Chicago Justice - General Discussion

[Waterston Fan]

The warning they gave, I don't understand why they needed it. 

I liked the episode but seemed like it was more about the death of Marcus than the cop. I didn't like Jonesy either, he's so dumb. I want to know why he was lying about collecting evidence and at first I thought maybe he killed Cody. 

[Xeliou66]

1 hour ago, Tetraneutron said:

What episode are you thinking of? When Stone was talking to the judge about how double jeopardy doesn't apply if the defendant was never actually in jeopardy the first time, I thought of the season 6 episode where McCoy gave basically the exact same speech. 

Honestly, this is "Law & Order". You know what you're getting. Dick Wolf shows are absolutely never about the real way public services are run. Nagel and Dawson are investigators because this is Trial by Jury: Chicago. Would the show be better if Dawson and Nagel played cops? No. On the original series, the cop half was always going through the motions. Find body, Lennie quip, red herring one, red herring two, arrest the guy. Making Dawson and Nagel investigators allows the show to focus on the actually interesting legal stuff. It allows them to take a side in the ethical debate of the week. It just makes more sense. 

Best episode so far, I think. The writers are better when they don't have to bring serious social issues into it and can just do a straight murder. Trying to make the butcher Stone's Lex Lutor nemesis was kind of funny, the way they had Stone growling his name when he was first introduced. And we all saw it was a blackmail scheme from miles away. Still good. Weird speechifying about governmemt regulations. Like, even the most hardcore libertraian doesn't think that justifies murder or insurance fraud. And we learned something about a character besides Stone. Valdez is a vegetarian. Still can't act, to the point it's actually distracting. 

You aren't making sense. First you say "this is Law and Order", then you say "this is Trial By Jury : Chicago". Well make up your mind, you remind me of the writers, you're not sure which it is and it results in a bizarre mashup of both. And the original L&O was a pretty accurate representation of the way the system works, this isn't. And having the SA investigators take over from the start doesn't allow more legal stuff, it just makes it strange. It doesn't make sense, and frankly your post doesn't either. 

I did like the scene with Valdez and Dawson about the hot dog where it's revealed Valdez is a vegetarian, it was a nice way of giving more information about a character without beating us over the head with it. That being said, Valdez is a wooden pretty face

[Tetraneutron]

2 hours ago, Sandman said:

Valdez's "Do you know how many carcinogens are in a hotdog?" and Antonio's response of "Too late now." is the most I've ever liked Antonio. It was a nice little relationship-building scene.

I have to add that Jonesy the Small Town Cop was the least I've ever liked this show, and maybe any of the Chicago quartet: Jonesy the Incompetent Small Timer was a truly ridiculous character, and the cheapest available means of making Stone look brilliant, with almost being able to save the nincompoop's testimony.

Hey, people not from New York (now Chicago) being inbred hicks is an L&O tradition. Next you're going to say that people should stop their daily routine when they're being interviewed by the police, or that the SA shouldn't have so many lifelong friends who have inside knowledge of the case of the week. 

[MakeMeLaugh]

I don't know why Dawson was involved in the first case as a regular cop, as shown by his testimony at trial, and now he's involved in this case doing the exact same thing as a SA investigator. This is one of the things that really bugs me about this show--I can see if there was some specialized investigating that needed to be done (and then they would probably be "special investigators" with areas of expertise far removed from homicide investigation, like forensic accounting, etc.). But I am going to move past that, really I am. Soon, any day now. Mr. MML thinks he is part of all the Chicagos and that the characters are his friends in real life, so I am stuck watching them.   

I wish Show would let Law and Order go and really make this Chicago Justice (or really Cook County Justice, I guess). It looks like we are only ever going to see homicide cases. Bleah. Chicago has a rich history of criminal activity and homicide is just the tip of the iceberg here! It's not NYC light.

I was so disappointed that Mrs. Marcus wasn't having an affair with Pig Farmer and masterminded the original fatal fire simply to get rid of her husband--I cannot believe the defense lawyer didn't put her feet to the fire when she testified that she and Marcus were fighting and having marital problems and he went to sleep in the pig barn and that her son blamed her for Marcus's death. Then she could have moved on to the dead cop. I also didn't think the bruising on the body was indefensible and don't know why Pig Farmer took a plea. But mostly I can't believe the small town cop didn't turn out to be smarter than anyone realized and was also involved, perhaps being paid off a la Voight in the early PD episodes for certain favors for the Pig Man, as he was so insistent that the cop's death was a suicide when so obviously it was not. Not to mention what a stupid way to kill someone--surely there would be an easier more believable way to do it. Like just whack him and drop him off in one of the enormous forest preserves near Lemont, like we do in real life.

Valdez can leave any time now. Her character has such little weight that the show loses its bearings imo whenever she is in a scene. Like someone let a tween sit at the big table in court, or something.

Edited March 28, 2017 by MakeMeLaugh

[Sandman]

4 hours ago, Tetraneutron said:

Hey, people not from New York (now Chicago) being inbred hicks is an L&O tradition. Next you're going to say that people should stop their daily routine when they're being interviewed by the police, or that the SA shouldn't have so many lifelong friends who have inside knowledge of the case of the week. 

Ha! Sorry, I'd forgotten about the time-honoured L&O Big Apple chauvinism.

[WendyCR72]

Let's face it, this is really less a Chicago franchise show except for the name and more Dick Wolf's backdoor way of having some form of Law & Order back on the air!

So all of the old L&O tropes and style and whatnot, are what I expect for this show. Let's face it: All 3 of the successful L&O shows (I mention successful as there were a couple that did fail!) do a nice cha-ching for Dick Wolf in syndication. So why not cleverly do a pseudo-revival?

Which does remind me, two of the other Chicago shows (Fire and PD) are now in their 5th and 4th seasons, respectively, yet - unless I missed it, which is possible - there has been not a peep about syndication for them. Which is rather odd, especially since they are Dick Wolf properties. So, maybe this is one of the Chicago offshoots that Wolf hopes to have actually copy his successful other franchise, using the L&O formula of dollar-sign success!

[colorfulcoils]

Things I don't like about this show -

1. Stone is so uptight. He needs to loosen up.

2. Is EVERY case about murder?

3. Do the cast ever talk about their personal lives / do we ever get in their personal lives? For instance, in Chicago Fire, that certainly happened with the recurring storyline with Chili.

4. What is up with Stone completely disobeying Jefferies orders an episode or two ago with using the military video tape but doing a 180 and time after time saying he wants to "create a story" in this episode?

5. Sometimes the episodes really feel contrived, like you know exactly when the murder will happen (for instance when the judge got murdered, you knew when Valdez was walking to her car and nothing relevant was happening for a couple of seconds you knew something would happen)

6. Will Stone ever lose a case (that is televised)?

That's all I have for now but I'm sure I'll come up with more later.

Edited March 28, 2017 by colorfulcoils

[Waterston Fan]

I don't know if it's because it's a mid season show or what but I hope if it gets renewed it gets better. 

I do want to see Stone lose a case for sure but it seems like they should just have him and Dawson do the investigating. 

Personal lives, yeah, I'd like to hear more of that for sure. 

I do like Philip Winchester. (I had to look up his name to make sure I got it right. I had Peter instead at first. lol)

[Xeliou66]

I hope Stone loses at some point as well. One of the things about the L&O franchise is that justice didn't always prevail, just Iike real life. However this is some weird mashup of the L&O and Chicago shows and something about the writing overall just feels off. 

I like how we don't get much personal stuff, it's all about the case, I just wish they would adjust some writing kinks that are off.

[WendyCR72]

The lack of personal stuff definitely harkens back to the original Law & Order. If my theory above holds any truth, it makes sense here. Although, in that franchise, the spinoffs did get personal. And in the Chicago franchise, Fire and PD also dive into personal stuff, as does Med. Maybe this is meant to stand out there as the original L&O did, in that the case is the focus. Time will tell.

[Sandman]

I do think the lack of personal stuff was one of the hallmarks of Original Recipe L&O. I think of it as a Dick Wolf trademark, in some ways -- but then I never watched the spinoffs as consistently. I continue to be surprised, actually, by the degree to which personal angst among the fire crews, police officers and doctors on the Chicago trilogy drives story. I keep thinking Adam Schiff would be rolling his eyes.

[Sandman]

On 2017-03-18 at 8:44 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

Not only did the SA investigators not catch it but Voight and his elite intelligence team had no idea that the victim was a terrorist ...

It was so out of left field that I wondered if it was actually a red herring. I'm not entirely convinced even now that (a) the victim was as far down the road to radicalization as was implied or (b) that the killer was a "hero" for doing what he did. (And I don't think I can be convinced of the latter.)

[Sandman]

On 2017-03-20 at 1:07 PM, Tetraneutron said:

My theory is boomers really don't want to confront the realities of aging. 

Well, there's certainly a plethora of evidence to support such a theory.

I just can't buy Carl Weathers as an attorney. Something's not fitting for me. He's more convincing at the political aspects of Jeffries' job, somehow.

[MakeMeLaugh]

Yes, and  to me this lack of personal involvement makes Justice a misfit in the Chicago show universe. In the L&Os, excepting SVU which I never could get into (okay, I hated), the personal stuff was through the workplace perspective--e.g., we "saw" Ray's wife's MS progression only as Ray's coworkers did, from a distance. McCoy's randy history was exposed with the tiniest crumbs for the most part--I think his Claire romance wasn't even picked up on by most viewers until that episode about his former assistant throwing out evidence as a romantic favor to him. In the Chicago universe we would have occasionally seen them physically all over each other. 

Although personally I much prefer the L&O approach, it makes no sense that Justice follows that approach in that it's in the Chicago universe--Dick Wolf should have just brought back L&O, in NYC, which was awesome and very city-dependent. 

Totally off topic, I always thought NBC killed Dick Wolf with the Jay Leno in primetime move in fall of 2009. All the 9:00 pm Central/10:00 Eastern time slots went to Leno, and all the serious shows that used to have those slots got moved to early slots--L&O was moved 7 eastern time, Friday nights. Family time, sure, why not. Even though Leno prime time was cancelled in January 2010, the damage was done and L&O was cancelled that May. 

[paigow]

10 hours ago, MakeMeLaugh said:

Yes, and  to me this lack of personal involvement makes Justice a misfit in the Chicago show universe. In the L&Os, excepting SVU which I never could get into (okay, I hated), the personal stuff was through the workplace perspective...

Briscoe & Green eventually bonded over their respective gambling problems after hating each other on sight.... Stone & Antonio should get along better from now on...

[paigow]

Was the terrorist theory discredited at trial?... Victim did not own / rent a vehicle to transport fertilizer, no fertilizer found in apartment and no record of him ever renting a storage unit.

[Tetraneutron]

22 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

The lack of personal stuff definitely harkens back to the original Law & Order. If my theory above holds any truth, it makes sense here. Although, in that franchise, the spinoffs did get personal. And in the Chicago franchise, Fire and PD also dive into personal stuff, as does Med. Maybe this is meant to stand out there as the original L&O did, in that the case is the focus. Time will tell.

People say that, but if you watch the early (good) episodes, they actually go into detail about the characters' personal lives. They didn't show them with their families, or waste time with personal life plots, but the characters were written deeply enough that they were developed and had personal lives. Greevey was on for one season and we learned he's a religious Catholic Mets fan from Hell's Kitchen who doesn't trust doctors and has a good marriage and three kids. Compare that to Branch, who was on for 5 seasons, and we learn that he's from Georgia and has grandkids and I think that's literally it. Or Green, was on for 8 seasons and we don't learn much about him (not counting the gambling stuff in his last episode). Same with Serena (3.5 seasons). Except for that little surprise in her final episode, what did we ever learn about her life?

Right now, except for Stone, the characters are so generic I have to wikipedia everyone's name when I post here. I'm informed blonde investigator is named Laura Nagel but I don't think we've seen that on the show.

[Xeliou66]

Um, we learned about the same about all L&O characters, early and later :

Green, we learned about his gambling from his first episode, we learned that his family traveled a lot because of his dad's job as an oil engineer and later we learned that his dad had Alzheimer's, and we learned he worked on a narcotics division before becoming a homicide detective. We never knew much about Serena, but what did we know about Paul Robinette? That he came from a rough neighborhood and a poor family and worked his way up through law school and that is about it. We knew about the same amount of information about Arthur Branch as we did Adam Schiff. So your comment is inaccurate. 

And to the poster who said Briscoe and Green hated each other from the start, well that is blatantly false. They worked together fine from their first episode together, they had a spat in one episode early when a suspect confessed to Briscoe but Green doubted Briscoe's story, but they never hated each other. 

[Elliebab]

Well justice isn't a soap opera. Justice isn't about characters whining about their lives, having incestous sex with one another, or having that one heartthrob. what's with the hate Antonio is getting huh? This guy has helped on many cases, has saved countless people, has been loyal to Voight. 

[Raja]

1 hour ago, Elliebab said:

Well justice isn't a soap opera. Justice isn't about characters whining about their lives, having incestous sex with one another, or having that one heartthrob. what's with the hate Antonio is getting huh? This guy has helped on many cases, has saved countless people, has been loyal to Voight. 

Justice does not prevail while Voight remains free. Being loyal to him is a detriment to a law and order type show 

[Elliebab]

3 hours ago, Raja said:

Justice does not prevail while Voight remains free. Being loyal to him is a detriment to a law and order type show 

So why doesn't Erin Lindsay get the same hate? she has worked with the guy just as much as Antonio did.

[Xeliou66]

Well, Lindsay isn't on Chicago Justice, so I'm not sure what she has to do with this conversation. But I agree that Voight is a detriment to an L&O type show, he's a dirty cop and not a good guy, and having an L&O type show in the same universe as a show lead by Voight is very hard to do and it's showing. It's so unrealistic that Voight would not only be allowed back but be given command of a squad after being LOCKED UP for a while. In real life, he would be fired, forced to resign or at the very least chained to a desk for the rest of his career, not given his own squad and free reign to torture. That would be a PR disaster and the department would have a ton of lawsuits and wouldn't be trusted. 

 But I don't see much Antonio hate here at all, the character the gets bashed here is Valdez, and understandably so, I haven't seen Antonio bashing. 

[KDB]

On the topic of Voight, according to Wikipedia, he was undercover as a dirty cop as revealed in early episodes of Chicago Fire. (I wasn't watching CF then, so I am relying on Wikipedia.) I think there is some intentional ambiguity about Voight's character as portrayed on Chicago PD. 

[WendyCR72]

Okay, everyone. Time to calm down and move on. Some characters are loved and some are hated, and some are there. Accept everyone has a preference and keep the debating to the episode at hand.

[Xeliou66]

6 hours ago, KDB said:

On the topic of Voight, according to Wikipedia, he was undercover as a dirty cop as revealed in early episodes of Chicago Fire. (I wasn't watching CF then, so I am relying on Wikipedia.) I think there is some intentional ambiguity about Voight's character as portrayed on Chicago PD. 

Yeah I have never been a CF regular watcher and so I don't know the whole story about Voight early on, but I do know he basically put out a hit on a fireman to cover up his son's DUI and I don't think that was undercover, and he was arrested for it and locked up for a while. And while they changed him a little I think to make him more sympathetic, he's still been shown to break the law when it suits him. The point being, a cop who was arrested for putting a hit out on a fireman would never be given his own squad and free reign to break the rules, which takes away from the realism that an L&O type show should have. Not directly relevant to this episode but that's where the conversation went.

[Raja]

On 3/27/2017 at 4:57 PM, MakeMeLaugh said:

 

Valdez can leave any time now. Her character has such little weight that the show loses its bearings imo whenever she is in a scene. Like someone let a tween sit at the big table in court, or something.

With this hybrid Law And Order classic with some L&O Trial by Jury elements format Valdez really isn't needed as young Stone is doing the jobs of the detective squad Lieutenant and the arraignment through the initial secondary investigation that came after the twist that  junior ADA's from Law & Order did. And she is doing nothing that the rotating door of juniors did to either push or hold back Jack McCoy, whichever  the traits of the specific junior and the plot required.

[Tetraneutron]

On 28/03/2017 at 10:07 AM, Sandman said:

It was so out of left field that I wondered if it was actually a red herring. I'm not entirely convinced even now that (a) the victim was as far down the road to radicalization as was implied or (b) that the killer was a "hero" for doing what he did. (And I don't think I can be convinced of the latter.)

That was the point. The victim WASN'T radicalized. At all. He was a typical Western guy. The killer lied about everything (the watching radical videos, buying fertilizer, etc) in order to mount a justification defense for killing him. The real reason he killed him was jealousy over the victim's better academic achievements. Not that I blame you for not getting it, because WOW was this episode poorly written. 

[Sandman]

Oh, I got that the real reason was academic jealousy, but I thought there was some evidence (other than the killer's testimony) that suggested that the victim had radicalized to some degree. But, yeah -- mostly it was a muddle. Or maybe I lost track of what was supported and what was discredited at trial.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Sandman

[paigow]

10 hours ago, Raja said:

And she is doing nothing that the rotating door of juniors did to either push or hold back Jack McCoy, whichever  the traits of the specific junior and the plot required.

Waiting for the writers to show if Stone Jr picked up any bad HR habits from Uncle Jack....then the revolving door of smoking hot assistants will be unleashed.

[Sandman]

On 2017-03-28 at 11:49 PM, Tetraneutron said:

People say that, but if you watch the early (good) episodes, they actually go into detail about the characters' personal lives.

The idea isn't that the characters didn't have personal lives, or back stories. They did, and their backgrounds were fully imagined, and (mostly) consistently treated. But those personal weren't the focus of the plot, and they weren't -- again, for the most part -- handled in a way that maximized emotional impact. We felt we knew the characters, that they were real people, with lives outside the office, but their outside-the-office lives happened offscreen.

[Gigglepuff]

I think that this show has a lot of potential. It isn't perfect, but I can see the glimmer of what could become a very good show. I think it needs some time to work out the kinks. It's still very early and from my experience, shows often need a full season, or even more to really get rolling. 

Does anyone know what it means in terms of ratings for this Chicago Justice to be on Sundays? Are Sundays a tougher night for ratings compared to a Wed. or Thursday night? The ratings so far seem low, yet it seems to be leading on Sunday nights in its time slot. I'm just wondering if ratings would improve if it aired on another night. 

[paigow]

When Game Of Thrones comes back, the ratings will dip...

[Ailianna]

When Game of Thrones comes back, this will be on summer hiatus.

[Waterston Fan]

I'm not sure how the ratings are now but they need to move it from Sunday's if it gets renewed because the ratings will dip in some places. 

[Tetraneutron]

1 hour ago, Waterston Fan said:

I'm not sure how the ratings are now but they need to move it from Sunday's if it gets renewed because the ratings will dip in some places. 

They already left it to start three quarters into the season, after sweeps, and they're burning off two episodes a week. Somehow I don't think they have high hopes for this one. 

[sockii]

Interesting to me how SVU just had a (horrible) episode recently on whether rapists are genetically "born this way", and now we had CJ tackling something similar—only for murderers. Overall I thought this was a decent, tense episode with some good twists and turns... But then I audibly groaned and almost turned it off when the killer turned out to be "tragically" infertile and out to steal a baby. Ugh!!! Sorry but that is such a hated cliche and stereotype for me, I really wish they hadn't gone down that route. Just once, can't we get an infertile woman on tv who comes to term with it and is okay, instead of trying to perform home c-sections?

[Raja]

Young Stone picked up calling  the witness the sarcastic "sir" from daddy 

[Xeliou66]

Yeah I noticed the "sir" delivered with contempt from Peter Stone just like his dad did on L&O, I wonder if that was intentional. 

Interesting episode overall, not great but not bad either.

Back to back cases where a criminal from Stone's past comes back, that was weak writing.The episodes would've been better separated out a few weeks. 

I didn't like the stereotypical woman who couldn't have a baby become a fruitcake because she couldn't have a kid, that was extremely cliched. 

I did like that we got more courtroom scenes in this episode, I had complained previously about the courtroom stuff starting too late but tonight it started at the halfway point. 

I liked the ending twist of the plea bargain being invalidated because he supposedly didn't tell the truth about murdering the one victim, good legal trick. 

One thing that I would've liked to see was a follow up scene with psych expert guy from Med, we saw him interview the killer but we never got a follow up scene where he gave his take on her to the prosecutors, which was odd I thought, I would've liked to have known what his opinion was about her mental state, we always got follow up scenes on the original L&O when Skoda or Olivet examined someone. I thought that was weird writing, one of those writing kinks that seems to plague every episode at a couple of points. 

They have totally given up realism regarding the SA investigators, and that is hurting the show. Dick Wolf seem to have started throwing realism out the window with his Chicago shows. They would not be investigating cases from the start, it's totally absurd. They should've either made them homicide detectives or start with them investigating when there is already an arrest. 

Valdez was hardly in this one, which I didn't mind at all, but I don't give a fuck about Nagel's soap opera custody battle storyline, keep the personal stuff to a minimum.

Once again a total waste of Mark Jefferies who appeared in like 2 scenes, he seems like an interesting character but they are giving him squat. 

What was with the viewer discretion advised disclaimer 2 weeks in a row? This is a show about violent crimes, of course it's mature, no need for the disclaimer, although that dead baby was a horrifying sight. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Xeliou66

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Monica Barbaro discusses Chicago Justice on Build:

[Gigglepuff]

I liked this one overall. I too could have done without the stereotyped cliche of the infertile woman ripping a fetus out of a mother's womb though. Aside from that I thought the episode was good. I liked the way they handled the genes issue and thought it was done so much better than the recent SVU episode.

I loved Stone's response when the suspect's father suggested that he became a lawyer because his father was one, "I made that choice." Stone cornering and shutting down the killer/father there was really good. And boy, Stone can give a good stare down. He has one intense glare!

I like having the input from the M.E. and from the shrink, and I agree with Xeliou66. They should have brought Dr. Charles back to give some testimony. I'm not a huge follower of the other Chicago shows, but I do think it's a nice touch to have the cast of the other shows appear from time to time as long as they don't overdo it.

I really, really like Nagel, so I hope they don't go giving her character needless angst. It's fine that she has some personal struggles of course, but I'm really hoping she handles this custody issue with maturity and we don't see her spiraling downhill. Please show! Pretty please, don't ruin a potentially great character with something stupid. Also, show, more Mark Jeffries! 

[paigow]

If a victim is murdered in Illinois, then dumped in Indiana, does Indiana have jurisdiction to prosecute for murder? If that's true, then Stone & some DA from Indiana must have negotiated the original plea deal. If not, can Stone just magically transfer jurisdiction? Seems like grounds for appeal.

[Impish Dragon]

2 hours ago, paigow said:

If a victim is murdered in Illinois, then dumped in Indiana, does Indiana have jurisdiction to prosecute for murder? If that's true, then Stone & some DA from Indiana must have negotiated the original plea deal. If not, can Stone just magically transfer jurisdiction? Seems like grounds for appeal.

I thought Stone said 4 of the murders took place in Indiana.  I could be wrong.  I assume that the murder he was caught and tried for took place in Illinois so that's why Stone had dibs. 

[Sandman]

I think the "former plea bargain was contingent on the defendant's honesty" scene was my favourite part of the episode: definitely a carved-granite stare from Junior. Don't try to outmaneuver Peter Stone, sir. He will crush you like a bug.

The infertile-woman-as-crazypants-murderess was a hoary cliché, but the scene of the character "comforting" the grey baby was startling. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Sandman

[Xeliou66]

Yeah the guy killed some women in Indiana as well. 

I hope they don't derail Nagel either, I'm liking Dawson and Nagel more and more despite the unrealistic nature of what they have them doing, and while I don't mind learning more about the characters personal lives through dialogue, the final scene of Nagel's custody petition was overkill, it had nothing to do with the case and is a pure soap opera storyline. 

I hope they give Jefferies some more as well, he is interesting but he gets nothing. I can't stand Valdez and didn't mind that she had nothing, she is an awful actor and brings the show down IMO. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Xeliou66

[paigow]

4 hours ago, Impish Dragon said:

I thought Stone said 4 of the murders took place in Indiana.  I could be wrong.  I assume that the murder he was caught and tried for took place in Illinois so that's why Stone had dibs. 

Then Stone would not have authority to provide immunity from lawful Indiana prosecution in the original document.....

[Impish Dragon]

22 minutes ago, paigow said:

Then Stone would not have authority to provide immunity from lawful Indiana prosecution in the original document.....

Would Stone be required by law to hand over the evidence to Indiana?  Not that I think tv is accurate  anything, but if he isn't, then the immunity could come from him not giving Indiana the info.   Or Stone could have discovered the murders were conducted in Indiana after the fact, meaning he assumed the crimes he was giving immunity for were all in Illinois. 

And I have no idea why I'm thinking so hard on this.  :)

[paigow]

Original Law & Order had several episodes where pending extradition to another state gave Stone  / McCoy leverage or weakened the current case. 

[Waterston Fan]

I thought this episode was okay but do wish they had made it know that it's okay if you can't have a kid or decide not to have one.

I felt bad for the ex-boyfriend who I hope dumped his current gf because she seemed to be a bitch. I wished they had told them that she was dead, I bet the bitch would have said good for her. 

Who was the father of the baby? 

I hope they don't overdo the Nagel child drama but somehow I think they will. 

[Aliconehead]

The father was the Ex Boyfriend.

while I agree that it is fine not to have a kid if you don't want one. Some people really want their own child and saying it's fine to not have one can ruin a friendship, speaking from personal experience. 

[Elliebab]

Apparently Dawson and Nagel are hurting the show. Whatever.