S06.E10: The Trial

[apgold]

 

If these weird side vignettes were intended to be "slice of life around a trial" sort of things, they failed. Miserably.

 

Actually, the bit with the judge didn't bother me so much.  It reminded me that despite being a Judge, these people have lives outside the courtroom and that can influence their mood or whatever.  The Neil Diamond tickets were a bit too cutesy but I like David Paymer, so it was okay.

 

I am sick of Lemond Bishop having the upper hand all the time.  The Kings better be planning his takedown by seasons end and free Cary from his hell.

 

I love Sarah Steele and I am glad she is back this season.  Impressive she's doing this role while on Broadway (like her on screen dad).  I saw her in "The Country House" and she more than holds her own with Blythe Danner.

Edited November 25, 2014 by apgold

[milkyaqua]

I don't see how Lana could be Cary's savior since didn't she get busted by her bosses for sharing info on the Bishop case with Kalinda?

 

Did anybody else think the diner where Alicia and Finn met looked like the diner on E.R.?  I thought Alicia's comment about the diner might have been a throwback to her former show.  Any thoughts?

 

I didn't think of E.R. but I did think of NCIS.  Apparently, all these shows like this particular diner setting.

 

As for a Cary resolution, we know Archie is leaving but has Matt signed up for season seven?  Just putting it out there...

[Macbeth]

What happened to Taye Diggs?? There has been no explanation for his absence. When did we last see him?

How hard is it to cast an African-American actor in a major role on a network show (other than a Shonda Rhimes show)?

The Kings love "The Wire" - couldn't they cast an actor from that show in something more than a guest spot.

Oh wait - The Good Wife's direct competition - The Walking Dead - has 3 such actors.

Well actually 2 now. Lawrence Gilliard, Jr. a/k/a Bob a/k/a D'Angelo is now available for hire.

[jjj]

Did they give him the address when they moved offices?  I only recall seeing him in the start-up location.  And when did we last see Julius Cain (Michael Boatman)?  Was he in scenes when the lease agreement disintegrated?

 

Speaking of which, the former Lockhart/Gardner/whatever firm seems to have vanished into thin air, except for that brief appearance by Louis Canning.  Is David Lee out there somewhere snarling? 

Edited November 26, 2014 by jjj

[RedheadZombie]

It's true a hard of hearing juror would (or should) be given reasonable accommodations. The problem, I think, is that the juror didn't disclose his need for the accommodations, and had therefore allegedly/probably missed what was going on for the first part of the proceedings, until his disability was disclosed. So they have a situation where, essentially, the jury was one person short for a portion of the trial.

 

My understanding was the juror wasn't hard of hearing.  The anonymous note claimed the juror was HOH, but the juror stated it's a comprehending issue.  He hears the words, but has difficulty cognitively interpreting them.  I'm not sure what accommodations would have improved the jurors ability to understand. 

[Kel Varnsen]

No appeal in a plea deal.  I think we are all waiting for the evidence of  prosecutorial conduct in Cary's case, leading to exoneration. 

Which really makes me wonder how they get Cary out of this. I mean even if Lamont Bishop dies, Cary still admitted to the crime right?  Unless Bishop dies before Cary does the thing where he has to admit exactly what happened. But even then they have to convince the other witness to change his testimony. Because after Cary does the admission thing, he is on the record as admitting he did it right?

[alexvillage]

 

Did anybody else think the diner where Alicia and Finn met looked like the diner on E.R.?  I thought Alicia's comment about the diner might have been a throwback to her former show.  Any thoughts?

Yes! I don't remember the ER dinner but for some reason that's what came to my mind when I saw it

 

 

My understanding was the juror wasn't hard of hearing.  The anonymous note claimed the juror was HOH, but the juror stated it's a comprehending issue.  He hears the words, but has difficulty cognitively interpreting them.  I'm not sure what accommodations would have improved the jurors ability to understand.

Auditory Processing Disorder.

The accommodation would be similar to one used for  Deaf/hard of hearing people: CART, which is simultaneous transcription. He would be able to read what is said and it is a reasonable accommodation under ADA

 

I don't think the episode was terrible, except that I really don't care about anything Alicia does anymore. And Lemond needs to be dealt with. I think Kalinda will kill him and disappear forever, hopefully soon

[Kel Varnsen]

Oh one other thing. I still don't understand why Eli is spending so much time on Alicia's campaign. He even said the reason they hired that Johnny guy was because he wouldn't have time to deal with that. Plus I imagine that being the Governor's chief of staff would be a more than full time job, so how the hell does he have the time?

[ethankoo]

On a less funny note, it is VERY, very hard to get out of a plea deal. Someone is going to get into big trouble for whatever grounds are found to get him out, like going to jail bad trouble. Would like to see Castro behind bars, but I think it will be Geneva, which is too bad.

 

This reminds me of an episode of The Practice where the defense proposed a plea because there was a key eyewitness that saw the defendent committing the crime.  The prosecution rejected it at first.  Then the eyewitness died but the prosecution did not inform the defense but instead quickly told the defense that they accept the plea.  When the defense found out about the eyewitness, they tried to over turn the plea.  It was denied because the court said the defendent had the option to go through with the trial but entered a voluntary plea of what he thought was the best deal, even if it wasn't "fair".  So yeah, it's very unlikely for a judge to withdraw a plea and you can't appeal either.

Edited November 26, 2014 by ethankoo

[jjj]

There was just a case in the news this week of a guilty plea being expunged ten years later because GM withheld information about a car defect.

In the la-la law land of teevee, I'd expect Cary's plea to be expunged.

[marceline]

What happened to Taye Diggs?? There has been no explanation for his absence. When did we last see him?

How hard is it to cast an African-American actor in a major role on a network show (other than a Shonda Rhimes show)?

 

 

I'd completely forgotten about his character and I love Taye Diggs.

 

But to be fair, black men on Shonda's shows suffer from unfortunate...issues. Isaiah Washington and Columbus Short both imploded.

[wineaux]

There was just a case in the news this week of a guilty plea being expunged ten years later because GM withheld information about a car defect.

In the la-la law land of teevee, I'd expect Cary's plea to be expunged.

 

Thank you for mentioning this.  My sentiments exactly.  I'm of the belief (while watching TV) that you just can't take anything literally.  Almost everything is done for the sake of drama, comedic effect, etc.  To expect tight, literal meaning will only garner disappointment and a feeling of 'sloppy' or 'lazy' writing (as I've seen some call it on other message boards).  My opinion is that unless it is a biography, autobiography or documentary, suspension of belief (and not taking everything) is required.  I'm just watching it for entertainment anyway.  

 

To respond to queries from previous posts:  I don't think it's all that odd that certain characters haven't been seen in a while.  They are just not a part of the story arc at the moment.  It's obviously Cary's time right now.  All characters can't and shouldn't be in every arc or it may appear too busy.

 

The former Lockhart-Gardner has to have a new name when it comes back, right?  Perhaps the Kings are working on that and new related stories.  Anyway, however unrealistic some parts of the current story arcs seem to be, it's quite entertaining….including bad guy, Lemond Bishop.  

[webruce]

Yes the Geneva Pine story should be a key to having the case booted. Det. Prima telling that Trey Wagner told him that the tape was false should have been a bigger thing here. But the same as Castro dropping out of the race, it kind of made no waves.
But I do think that (Prima's testimony)and maybe Kalinda proving some how that Bishop forced Dante Wallach to lie under oath will get Cary off and maybe put Bishop in jail for witness tampering? Dante might be not long for this world, but better then Cary being offed.

I think the Juror change is just a thing to prolong the case and to show that there were problems.

But to me between the Juror, the Judges push to make it quicker(Neil Diamond concert), Geneva's affair with Det. Prima, His testimony, Dante's, Bishops tampering, Castro's reasons behind it, and all that something should derail the verdict. And I think Kalinda may just record some kind of testimony by Bishop and use it to win, then have to leave the country.

Or it may come down to Peter giving Cary a pardon? Either on his own or with a push from Alicia?


Quote:
Originally Posted by pgocam (View Post)
"I kind of knew she was married. In 5x07, the Jeffrey Grant episode, the judge called Geneva "Mrs. ASA". I thought, ok, that's interesting, at least we know she's married. They wouldn't waste time on such a hurried backstory for a guest character if there wasn't a point to it. So I think the lover detective might come back and the whole case could end up getting reversed somehow."

So Geneva has only been married almost a year? That would look like a congratulations of sorts. But did her and Prima have a thing before that to have it happen so quick

Edited November 27, 2014 by webruce

[thewhiteowl]

Which really makes me wonder how they get Cary out of this. I mean even if Lamont Bishop dies, Cary still admitted to the crime right?  Unless Bishop dies before Cary does the thing where he has to admit exactly what happened. But even then they have to convince the other witness to change his testimony. Because after Cary does the admission thing, he is on the record as admitting he did it right?

 

 I am no lawyer but there are things I believe to be true about our justice system. Once you plead guilty, even if you are innocent and later proven to be so, it is very, very difficult to get that overturned. The judge even allowing the tape to be heard is highly unusual since only Cary was there to verify what was said. Which brings me to, why the hell would the defense even need or want Dante? They should have been better off without him. The tape itself was sketchy because it had moments of static and the Det. CheatswithASA testified that he believed Trey messed with it to implicate Cary.  Wasn't the tape really the only evidence they had against Cary?  That's why I could not understand why they kept saying Cary had a weak case but they said it over and over so it must be true. Well, true in Kingsland which often has little to do with our actual justice system.

[Kel Varnsen]

Yes the Geneva Pine story should be a key to having the case booted. Det. Prima telling that Trey Wagner told him that the tape was false should have been a bigger thing here. But the same as Castro dropping out or race, it kind of made no waves.

But I do think that (Prima's testimony)and maybe Kalinda proving some how that Bishop forced Dante Wallach to lie under oath will get Cary off and maybe put Bishop in jail for witness tampering? Dante might be not long for this world, but better then Cary being offed.

But if Cary changes his plea to guilty (which he did) it is not like he can change it back can he? If he pleads guilty he basically admits that he broke the law. If new evidence comes forward can he just say he was lying when he plead guilty to get a reduced sentence? I am not sure it works that way.

 

Also doesn't pleading guilty when you are not also become an issue when it comes to parole? I am thinking of movies like Shawshank, where to get parole you have to show that you know what you did was wrong and that you are sorry right? If Cary doesn't believe that couldn't he have trouble getting out early?

Edited November 26, 2014 by Kel Varnsen

[jjj]

See above about pleas being vacated.  If there was prosecutorial misconduct that led to the bargaining for a plea, it can be expunged. 

[shapeshifter]

Did anybody else think the diner where Alicia and Finn met looked like the diner on E.R.?  I thought Alicia's comment about the diner might have been a throwback to her former show.  Any thoughts? 

Not an E.R. watcher, but after the candles and the music, I was totally visualizing them sharing a plate of spaghetti a la Lady and the Tramp. Didn't they even have a checkered tablecloth? 

[thewhiteowl]

See above about pleas being vacated.  If there was prosecutorial misconduct that led to the bargaining for a plea, it can be expunged. 

 

 There was misconduct all over the damn place. There usually is in Kingsland and it never makes a bit of difference until it does, for plot purposes.

[jjj]

Exactly, thewhiteowl!  I was just pointing out that even in real life, plea deals can be expunged -- and in the Land of TV, anything goes, so they might just create their own legal precedents!  But in this instance, they are not constrained by the inability to wipe out the plea deal.

[needschocolate]

Well, my knowledge about legal stuff is as bad as I thought it was - everyone is discussing whether a guilty plea can be over-turned or expunged, and I was thinking that the next episode would open with the scene of Cary saying "guilty" then the camera pans back and we see that Cary is in the men's room, alone, looking into a mirror, and he hasn't officially plead guilty. 

[romantic idiot]

Now I want to go watch the episode again to check that - but I won't because it was just too depressing. And rage inducing. I'm pissed. 

 

The other thing that really bothers me is that the only reason Cary is in this whole mess is because they took Bishop as a client. You know, if you get involve with drug dealers, this is what you get. But if I remember correctly, Cary didn't want to take Bishop as a client, no? I thought it was Alicia who insisted and the partners voted on it. So, if this is correct, then it's Alicia's fault Cary is in this mess. Someone, please help me remind me if I'm correct or not.

 

 

...but this is what happens when you lust over a known drug kingpin's money and look the other way when it comes to how he got all that money. Diane and Will were the worst when it came to taking on the worst clients with the deepest pockets. I only wish they were paying the price instead of Cary..

 

I see these sentiments, but to me, the people most to blame are: Trey, Castro, Finn & Geneva, Bishop and Cary. And then the rest. Trey was the one who framed Cary. Castro, Finn & Geneva were trying to use it to get Bishop of the streets, Bishop is saving himself and Cary is the dunderhead joking around with drug dealers. Why the hell was he joking around with drug dealers? Why the hell would he talk even hypotheticals with them, when in TV land for sure, and in real life, a lot of hypotheticals are dressed up real situations. Stupid. If Cary hadn't given Trey the opportunity by being stupid, he wouldn't be in this mess. 

 

Was he trying to build a rapport with this clients? I'm reminded of the old episodes where Alicia used to be the 'client handler' and Cary was apparently very bad at it. But they addressed that already by showing Cary to be good with Chumhum. Gah. 

 

And it's not a coincidence that they had the Alicia note thing in the same episode. Both situations were parallelling really - with Alicia and Cary's 'jokes' being taken out of context and blown out of proportion in today's PC days. It's simultaneously and indictment of them for being that stupid, and for the PC culture we live in where optics are so important. Maybe the Kings came across an old copy of 'The Outsider' before beginning to write this season. Or this episode. Or, come to think of it, this show. 

Edited November 27, 2014 by romantic idiot

[SomeTameGazelle]

The thing that got me about Alicia's "joke" was that after the first explanation, Alicia never used the fact that the letter was never supposed to be delivered to the teacher to defend herself. Grace knew that and didn't present it to the gym teacher. I have no idea why she presented it to the civics teacher (as opposed to describing it as a hypothetical situation) other than to drive the plot, but there was clearly no intent for the gym teacher to get it.

 

I was of course also hoping that Prady and Alicia could resolve their differences by him clarifying that if he had been given the full context he would of course never have prosecuted Alicia's joke, and she could publicly denounce the smear against him (and preferably pointing out that even if he is/were gay it should hardly be smear-worthy unless he is running on a homophobia platform). The fact that she didn't offer any quid pro quo when she asked for his clarification really annoyed me. Alicia and Prady playing fair with each other wouldn't come close to being the most unrealistic thing we have ever seen on The Good Wife, so I'd like to see it.

[possibilities]

my law education at the fine school of Television has shown me that lawyers have a limited number of peremptory challenge that they can use to reject a juror without needing to give any reason. If the prosecution or defense knew of this condition they could have rejected him and another juror would have been selected in his place, this juror might have been more receptive to either side of the trial than the juror rejected.

I think the prosecution had already used up all their peremptory challenges. They had wanted to exclude this juror (presumably because he was pro-defense), but were prevented from doing so because they had no grounds and had already used up their free-passes in this regard. At least... I think that's what happened. But like you say, it's moot if Cary takes a plea. Though he might not have done so if he thought he had a juror on his side. I think losing "his juror" was what broke his confidence and started them on the "we are definitely going to lose" spiral.

[romantic idiot]

Plus that's what made him put the added pressure on Kalinda and why she in turn went to Bishop  to get Dante. 

[Sandman]

I'm not sure it mattered that the gym teacher was never supposed to get the note; as I understood it, once the civics teacher became aware of it, the school's protocol required her to inform the principal. The school certainly behaved as if the potential effect of the note was more important than the intention behind it. Once the school decided to treat it as a real threat, the fact that it was never delivered to the supposed "target" became immaterial. I also think that Alicia was trying to avoid emphasizing that the gym teacher wasn't ever supposed to know about it (that is, underlining the idiocy of Grace's behaviour) in order to spare Grace's feelings.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Sandman

[Florinaldo]

Could the writers use the affair between the assistant district attorney and the detective as a cause for a mistrial? He was a crucial prosecution witness and the defense could argue collusion.

 

I do not know if that would stick in real-life courts, but on this show the judicial system works in decidedly wonky ways.

 

If Cary were to be sentenced and then pardoned, it would be very difficult to believe that such a move by the governor could be done discreetly. Unless he has access to some super-secret confidential pardon process with no requirement for official publication.

[jjj]

No, I can't imagine that a pardon will be the solution.  Some quirk in the prosecution will be outed. 

[photo fox]

Peter refused to even cosign a second mortgage to help Cary, when he was still proclaiming his innocence. There's no chance Peter will do something so public as pardon a now-admitted (in the court's eyes) drug "dealer".

[Klapaucius]

And there's another problem: with pardon Cary wouldn't be able to practice anyway.

[Dowel Jones]

In the issue of disbarment, I looked it up, albeit only in Wikipedia, and the information there is that disbarment may be (but not usually) limited only to the state or jurisdiction in which the attorney practices.  For instance, former Pres. Bill Clinton was disbarred from the Supreme Court in 2001, but presumably not from every state court.  The article adds that there is no nationwide standard on permanent disbarment, and attornies can apply to be reinstated after a period of time depending on the state.  It all depends, in the end, on the ratings and whether the producers want a cliffhanger (/snark).

[WearyTraveler]

But are there any states where you can practice law if you're a convicted felon? 

[jjj]

I see the next new episode is January 4.  Hope they resolve Cary's issue quickly, if they do not plan to ship him off to prison, which I still highly doubt. 

[2deadcows]

Well, my knowledge about legal stuff is as bad as I thought it was - everyone is discussing whether a guilty plea can be over-turned or expunged, and I was thinking that the next episode would open with the scene of Cary saying "guilty" then the camera pans back and we see that Cary is in the men's room, alone, looking into a mirror, and he hasn't officially plead guilty.

 

Heh.  My thought was that the next episode would open with Cary saying "I would like to plead guilty your honor, ........but can't because I am innocent of the charges."  So a totally groan-worthy and Saved by the Bell resolution to avoid accepting the plea and the negative consequences therein. :)  

 

I'm in agreement with others about the relationship between Geneva and the detective somehow being discovered and used to allege  misconduct by both Geneva and the detective.  I don't think Geneva actually did anything wrong - aside from having an affair and then, on top of that, being stupid enough to having that affair with the key/lead detective on her case - but I do think the perception will be that she used the influence borne of that relationship to persuade the detective to taint facts/evidence to advance her case.  

 

Also, I don't think Geneva's affair, on its face, has anything to do with propping Alicia's morals or ethics. Just like the other cheaters highlighted on the show (including Alicia), Geneva's just another person who apparently can't keep it in her pants.  Aside from its potential to be used as a weapon to free Cary, no one will care.  That same issue of perception may be used against Alicia and Finn.  First with the picture of him leaving her apartment, and now the potential for some pictures/video to come out of the diner experience.  It can be made to look like she slept with Finn to secure his support of her candidacy while he was still with the State Attorney's office and further cast shade on her relationship with Peter and her willingness to lie about her living situation.  Just like that fake commercial about Prady being in the closet, you could easily have something like that aimed at Alicia's -- if 'Saint Alicia' is willing to go to such lengths in her personal life, how can she be trusted to run the SA's office?

Edited December 4, 2014 by 2deadcows

[oceanblue]

I almost believed that Alicia's funny note was a goof of Cary's ridiculous funny advice, but then realized they were written by the same not so funny writers.

 

I thought it was clear that Kalinda asked Dylan if he was home during the time that the bad guys were coming out of the Bishop house.  That was why she could threaten him with child services.  But why wouldn't she go to child services if he screwed her by getting Dante to lie?  

[Tetraneutron]

Because Bishop will kill her and everyone he cares about. The show has been consistent in the idea that Bishop will cross anyone who gets in the way of him raising Dylan. He even killed Dylan's mother because she was fighting for sole custody. The only value Dylan has to Kalinda is if she can use him to manipulate Bishop in some way. Besides, why would the state's attorney's office take Dylan on Kalinda's say-so? They hate her and they have a personal vendetta against her law firm. Plus we've seen how utterly incompetent they are when prosecuting anything involving Bishop.

 

The one thing I don't get (they've probably explained it) is, if they have enough to get Cary for colluding with Bishop, why don't they have enough to get Bishop? Wouldn't that be a much better get for them? Instead of screwing around with some underling, get the actual guy. The guy they've been going after the whole show. Putting him in jail for a long time might be enough to make Castro SA against two celebrities.

 

I'm still not sure why Bishop is putting the screws to Cary. The more everyone pushes, the more likely it is that Cary decides he's going to turn on Bishop in return for a lighter sentence. He genuinely seems to have no interest in being a kept man in Barcelona (and I don't blame him. Being under Bishop's thumb for the rest of your life is way, way, scarier than jail).

[WearyTraveler]

The one thing I don't get (they've probably explained it) is, if they have enough to get Cary for colluding with Bishop, why don't they have enough to get Bishop? Wouldn't that be a much better get for them? Instead of screwing around with some underling, get the actual guy. The guy they've been going after the whole show. Putting him in jail for a long time might be enough to make Castro SA against two celebrities.

 

They have BIshop's underlings on tape discussing how to hypothetically commit a crime, but not Bishop himself. Any decent attorney would argue that just because Bishop knows these guys, it doesn't mean he was involved in whatever "business" they were discussing with Cary.  And Bishop can afford much more than a decent attorney.

 

What I don't get is how the undercover cop never got anything juicy on Bishop himself, seeing as he was so deep into the organization that he was hanging out with Bishop's guys, discussing hypothetical heroine shipment with Bishop's lawyer in Bishop's house.  That couldn't have been the only time the undercover cop recorded something, but none of his other recordings have been discussed at all.

[oceanblue]

Because Bishop will kill her and everyone he cares about. The show has been consistent in the idea that Bishop will cross anyone who gets in the way of him raising Dylan. He even killed Dylan's mother because she was fighting for sole custody. The only value Dylan has to Kalinda is if she can use him to manipulate Bishop in some way. Besides, why would the state's attorney's office take Dylan on Kalinda's say-so? They hate her and they have a personal vendetta against her law firm. Plus we've seen how utterly incompetent they are when prosecuting anything involving Bishop.

 

 

Yes, but Kalinda threatened him with CPS in this episode and he didn't kill her - he technically did what she asked, with a twist to make it hurtful v. helpful.  The SA office would not get involved with Dylan.  Kalinda threatened to call CPS.  She has time-stamped pictures of criminals leaving the Bishop home during a time when Dylan was home (and his father said he wasn't home so Dylan was with the criminals without a parent present).  If Kalinda called it in, CPS is obligated to investigate. Since it's true, they could prove it.  Bishop's custody would be at risk.

[romantic idiot]

They have BIshop's underlings on tape discussing how to hypothetically commit a crime, but not Bishop himself. Any decent attorney would argue that just because Bishop knows these guys, it doesn't mean he was involved in whatever "business" they were discussing with Cary.  And Bishop can afford much more than a decent attorney.

 

What I don't get is how the undercover cop never got anything juicy on Bishop himself, seeing as he was so deep into the organization that he was hanging out with Bishop's guys, discussing hypothetical heroine shipment with Bishop's lawyer in Bishop's house.  That couldn't have been the only time the undercover cop recorded something, but none of his other recordings have been discussed at all.

 

They tried to explain this. He wasn't a cop, just a confidential informant. And he didn't give them Bishop because he was 'too scared'. Not too scared to wear a wire in the first place, mind you. 

[Kromm]

When will this ENDLESS story be over?

Oh, you don't know WHICH story I'm talking about? Yeah, that's par for the course. BOTH main plot arcs seem so damn endless.

At the very least we've got the countdown clock on Kalinda's life ticking now. If the episode made ANYTHING clear, that's it. Oh, will Cary go to jail? It's kind of a "who cares" situation, because the show will contrive some bullshit to get him back practicing law if they need to (and won't if they plan to have him leave the show at the end of the season anyway and have just been keeping quiet about that).

As for Alicia winning the stupid election. Good lord it's unbelievable that she could. Then again this show has a former convict and serial cheater becoming Governor.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Kromm

[Janimo]

Kromm, I agree with every word you wrote above. I've been dvr'ing TGW this season. I've gotten to the point that I just don't care anymore.....I'm only watching to see what they do with Kalinda 'cause in spite of how they've basically dropped her character like a hot potato (anyone remember the f**kup storyline of hubby Nick-UGH!!), I still adore Archie Panjabi, and hope her tv pilot is a big hit...

I've also grown to appreciate MC as Cary, and kinda hope he gets to leave this season as well, for whatever reason....

Most of the actors on this show deserve so much better than the crap they've been given the last few seasons, (I'm not including  JM)....I wouldn't mind if they canceled the show at the end of this season. That's just my two cents.

 

[Ohmo]

It's interesting to me how disability was used (and not used) in this episode.  I have a disability (physical, not cognitive), I've taught school, and I work in educational publishing.  All of those things impacted how I came away from this episode.

 

Grace's entire storyline would have been much more plausible if Grace had had some sort of developmental delay.  Satire is a critical-thinking concept.  Students do start learning about it in middle-school/high school.  I didn't teach students with special needs, but most teachers have interactions with students who have special needs due to inclusion.  It is entirely plausible to me that if Grace had a developmental disability where she didn't fully understand the idea of context that she would have brought the note to her teacher.  Alicia specifically said that she wrote the note to make Grace laugh.  I could see Grace having a disability where she doesn't understand how contexts are different.  In that case, her thought process would likely be something along the lines of. "Mom wrote this note to make me laugh.  It will make my Civics teacher laugh too.  I'll bring it to school to show it to her."  Therefore, all of the writing about jokes would have made far more sense.  Everyone would have been discussing context. 

 

I have long thought that a line should be written where we find out that Grace has some sort of developmental/cognitive disability.  Otherwise her actions don't make sense to me here.  I just don't buy that a high-school aged student from a prominent political family would knowingly take a note to school that could be perceived as a threat AND potentially damage her mother's current political campaign.  Grace has experienced campaigns before.  They aren't a new concept to her.

 

On to the juror: I can believe that he was dismissed, and I don't believe that ADA would offer him protection.  Someone else said it upthread.  "Reasonable accommodation" is the key.  A person still has to be capable of doing the task once the accommodation has been made.  When I was in the classroom, the chalkboard was lowered so I could reach it to write on it.  I still had to demonstrate that I was capable of teaching the class.  Someone else mentioned an interpreter upthread.  That would only be an accommodation for how the information was conveyed, not how the juror understood the imformation.  As a third person said, that's processing.  Even if the juror were seated in the front row with an interpreter, that wouldn't guarantee that he was capable of understanding and processing the information well enough to perform the task of making a decision.  That's what the judge was trying to determine in chambers. 

 

ADA also doesn't protect a person with a disability from everything.  It mostly applies to work environments.  Things like lodging and living arrangements aren't covered.  Leasing companies aren't required to rent to a person with a disability if the company can show that the necessary accommodations will cause an undue financial burden.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Ohmo

[Broderbits]

There's also the fact that the juror failed to disclose his disability before things got underway. The lawyers had no opportunity to question him about it during voir dire, the court had no opportunity to make a reasonable accommodation. 

[millennium]

I can't get past the dichotomy between the uber-serious plotline of Cary's life being in jeopardy and Alicia's half-hearted dabbling in politics.   Even Alicia doesn't take her campaign very seriously, why should we?   But that leads me to ask, if she doesn't care so much about the campaign, why is she calmly tending to bullshit political matters and intimate pancake dinners with that milquetoast Finn while her best friend and partner is being thrown to the wolves?   She should have dropped everything, including the campaign, to help/support Cary and protect the future of her firm.  Not liking this Alicia.

 

I hate the election storyline.  Hate Eli Gold.  Hate Johnny Elfman and the rest of the campaign crew.