|
|
Post by mlm828 on Jul 16, 2008 22:39:07 GMT -5
I watched The Closer for the first time on Monday, and shmeep was right -- I could follow the story just fine, even though I had not watched it from the beginning. I liked it a lot, although the Southern California brush fire scene (with film of an actual fire) was a little close to home. The guy who played the suspect was excellent; he did "creepy" very well. I do like Saving Grace, too, even though Grace is sometimes -- no, make that often -- too over-the-top for my taste. But I think that's the way the character is supposed to be. My main complaint about Holly Hunter is that no 50-year-old woman should be that thin! By the way, the scene with the police dog was realistic. Jumping over the bridge railing after the suspect is what the dog would be trained to do. At least the dog survived in the TV show. A few months ago, a police dog was pursuing a suspect who jumped off the Coronado Bridge. The dog jumped, too. The man survived, but the dog didn't.  |
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Jul 22, 2008 8:29:23 GMT -5
"Mad Men," on the other hand, is just about the best thing to hit the boob tube in years, and I hope all of you who get AMC will give it a try. I caught some episodes on rerun this spring and was immediately hooked. It is smart, sassy, extremely well written and acted, and not the least predictable. (Last month the show was a cover story for The New York Times Sunday magazine section.) And as a fierce critic (who, me?) of sets, costumes, writing, etc., may I set they get the era and the subject matter dead right. And I can say this because my father made his living as an advertising copywriter from the 50s through the mid-70s, commuting to NYC every day. The show really does capture the callowness of the profession itself, the cynicism, the alcoholism (let's hear it for the three-martini lunch and the bar car on the 5:52 out of Grand Central -- NOT), and contrast it beautifully with those who were actually trying to use the medium to do something worthwhile. It is one amazing show. Do set your DVR for that one, Shmeep. Were you ever right! I devoted quite a chunk of my weekend to watching all thirteen episodes of Season One of Mad Men and I loved each one more than the one before it. Just brilliant! Most period pieces tend to be written through the standards and morals of the present day, making past eras seem PC. Remember Dr. Mike on Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman insisting she wanted to keep her last name when she married? In 1870? Um...yeah. Mad Men is delightfully and refreshingly unconcerned with being PC by today's standards. The entire mindset of 1960 fills every bit of dialogue--and it's not exactly something out of Leave it to Beaver. It's far darker. You know how silly those sexual harassment videos we have to watch at work are? How ridiculous it seems at times and how far some women take it? Well, watch a couple of episodes of Mad Men if you want to be reminded of what kind of behavior instigated such rules to begin with. What a reminder of how far we've come. When the characters so much as call a woman "sweetheart" in a condescending way, it sets my teeth on edge (which surprises me, since I'm not overly touchy in these ways as a rule) so imagine the other girls telling the new girl to show more leg because her new boss would like it. I'm hoping part of it is exaggerated, but I fear much of it is not because part of that mindset was still around during my childhood and I remember when it started to change. I find every story on this show fascinating--even when I detest the characters. Smarmy Pete Campbell, trying to blackmail his way into a promotion, Donald Draper, who demands my disgust and my admiration in almost equal parts, Betty Draper, who is so repressed she can only express herself at the level of a child, Peggy Olson, who tries to fit in but ends up gaining her greatest success by being herself, they're all so wonderful to watch. New season starts this Sunday. Can't wait. So much good TV this week! Psych and Monk are on again and they didn't disappoint and last night, The Closer and Saving Grace were both highly enjoyable. It's about time we finally had something to watch again. Here's my confession for the day: I really enjoy that ABC show Wipeout. You know, the one where people try to go through that silly obstacle course with the big balls and all that mud? It just cracks me up. I watch it every week with my husband. I wouldn't call it quality, by any stretch of the imagination, but it is very funny. We also caught all of Hell's Kitchen. Again. Gordon Ramsey can call his contestants "donkeys" and swear at them incessantly and abusingly on my TV any day. He brings the funny. |
|
|
|
Post by bump on Jul 22, 2008 9:11:56 GMT -5
Here's my confession for the day: I really enjoy that ABC show Wipeout. You know, the one where people try to go through that silly obstacle course with the big balls and all that mud? It just cracks me up. I watch it every week with my husband. I wouldn't call it quality, by any stretch of the imagination, but it is very funny. Oh, Shmeep, I'm glad you were willing to confess. I've been watching Wipeout, too, just for a good laugh. The big balls are always good for a laugh. I also enjoy the snarky commentary. Nothing like a little mindless television now and again. While we're confessing, I'll own up to the fact that I've been Tivoing Diff'rent Strokes, Family Ties, and ALF and reliving my youth this summer. |
|
|
|
Post by inuvik on Jul 22, 2008 10:23:49 GMT -5
I've been working my way through Chancer, with Clive Owen. What a great series! Even if he wasn't in it. Very interesting plot, about a devious, lovable rogue in the financial industry. British TV shows have a very different feel from North American. Usually much better. CO was 25 when this was aired, so probably 24 when filming. So thin!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kasman on Jul 22, 2008 18:12:16 GMT -5
I've been working my way through Chancer, with Clive Owen. What a great series! Even if he wasn't in it. Very interesting plot, about a devious, lovable rogue in the financial industry. British TV shows have a very different feel from North American. Usually much better. CO was 25 when this was aired, so probably 24 when filming. So thin! Much better and done on a lot less money. I love how the Brit shows tend to slowly reveal the steps rather than having that one marvellous intuitive leap. You get to really see the thought processes behind how the characters fit various parts together. However, I still love NCIS and Numb3rs and a few others. I've been catching a lot of Cracker (Robbie Coltrane) and Waking the Dead (Trevor Eve - loved him as Shoestring back in the late 70s) lately. Long, drawn out two to three hour stories like these probably wouldn't make it on US networks as mainstream shows, I guess. And the American version of Cracker just wasn't even close to being as good as the original. As for the delicious Clive, loved him in Second Sight, despite the plot holes and inconsistencies. |
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Aug 5, 2008 8:07:49 GMT -5
She's back. I didn't immediately recognize her because she seems to have gone through some kind of eyebrow intervention and her bleach-blond hair was a more realistic color...but when I heard that voice last night on The Closer, I knew it had to be Mary Beth Desmond. And her husband was dead (as usual). I know this should be in the BJ Guest Star thread, but it's also about The Closer so I put it here. Hey, since she didn't do the killing this time, guess who did? It was Herc from Friday Night Lights! Every time I see him as a guest star on something, I ask my husband if he recognizes him and each time, my husband looks puzzled until I make the sign for wheelchair and then he instantly remembers it's Herc. Happened a few weeks ago when I was watching Herc's Buffy episode.
Mlm, how are you enjoying The Closer? I think it's still performing at its standard level of quality. I just love all the interaction among the squad. During the first season, when everyone detested Brenda, I thought things would be dull once she was accepted but that never happened because these characters have such wonderful chemistry. As a lawyer, how did you feel about last week when Brenda told that kid he was her lawyer to pump him for information?
I'm also really enjoying Saving Grace. I've been thinking about it and I realize I've just come to really like that character. She rubbed me wrong in all kinds of ways at first and she was so trashy and immoral that she made me cringe, but Holly Hunter plays her with a lot of heart and makes the most mundane things hilarious. I've come to really enjoy her spirit and her love for her nephew and co-workers and the practical jokes they all play on each other and the way they laugh right when you think something really serious is about to happen. It's unpredictable but it also feels a lot like life so I'm on board. Last week had one of my favorite moments of the series. When that guy gets killed in the bathroom while Grace and Ham are--ahem--playing in a bathroom stall and then Ham is caught on tape rushing from the men's room with a crown of toilet paper on his head...that was funny enough. But when the Chief scolds them, showing them that tape and how bad it makes them look...I thought they were upset. Their faces were straight just until the chief left the room and then they rewound the tape several times and laughed hysterically at Ham, pausing the tape on a couple of particularly silly moments. Great moment.
And Mad Men does not disappoint. I'm still fascinated and it's by far my favorite thing on television right now. I'm shocked something of such quality is even on the air.
|
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Aug 5, 2008 8:48:28 GMT -5
Thanks for the great assessment, Shmeep. I agree wholeheartedly about "The Closer," which just seems to get better and better. I still find Holly Hunter just about the most self-indulgent actress on the planet -- I can always tell she's just acting her little tuches off -- but after reading what you wrote about "Saving Grace" I'll give it another try. Promise! ;D And "Mad Men" is so wonderful I'm afraid it won't last.  I must confess, however, that since "The Closer" is repeated, I opted last night for Turner Classic Movies and my 150th viewing of "Dinner at Eight." I know I'm digressing but not only does that movie have a legendary cast -- Marie Dressler, Jean Harlow, John & Lionel Barrymore, Wallace Beery, Billie Burke, etc. -- but it has one of the best last lines of any movie ever, and every single time I'm there until the end because it's just so delicious. Anyone else know the moment? Marie Dressler and Jean Harlow are walking in to dinner, Marie old and majestic in black lace and Jean wearing just about the most Harlow-ish gown imaginable: skin-tight white satin, backless, mit fur. Harlow: I was reading a book the other day--Dressler stops dead in her tracks. Harlow: Yeah, it was a nutty sort of a book, all about civilization and everything. And this book said that, in the future, every profession was gonna be done by machines. Can you imagine?Dressler soothingly puts a hand on her arm and draws her down the hall: Oh, my dear, that's something you need never worry about . . . .Obviously it works better on the screen than it does on paper, but it's right up there with "Some Like it Hot." Say, didn't we have a favorite last movie lines thread at one point? Okay, enough digression for one morning. I'm just glad that there is something decent to watch on TV this summer, as an antidote to what mlm called R & R: reruns and reality. |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Aug 5, 2008 14:19:44 GMT -5
She's back. I didn't immediately recognize her because she seems to have gone through some kind of eyebrow intervention and her bleach-blond hair was a more realistic color...but when I heard that voice last night on The Closer, I knew it had to be Mary Beth Desmond. And her husband was dead (as usual). She may not have been the killer this time, but she was still plenty annoying. That voice! Hey, since she didn't do the killing this time, guess who did? It was Herc from Friday Night Lights! Thanks for the ID. I knew he looked familiar, but I couldn't place him. Mlm, how are you enjoying The Closer? I think it's still performing at its standard level of quality. I just love all the interaction among the squad. During the first season, when everyone detested Brenda, I thought things would be dull once she was accepted but that never happened because these characters have such wonderful chemistry. I like it a lot. I'm sure there's a lot I am missing, having only watched the current season, but you're right, the characters are very well written and acted. As a lawyer, how did you feel about last week when Brenda told that kid he was her lawyer to pump him for information? I have a lot of problems with that. The cops are allowed to use trickery and deception to get a suspect to talk, but in my opinion, she crossed the line. Even though she was careful, as I recall, not to say, "I'm your lawyer," in so many words, she led him to believe she was. If I recall correctly, she also assured him what he told her would be confidential, or something to that effect. What she did totally undermines the right to counsel and the attorney-client privilege, in my opinion. In California, the attorney-client privilege applies if the individual believes he is speaking to an attorney, even if he isn't. And since he didn't know he was talking to a cop, any Miranda waiver probably wouldn't be effective. I think most judges would be very troubled by this tactic and would suppress the statements and exclude any evidence developed from them. In short, what she did was just plain wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Aug 6, 2008 11:28:16 GMT -5
As a lawyer, how did you feel about last week when Brenda told that kid he was her lawyer to pump him for information? Sorry, I blew the quote box thing: this was mlm's response: I have a lot of problems with that. The cops are allowed to use trickery and deception to get a suspect to talk, but in my opinion, she crossed the line. Even though she was careful, as I recall, not to say, "I'm your lawyer," in so many words, she led him to believe she was. If I recall correctly, she also assured him what he told her would be confidential, or something to that effect. What she did totally undermines the right to counsel and the attorney-client privilege, in my opinion. In California, the attorney-client privilege applies if the individual believes he is speaking to an attorney, even if he isn't. And since he didn't know he was talking to a cop, any Miranda waiver probably wouldn't be effective. I think most judges would be very troubled by this tactic and would suppress the statements and exclude any evidence developed from them. In short, what she did was just plain wrong. Yeah, I noticed that too . . . and, as much as I enjoy this show, when push comes to shove I'm perfectly happy watching "Law & Order," which hires retired NYC ADAs as consultants. What I love about that show -- apart from the excellent writing, casting, and genuine NYC atmosphere -- is that they try to get it right when it comes to the legalities. When the characters step over the line and do something hinky -- as Brenda did by misrepresenting herself to the kid -- they pay the consequences (Sam Waterston's character has been up before the diciplinary committee twixce over the years, once for subornation of perjury). Yes, it's prosecution-heavy, if you will, but the show has gotten much better over the years at showing the defense's position and it's now very well balanced. The prosecutors do not win every case, nor should they. Right there, I think we're closer to reality than in most cop or legal dramas, where 99.99 % of the time the case gets closed and the "good guys" win, all in 47 minutes of air time. Has anybody see the promos for the new Bochco show, "Raising the Bar?" Having thoroughly enjoyed "LA Law" and "Murder One," I thought, oh yum -- Bochco's going back to a good solid legal drama. I'll reserve judgement until after September 1, when the pilot airs, but I have to say so far I'm not swept away by the ads -- the lead defense attorney looks like a male model and already I detect a lot of melodramatic posturing and breast-beating.  Which, thank you, they never do on L & O. So we shall see. All by way of saying, I guess, that I enjoy "The Closer" for the personalities and the characterizations and never look too closely at the cases, which seem to be fairly loosely constructed. |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Aug 6, 2008 21:41:51 GMT -5
Yeah, I noticed that too . . . and, as much as I enjoy this show, when push comes to shove I'm perfectly happy watching "Law & Order," which hires retired NYC ADAs as consultants. What I love about that show -- apart from the excellent writing, casting, and genuine NYC atmosphere -- is that they try to get it right when it comes to the legalities. When the characters step over the line and do something hinky -- as Brenda did by misrepresenting herself to the kid -- they pay the consequences (Sam Waterston's character has been up before the disciplinary committee twice over the years, once for subornation of perjury). legal consultant is former Los Angeles DA Gil Garcetti, who should know something about police misconduct, because the LAPD Rampart scandal was exposed during his tenure as DA. Still, it wouldn't surprise me to see a prosecutor try to defend what Brenda did, by claiming she never said she was an attorney, or something of the sort. That doesn't pass the "straight-face test" with me, but it could happen. A few years ago, I had a case where the client's response to the Miranda warning was, "I'd really like to speak with an attorney." The cops ignored this, of course, and continued to question her. At trial, the prosecutor argued her request for an attorney was "equivocal." The trial judge bought the argument and allowed the jury to hear the defendant's statements made after the request for an attorney. On appeal, the Deputy Attorney General made the same argument as the prosecutor made at trial, but it didn't pass the "straight-face test" with the appellate court. I still remember one of the justices (who happens to be a former prosecutor) leaning over the bench and asking the Deputy AG, in a tone of disbelief, "You aren't arguing she didn't ask for an attorney, are you?" Blind Justice was also guilty of not showing the consequences, unfortunately. The main example was Jim beating up Warren Doyle in "Leap of Faith." If that situation had played out realistically, we might have seen the squad lying under oath at the hearing on Doyle's motion to suppress his coerced confession. The sad part of that story is that the lying cops probably would have been believed. On the other hand, if they admitted what really happened, they would have been disciplined or fired, ending the series even sooner. So I guess we should be glad they didn't show the consequences in that instance.  Another thing which is unrealistic is that most big-city police departments record interrogations on audio or videotape. The official reason for this is to prevent false claims by suspects, but it's a deterrent to misconduct by the cops, too. The reality is that cops don't need to beat up suspects to get them to make incriminating statements. Your average suspect is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and detectives are trained in the use of deceptive and manipulative techniques to get suspects to say what the detectives want them to say. Whether it's true is often secondary. Has anybody see the promos for the new Bochco show, "Raising the Bar?" Having thoroughly enjoyed "LA Law" and "Murder One," I thought, oh yum -- Bochco's going back to a good solid legal drama. I'll reserve judgement until after September 1, when the pilot airs, but I have to say so far I'm not swept away by the ads -- the lead defense attorney looks like a male model and already I detect a lot of melodramatic posturing and breast-beating. I've seen the promos, too, and I can't say I'll be watching. But that's just me. I would be very surprised if there is ever a legal drama I could watch without yelling or throwing things at the TV. Sorry, mags, but that goes for the Law & Order shows, too. They may make more of an effort to get things right, but for me the courtroom scenes are un-watchable. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Aug 7, 2008 12:09:37 GMT -5
Oh, I am so LOL. ;D Mlm, I take your comments re Law & Order in good faith, and I would suggest that if you want to see some great acting and writing, simply turn the channel at about ten minutes before the hour so you can avoid those pesky courtroom scenes. Or limit your viewing to L& O: Criminal Intent, which is like The Closer in that it’s all about the interrogation and we never see the inside of a courtroom. ;D Here’s the thing. We are all fierce and uncompromising critics of any show that deals with what we do for a living. Well I remember shrieking and grinding my teeth over the Thirty Something arc in which the character of Nancy (Patricia Wettig), who was purported to be a children’s book illustrator, sat at her oddly clean drawing table scratching away with a clearly empty crow-quill pen at printed Michael Hague drawings. Puh-leeze.  Not to mention that she made bags of money over one book, which, I have to tell you, only happens if you’re Maurice Sendak or J. K. Rowling. That said, I’m sorry that you can’t see your way clear to Law & Order. According to innumerable quotes from the NYPD, they get the cop thing right, including all the flaws and hot-headedness. And, as much as we all loved Blind Justice, you could surely tell that it was written in LA, cast in LA, and had –- really, when you get right down to it – sod all to do with New York and everything to do with what Steven Bochco, who never lived there, thought was New York. God knows I loved the show but when it came to the true Gotham flavor they were about as on point as all those Wiseguy episodes that were filmed in Vancouver. (Right, Housemouse?) So, mlm, just being curious here . . . has there ever been a legal drama that, as far as you were concerned, came close to the mark? |
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Aug 7, 2008 13:17:19 GMT -5
So, mlm, just being curious here . . . has there ever been a legal drama that, as far as you were concerned, came close to the mark? Ally McBeal? I have no excuse for not liking any of the Law and Order shows but they all seem to bug me equally for some reason. But you're right, Mags, about people getting extra critical when it's about something they do for a living. One of the Law and Orders (I don't remember which one) had a Deaf storyline and it was downright ridiculous. The signing, the content, everything. Just crazy. Actually, that's happened on two of their series--that I can recall. It wasn't any more realistic than Sue Thomas, FBEye was, as far as I'm concerned. Since the Deaf stuff was poorly done, I didn't have much reason to assume the shows had credibility in any other way. And LOL at the California stuff you just said, Mags. I live in Maryland and everyone I know has something to do with the government. Well, when I lived in California, everyone was involved in "The Industry." My friends were production assistants, actors, wannabe actors, set designers, you name it. In thirty-three years there, I never realized how some of those shows could come across outside of that environment. I moved East and then found out that most people don't say "the" before the freeway number. I mean, I used to live right where "the" 405 and "the" 101 intersect and my parents live near "the" 405 and "the" 118 and that's exactly how we talk in California. Well, I moved here and spoke of taking "the" 32 to "the" 95 and I got mocked for talking like a Californian. Then I started noticing it in my shows. One of the Gilmore Girls spoke of taking "the" 95 and I realized no one in Connecticut would say that (right Mags?). Yeah, those Californian writers really need to get out more. Bochco didn't even get California quite right. In 1994, LA Law had aftershocks of the Northridge quake hit downtown LA and the skyscrapers were shaking and things were falling off shelves and water spilled and I just sat there, irritated because those aftershocks wouldn't have even been enough to skew a picture in the city. I lived at the epicenter and only a few of the hundreds of aftershocks knocked anything over and those were the ones over 5.0 and probably felt like 3s 25 miles away, where LA Law took place. I know earthquakes and was appalled that Californian writers of a California-based show could get it so wrong. But I digress.... Topic? Um...summer viewing...Psych has sure been funny this season. Particularly the one about Gus and Shawn's 13-year high school reunion. That show kills me. |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Aug 7, 2008 16:46:44 GMT -5
Mlm, I take your comments re Law & Order in good faith, and I would suggest that if you want to see some great acting and writing, simply turn the channel at about ten minutes before the hour so you can avoid those pesky courtroom scenes. Or limit your viewing to L& O: Criminal Intent, which is like The Closer in that it’s all about the interrogation and we never see the inside of a courtroom. ;D I have actually tried both of your suggestions. Great minds working alike, and all that. Another reason to watch Law & Order: Criminal Intent is Vincent D'Onofrio. However, even if I avoid courtroom scenes, it bugs me how often they show cases getting thrown out, and defendants walking, on so-called "technicalities." This. Is. A. Myth. It hardly ever happens. I wish TV shows wouldn't perpetuate this myth. Here’s the thing. We are all fierce and uncompromising critics of any show that deals with what we do for a living. Well I remember shrieking and grinding my teeth over the Thirty Something arc in which the character of Nancy (Patricia Wettig), who was purported to be a children’s book illustrator, sat at her oddly clean drawing table scratching away with a clearly empty crow-quill pen at printed Michael Hague drawings. Puh-leeze. Not to mention that she made bags of money over one book, which, I have to tell you, only happens if you’re Maurice Sendak or J. K. Rowling. Then you must be a real fan of "Desperate Housewife" Susan Mayer (Teri Hatcher), who is supposedly a writer of children's books. We never see her working at all. Of course, on that show, we hardly ever see anyone working. So, mlm, just being curious here . . . has there ever been a legal drama that, as far as you were concerned, came close to the mark? Ally McBeal? ;D The only legal drama I ever really liked was the 1960s legal drama The Defenders with E.G. Marshall. Of course, I wasn't in a position to judge its realism at the time, but it was a great show. Now, the problem for me is that, even if the show is well-written and well-acted, it will still have legal errors which take me out of the story and make it impossible for me to enjoy it.  |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Aug 8, 2008 10:22:20 GMT -5
I remember "The Defenders" with E. G. Marshall and Robert Reed! It was a terrific show. Funny, I was thinking last night about what we've been talking about here -- I knew I'd find some great posts waiting this morning. It occurred to me that one aspect of "The Defenders" that used to amuse my family -- and I'll bet the same can be said of all legal dramas of the period -- is that the clients were always innocent. Always. If legal dramas have matured in any way from that time, I would vote for their ambiguity -- no one is either 100% good or bad, nor are the clients. Actually, the legal show that made the biggest impression on me growing up was "Perry Mason," and I mean the classic original show, not those mediocre 90 minute post-"Ironside" TV movies. No, I mean the one and only black and white "Perry Mason" with Della Street and Paul Drake and that terrific theme music. Realism? Hah! The man never lost a case, not one, and after a while you felt sorry for Hamilton Burger the DA. Of course the big family joke on that one was that Perry usually won because someone in the courtroom would stand up at the crucial moment and cry, "Stop, stop, I killed William Braithwaite! I did it, I did it, and I'm gla-a-a-a-ad I did it!" Then they'd either throw their head back and laugh maniacally or sob bitterly into their hands while they were led away by the bailiiff and Perry looked smug. Heh. I loved that show, tho', I really did and I wish TV Land would run it instead of the 495th rerun of Andy Griffith. Funny about the CA-speak, Shmeep. Yeah, we here in CT say I-95. "Taking I-95." The "the" is a California-ism. And I know what you mean about that Sue Thomas show, even peripherally; it didn't hold me the few times I tried to watch it because, well, I just didn't think she was much of an actress. And I too have noticed that Teri Hatcher never seems to do a lick of work on her kid's books, which just adds to the misconception that a. anyone can write one and b. you can make enough money doing it to live in a nice house on Wisteria Lane. So, mlm, I have another question. I'm trying to remember "Law & Order" episodes where cases were thrown out on technicalities, as you say. All I can pull out of the memory bank is the sort of scenario where an improper search and seizure at which a key piece of evidence (like a weapon) was collected, would result in that piece of evidence being disallowed, and so as a result the case would collapse. Is that the sort of thing you meant? BTW, what does happen if someone is not properly Mirandized? Is that enough to get a case throw out of court? But hey! the big summer viewing this week is the Olympics! |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Aug 8, 2008 14:49:48 GMT -5
So, mlm, I have another question. I'm trying to remember "Law & Order" episodes where cases were thrown out on technicalities, as you say. All I can pull out of the memory bank is the sort of scenario where an improper search and seizure at which a key piece of evidence (like a weapon) was collected, would result in that piece of evidence being disallowed, and so as a result the case would collapse. Is that the sort of thing you meant? Yes, that's one example. Unfortunately, Fourth Amendment rights are considered inconvenient technicalities these days. BTW, what does happen if someone is not properly Mirandized? Is that enough to get a case thrown out of court? If the Miranda warnings are required and not given, the defendant's statements and any evidence developed from them cannot be used against him at trial. If the prosecution can't prove its case without this evidence, then the case could be dismissed. That rarely happens these days, because the Miranda rule has been riddled with exceptions, and the courts have found ways of getting around the Miranda requirement, such as ruling the suspect wasn't "in custody." (The Miranda rule applies only to "custodial interrogations"). The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Miranda v. Arizona has an interesting discussion of police interrogation techniques, many of which are still used and are seen on television. Incidentally, the reason cops on TV don't want suspects to "lawyer up" is the rule that "all interrogation must cease" once the suspect asks for a lawyer. The cops on Blind Justice routinely violated this rule. But hey! the big summer viewing this week is the Olympics! I'll be watching, but I have not been a big fan of NBC's recent Olympics coverage. There's way too much "filler" (stuff like "human-interest" stories and travelogues), in my opinion. Don't they have enough competitions to show? I also dislike the way they break up their coverage of events, showing part of a competition, then going to another event and not returning to the first one until several hours later. I understand why they do this. They want to keep people watching, and they don't want to lose those viewers who might not be interested in the first event. But it detracts from the continuity and drama of the competition, in my opinion. |
|
Which, thank you, they never do on L & O. 
Not to mention that she made bags of money over one book, which, I have to tell you, only happens if you’re Maurice Sendak or J. K. Rowling.