S02.E15: Witness for the Prosecution

[MyAimIsTrue]

The DA hires Bull to help convict Hazel Diaz, an infamous drug dealer who murdered a police officer but has managed to avoid jail for years on an insanity defense by feigning schizophrenia.

See you after the Olympics!

[Netfoot]

This show is well named.  Bull!

[Sarah 103]

We know Cable is going to be caught trying to make her background check comeback clean. It will be interesting to see where she ends up after what happened. 

[adhoc]

I'm moving my post from the other "Witness for the Prosecution" thread to this one.

*************

I'm fairly new to this show, and I enjoyed this episode.  As with some of the other episodes, I found myself wondering how come the police investigation didn't turn up the motive for the murder, instead of having to rely on Bull's team to figure it out.

I was glad they did not bring back Cable to help resolve the case. For a minute, I thought they might. While I think the writers hinted that she's coming back eventually, it ticked me off that any of her former colleagues already sounded ready to forgive her for having broken the law and potentially jeopardized the case against a terrorist. 

And--did I understand this correctly, because maybe I didn't?--the team has not yet replaced Cable because it is apparently impossible to find another computer whiz like her.  She's just that good.  All righty, then.

I look at these villains, like Hazel Diaz, and I wonder how Bull can just go about his day, without any bodyguards. Does he not worry that crooks like her will send their minions to off him?  

Edited February 28, 2018 by adhoc

[Netfoot]

24 minutes ago, adhoc said:

I found myself wondering how come the police investigation didn't turn up the motive for the murder, instead of having to rely on Bull's team to figure it out.

And what about Chekhov's cellphone, that got thrown down the sewer by Hazel Diaz?  Never seen again!

[shrewd.buddha]

It was entertaining, with the usual Bull shenanigans..  Whatever happened to the whole 'trial science' and 'jury selection and manipulation' part of the show? 

The police work and evidence gathering  is always unbelievably sloppy just so there can be surprise findings and twists during the trial. The trail that starts immediately after the crime has been committed.   ..But those are the type of things you need for these types of shows..

It looks like Cable is coming back - because we are still seeing the character's story.
I thought it was unintentionally funny when the former FBI team member said that "everyone makes big mistakes - it's part of the journey!" Sure. Okay.  Maybe people convicted of embezzlement, larceny, fraud, or other non-lethal federal crimes  should use that logic to try to get their jobs back. 

I also wondered why no one ever thought to question how a homeless(?) person with mental health issues happened to have a private attorney. .. who did not appear to be the low priced variety. 

Edited March 1, 2018 by shrewd.buddha

[Dowel Jones]

Would someone please explain to the writers how the Miranda warnings work?  Such as, the accused is entitled to have an attorney present whenever she is being questioned?  The entire sequence of questioning by Bull in the conference room would be inadmissible, as well as any leads produced from that questioning.  That's basic knowledge, which this show routinely ignores in its pursuit of "the wily Dr. Bull wins again" plotlines. 

Is Bull a psychiatrist or a psychologist?  It made mention of two PhD's that he has achieved, but neither were in the medical field, I believe.  The reason I bring this up is that if he is not an MD, he has no business telling the medics in the room to give her an injection of whatever it was.  And if they did follow through with it and she went into seizures, she would have one hella good case against the State of New York, as well as Bull.

[EtheltoTillie]

That trial was all kinds of wrong, evidence-wise.  All the testimony from the cop about his partner's statements about his activities as a drug dealer were hearsay.  That stuff would never have been admissible.  Unless the cop saw him dealing drugs, he would not have been able to testify as to that activity. 

[Sarah 103]

23 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

Is Bull a psychiatrist or a psychologist?  It made mention of two PhD's that he has achieved, but neither were in the medical field, I believe.  The reason I bring this up is that if he is not an MD, he has no business telling the medics in the room to give her an injection of whatever it was. 

If he's a psychiatrist then wouldn't he have some medical training? I thought psychiatrists went to regular med-school, then selected psychiatry as thier speciality. Someone who knows more about this should feel free to correct me/add other information. 

23 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

Would someone please explain to the writers how the Miranda warnings work?  Such as, the accused is entitled to have an attorney present whenever she is being questioned?  The entire sequence of questioning by Bull in the conference room would be inadmissible, as well as any leads produced from that questioning.  That's basic knowledge, which this show routinely ignores in its pursuit of "the wily Dr. Bull wins again" plotlines. 

Serious question, does that apply to all questioning, or only questioning by police? Bull was there in a (for lack of a better term) expert medical capacity. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know all the ins and outs of how this works. 

[Netfoot]

54 minutes ago, Sarah 103 said:

Serious question, does that apply to all questioning, or only questioning by police?

It could be a deep rabbit hole.  "Are these cuffs cutting off your circulation?  Don't answer that!  Your lawyer is not present..."

[Dowel Jones]

Bull was apparently working as an agent for the prosecution at their request, so I think the restrictions would apply.  I did a quick search and found this:

"You can invoke your right to have an attorney present, and until your attorney is present, the interrogation must stop."

Assuming she did so on the initial arrest, as the attorney showed up, this would indicate that any future interrogation on behalf of the prosecution would have to involve her attorney.

[preeya]

On 2/28/2018 at 2:05 PM, Dowel Jones said:

Would someone please explain to the writers how the Miranda warnings work?  Such as, the accused is entitled to have an attorney present whenever she is being questioned?  The entire sequence of questioning by Bull in the conference room would be inadmissible, as well as any leads produced from that questioning.  That's basic knowledge, which this show routinely ignores in its pursuit of "the wily Dr. Bull wins again" plotlines. 

Is Bull a psychiatrist or a psychologist?  It made mention of two PhD's that he has achieved, but neither were in the medical field, I believe.  The reason I bring this up is that if he is not an MD, he has no business telling the medics in the room to give her an injection of whatever it was.  And if they did follow through with it and she went into seizures, she would have one hella good case against the State of New York, as well as Bull.

The wording used when a person is read the Miranda Warning, also known as being ‘Mirandized,’ is clear and direct:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”

Invoking Your Miranda Rights

If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he or she wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. If the individual states that he or she wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him or her present during any subsequent questioning.

Edited March 3, 2018 by preeya

[Trey]

Why didn't they just take a blood sample, or hair or fingernails, to see if Hazel was really taking her medication?

Now that they've shown Hazel was not schizophrenic, will they go back and charge with her previous eight murders? And why was she not locked up somewhere, even if she was schizophrenic, because she was certainly a danger to others.

Yes, I know it's not real:)