Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Maherjunkie

Is there a lawyer on the board?

Recommended Posts

I started this thread for those moments you wonder if it was legal in real life.  For example, is it really ok for a landlord to simply open up someone's apt?

Share this post


Link to post

I am not a lawyer, but the writers freely admitted that they made stuff up to fit their storyline.

I can say that in most of the leases I have signed, the landlord is supposed to give 24hour's notice, unless it is an emergency. Then again, the guys who spray for bugs seem to wander in at will, so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I live in Florida; even with impeccable hygiene the battle against bugs is at best a draw. So every place I have lived at here does regular spraying.

Edited by Fosca
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

....raises hand.....   attorney here.  Although this is not my area, landlord-tenant laws will vary from state to state.  My guess would be that generally landlords can enter a tenant's premises in cases of emergency (like, a suspected gas leak), to make repairs, to show the property to prospective buyers/new tenants, or if the landlord reasonably suspects that the tenant has vacated/abandoned the premises.  I would not be surprised if the law (statutes and case law) distinguish between residential leases and commercial leases.  I'm not sure if a landlord could simply insert a clause in a lease whereby the tenant grants consent to the landlord entering (without notice) for other reasons (or for no reason at all), but it wouldn't surprise me if such a provision was upheld as long as the tenants knowingly waived their right to notice.

 

But, again, this isn't my area of law, so I'm really just guessing.....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Frankly, I never really thought about whether any of the characters, be they cops or the lawyers, could really do this in real life, because, hello, television show.  Also, for every time Jack, or a defense attorney, would yell "withdrawn!" before the judge would rule on the objection, happened in real life, the case would become a mistrial.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but a firm I used to work at, had a bunch of us, lawyers included, who watch this show, and one lawyer said the case would be over whenever the word "withdrawn!" was yelled, the way it's done on this show.  There's also the many, many, many, violation of the suspect's constitutional rights, so I don't ever think, "can they really do that?" Unless it's really egregious to the point of my being unable to suspend my disbelief.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, without a doubt, Chatty, that the mothership, despite it's creative licenses, is waaaaay more realistic and believable than say, The Good Wife, Suits, Drop Dead Diva and GOD YES, How to Get Away With Murder, which I couldn't watch again, despite my love for Viola Davis.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciated that L&O had, at least, a basis in reality versus so many other crime shows. But I never forgot it was also entertainment, so I always knew some liberties would be taken.  :-)

 

Although it seemed like the Mothership adhered much more closely than, say, SVU (see Benson and Stabler's techniques) and CI (see Goren and Eames - perhaps a bit less extreme than Stabler/Benson, but less rigid nonetheless), Still, even the spinoffs did address legal procedure via Cabot, Novak, Barba, and Carver, so it still worked.

 

I can appreciate the "shut your brain off" scenario, depending on if a show is entertaining, but I'm glad L&O and its spinoffs went a bit deeper via law and psychological aspects.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I worked with lawyers in the late-1990s/early-2000s (I'm not one myself), and they used to claim that they, and the cops they worked with, learned a technique (or it was largely/rapidly popularized by the show) -- "the hard way or the easy way." The cops show up somewhere...a magazine publisher, a gym, a library. They need to know if a specific person subscribes to the magazine, works out at the gym, checked out a book. The publisher/gym/library staffer balks. The cops say, "You can confirm this one name, or we can go get a warrant, come back, and go through EVERY SINGLE ONE of your subscribers/members/visitors." Person, knowing there's no gym-member privilege, or just not wanting to disrupt business, relents. The lawyers I worked with, and their cops colleagues/friends, said whatever episode was the first time they saw that, their first thought was, "I can do that?" followed by, "Wow, that might work!"

 

LOL, I don't know how true any of that was, but they claimed that was why they continued to be fans of the show, because it had given them (and popularized with the public) a really effective technique.

Edited by mattie0808
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I've been watching this show a lot for the past few months after a long time of not watching. I'm not an attorney, but know bits and pieces. I like Jack McCoy the best of the attorneys, but I find it really interesting how fervent he is about what ever the cause the case may involve. And I thought the NY courts were crowded with cases, but they seem to get to court so quickly in the murder cases. My nephew was allegedly  killed by his foster mother the end of the month of August, but the court hearing are just starting in a week or so, there's a lot of preliminary stuff before they even go to trial. 

 

And they go so quickly to court, that the detectives are still finding witnesses and new evidence, then they have to drop charges on one suspect and start over with a new suspect, why are they not more prepared to go to trial in the first place?

Edited by friendperidot
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

thank you, he was 3 and there's never a reason for killing a toddler. things I've learned about this could be an episode of L&O. I like the show but watching so many seasons in a short period of time show a lot of the miscues and errors of the show. I have done this with books too, find a new to me author, then read all of their books in a few weeks, I'll notice little inconsistencies. 

Share this post


Link to post

Or, you know, they did it for drama purposes. Creative license and all that. Hell, over 80% of the stuff the detectives/ADAS did wouldn't be allowed in real life.

 

I had no problem with it, because it led to the what the case was really about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Not to be argumentative, but this is a fictional show and not a documentary about how cops violate so many constitutional rights, so I handwave a lot of the violation of constitutional rights of suspects and defendants on this show. Fortunately for me, they don't do too much of it, and it usually comes to bite them in the ass when they do. Like when said suspects lawyer up.

 

That said, I've also mentioned a few times, how many times, Curtis and yes, even Lennie, are guilty of this, and then get all hypocritical about these violations in the Homicide cross overs, when Pembleton did the same exact thing that they did. Guess it's different when they (Lennie, Curtis, Jack, etc.) do it, but it's not allowed when other cops from other states/jurisdictions do the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post

 A New York voir dire question I just noticed in a 2004 episode of the Japanese business man falsely accusing any African American to throw off the investigation something first done by Ben Stone in season 1 when I figured it was before more realism was demanded. The attorney's asking to prospective jury members by name their questions. I know in California there is a strict firewall on names from the county who finds jurors and the courts in which they serve 

Edited by Raja

Share this post


Link to post

In New York, there are no rules against using a juror's name, and while the exact method varies from county to county, all of the parties, including the defendant him/herself, get to see either a list of names or a questionnaire with names and where people live, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post

In LA you are just a number and live in the county, they can get basic information from voir dire. My last time on jury duty it turned out that I lived in same hood as the gang member attempted murderer. I sat there for two days listening to the prospective jurors before me knowing that as soon as they got down to me I was off jury duty for another year. The judge dismissed me so neither side had to use a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Ailianna said:

In New York, there are no rules against using a juror's name, and while the exact method varies from county to county, all of the parties, including the defendant him/herself, get to see either a list of names or a questionnaire with names and where people live, and so on.

A number of years back in New York, a coworker was excused from a trial during jury selection - it was some sort of violent felony, assault, armed robbery, or such - by telling the judge she was frightened by the idea that the defendant would know who she was, and it might affect how she decided the case.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/8/2016 at 9:00 AM, Raja said:

 A New York voir dire question I just noticed in a 2004 episode of the Japanese business man falsely accusing any African American to throw off the investigation something first done by Ben Stone in season 1 when I figured it was before more realism was demanded.

Actually I found the legal side to be pretty realistic from the beginning. They showed a lot of aspects that had been previously mostly ignored like plea bargaining and pre-trial activity and did seem to know that they were ignoring a lot of stuff to make watchable TV. It was the police side where they seemed to become more realistic after the first couple seasons with things like having the right badges for the different ranks, correct procedure, erc. Actually even from the first pilot to the first season - look at  "Everybody's Favorite Bagman" where they're making up ranks like Deputy Police Commander.

Share this post


Link to post
×