t do things by the book in the name of some “greater good” it could be used to justify anything eventually and they don’t get to pick and choose when to follow the law - the idealistic undercover cop didn’t seem to get that by breaking the rules she became just like all of the cops who cause problems in the system by bending/breaking the rules and putting themselves above the law believing they are helping society by doing so.

I’ve also wondered if someone is leaving at season’s end, if someone does I hope it’s Maroun, she’s the weakest link in the cast, but I could see them possibly setting up Shaw’s exit, maybe he decides he would rather practice law than be a detective, although it seems like they’ve forgotten that Shaw has a law degree. I like Shaw but I hope they don’t do a “Robinette” with him and reduce him to a cliched bitter character - I hated how they did Robinette.