Allison Leotta's Blog, page 5
January 15, 2014
SVU Episode #15-10: Amaro’s One-Eighty
Every police officer who’s ever walked a beat knows that dangers can lurk around any corner. Tonight’s SVU highlighted the uncertainty that officers face- and the regret that can follow a split-second decision. And it showed how a good cop can unravel when everything is taken from him.
Recap:
Just when you thought it was safe to go to back to Olivia’s house …
Olivia throws a dinner party where the brussels sprouts are tragically less popular than the wine. On the walk home, Nick and Amanda come across a pair of police in hot pursuit. “He’s got a gun!” shouts a uniformed officer, right after a taxi plows into him. Amanda tends to the injured cop while Nick helps the remaining officer – a female rookie – chase the bad guy.
They run into an apartment building, where shots are fired, and the rookie is shot in the leg. Nick points his gun around the corner and fires back. It’s exactly what he’s been trained to do. And it has tragic results. After the smoke clears, he sees that he shot a fourteen-year-old kid.
Despite his union delegate’s best dilatory efforts, Nick’s blood alcohol level is tested and is a .049 – close to the legal limit for intoxication.
And, it turns out, the only shots fired were from the rookie cop. The bullet in her leg was a ricochet from her own gun. The kid they chased was a minor drug dealer – but not a cop killer.
Internal Affairs quickly charges Nick with … something. (They never said exactly what.) He’s willing to plead guilty to misdemeanor reckless endangerment and retire from the force. But the evil Special Prosecutor insists he plead guilty to a hate crime. Egads.
Nick balks, testifies before the Grand Jury, expresses his regret, and narrowly escapes being indicted. But not before he’s been arrested, arraigned, internally tormented, called a racist in the press, forced to re-mortgage his house to pay for bail, given up custody of his daughter, and had shots fired into his windows. Also, he almost beats up the shooter’s unarmed friends with a baseball bat, on camera. And just to make his litany of woe complete … did I mention the brussels sprouts?
Nick gets to keep his job, but Captain Cragen retires! Cragen gives a heartwarming speech to his squad, and then a tear-jerking one to Olivia, as he passes the SVU reins to her. She will now be Sgt. Benson. “I gave all my life to SVU, and didn’t leave any for myself,” Cragen says. He advises Olivia not to do the same. “Take care of yourself,” he tells her. “You deserve it.” As usual, the good captain is right.
Verdict: B+
I thought this was a terrific episode: smart, tense, and very realistic on most topics. But the political witch hunt seemed so far-fetched, I couldn’t give it an “A.”
What they got right:
This was a realistic exploration of a police shooting. It highlighted how hard it is to tell what’s happening in the heat of the moment. (I had to rewind my DVR three times before I caught it all – imagine if that shooting happened to you in real life.) Soldiers call it “the fog of war.” Every day, cops go out and put their lives on the line, never knowing what’s around the proverbial corner – just as Nick didn’t know what was around the actual corner tonight. They have to make decisions that could save lives, or take them, in highly stressful circumstances, within an instant.
And then they have to live with it.
Often, police officers involved in shootings have to go through years of therapy to get over it. Even if it was justified, the mere act of shooting someone can be an extremely traumatic event.
The points about the police delegate and defense attorney were authentic. After a shooting, a police officer would be assigned delegate from his union. Anything said between Nick and the delegate would not be privileged – but the delegate is very strongly on the officer’s side.
The defense attorney advised Nick not to talk, either to Internal Affairs or to the Grand Jury. She was right. Nick refused to follow her advice, and in the end, it worked out for him. But in real life, any defense attorney worth her salt would insist that Nick assert his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Not that he had anything to hide. But you saw what happened when he started answering questions – every time he opened his mouth, he damned himself.
The Grand Jury procedures were right on point. A grand jury would decide whether to charge Nick with a felony or not. The prosecutor would ask questions, and the jurors themselves could follow up with questions of their own. And, unlike a trial jury’s “guilty” verdict, a Grand Jury vote to indict does not have to be unanimous.
Finally, as a matter of atmospherics, I appreciated this poster on Cragen’s wall. I have seen the same poster hanging in the offices of many real police officers and prosecutors, who see firsthand the violent and tragic effect that widespread handguns have in America. It was an authentic touch, and thematically relevant to tonight’s show.
What they got wrong:
The political vendetta was silly. Sure, there’s really a new mayor in New York City, and he has promised to reform NYPD. But that doesn’t mean that the next police shooting is going to be a political witch hunt. In real life, 99% of police shootings end up with the officer being cleared. Generally, police and prosecutors are more likely to be on each other’s side, not eager to throw each other under the bus.
Similarly, charging Nick with a hate crime was ridiculous. A police officer had just been shot in the leg and was bleeding on the floor! Bullets were ricocheting off the walls before Nick drew his gun. Not only was this not a racially motivated crime, it was pretty classic self-defense.
Finally, arresting Nick before he was indicted was weird. In a case like this, a prosecutor would finish his investigation and ask the Grand Jury to charge Nick before any arrest was made. The only reason they arrested Nick tonight was so we could get that dramatic scene of him being led off to jail.
What do you think, SVU fans? Who’s the next SVU detective we’ll see wearing orange? Does NY Mayor Bill de Blasio have it out for Nick? And should Olivia take cooking lessons? Leave your comments!
January 8, 2014
SVU Episode #15-9: Psycho Therapist
I’m glad the SVU writers aren’t defense attorneys. In tonight’s harrowing episode, they took an open-and-shut criminal case and convincingly turned it into a squeaker, where the jury could have plausibly exonerated the monster who kidnapped and tortured our long-suffering heroine. I tip my hat to the excellent writing – and acting – that made this a great episode.
Recap:
Sporting a new limp, hypnotic facial scars, and a conspicuous hearing aid, monstrous Louis is brought to trial for all the horrific things he did to Olivia in the season premiere. He promptly fires his attorney, opts to represent himself, and uses the trial to traumatize Olivia even more. He argues that Olivia wanted to be with him during those four fateful days in September. They drank and got high together! She was sexually obsessed with him! They tied each other up to play out her fantasies! Olivia only beat him within an inch of his life because of her bad sportsmanship. Also, her SVU colleagues planted evidence to frame him. Louis is so smooth, articulate, and convincing, he’s better than any defense attorneys he could hire. You get why the jurors nod as he spins out his police conspiracy story. That, and the fact that he blatantly flirts with the forewoman.
Over the course of the trial, Olivia understandably consumes an impressive quantity of wine. She struggles with whether to come clean about the fact that she beat Louis up after she’d escaped and handcuffed him to the bed. In the end, she decides it’s more important that he go to jail.
And the jury comes through. Although the flirty forewoman expresses “serious concerns about Detective Benson’s conduct,” the jury convicts Louis of kidnapping and assaulting a police officer. Barba assures Olivia that Louis will likely get the maximum sentence of 25 years to life.
Verdict: A-
What they got right:
A defendant may choose to represent himself. But going “pro se” is rarely a good idea. The old saying goes: “A man who represents himself has a fool for a client.” Pro se defendants are often terrible advocates, and their trials are slow and painful to watch. Real judges often keeps a certified attorney at counsel table to advise the defendant. Louis did better than any pro se defendant I’ve seen in real life – but tonight’s show was, all in all, a refreshingly accurate depiction of the leeway a judge would accord a pro se defendant, and the appellate concerns that would haunt a case like this.
Barba came off as a stickler, but he was right to break up the dinner where Olivia was eating out with the other detectives. Witnesses are often instructed not to talk to each other, and in a case like this, where the defense theory was a government conspiracy, they shouldn’t even be texting, much less noshing on pasta and wine across the street from the courthouse.
What they got wrong:
I have to put most of Barba’s wardrobe in this category — although I can’t decide which was more objectionable: that purple and red striped shirt, or the one that was the color of orange sherbet.
Worst prosecution choice of the night: Barba didn’t call to the stand Mrs. Mayer, the woman whom Louis raped, and whose husband he murdered, while he had Olivia tied up. That’s like telling the story of the Titanic and not mentioning the iceberg. Mrs. Mayer would have described the most shocking part of Louis’s crime spree and corroborated Olivia’s story that she was tied up by Louis the whole time. Sure, Mrs. Mayer might be a reluctant witness. But in a case like this, Barba and the police would have done everything in their power to get Mrs. Mayer on the stand. Maybe if Barba had spent a little more time enforcing his subpoenas and a little less time at H&M picking out his shirts…
While cross-examining Olivia, Louis asked the judge for “Permission to treat the witness as hostile!” I always think this is a funny line in crime shows. It sounds so ominous, like the lawyer is about the punch the witness in the face. In reality, it just means that the lawyer can ask leading, as opposed to open-ended, questions. And Louis could already do that, since leading questions are routinely permitted during cross-examination.
What do you think, SVU fans? Why was this episode called “Psycho Therapist”? Olivia’s therapist was perfectly lovely. Should Olivia have told the truth about beating the crap out of Louis? And is a sherbet-colored shirt ever okay in court? Leave your comments!
November 20, 2013
SVU Episode #15-8: Rapist Anonymous
I also appreciated Olivia’s stance at the beginning, before we knew Lena was a conniving liar. Just because a woman has had sex with a man consensually, doesn’t mean she consented to a later encounter, even if it was just a few hours later that day. Every person had a right to say yes or no to every encounter; each choice must be respected.
Barba made some good choices tonight. After he discovered Lena’s omissions, lies, and sultry texts, the rape case was over. But he offered counseling and help with a restraining order. Additionally, he was correct to note that, although organizations like AA offer confidentiality, that does not confer a legal privilege. Although members generally obey a code not to reveal each other’s identities, that code is not like a preist-penitent relationship – a prosecutor may question members about it.
What they got wrong:
Amanda needed to get off the case before the second commercial break. She was not only friends with the players, she was a player herself. She’d had dinner with the murder suspect and victim a few nights before the murder. The final shocking end – where we learn that Lena set up Amanda – pretty efficiently demonstrated why detectives are not allowed to investigate their friends.
I wish real trials could proceed the way SVU ones do – as if there were no rules against hearsay (which is an out-of-court statement admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted). Personally, I find hearsay to be some of the most interesting and illuminating evidence. Folks are sometimes more truthful before they put their hand on that Bible and swear to tell the truth. Nevertheless, there are rules against hearsay (and rules providing the defendant a right to confront her accuser). In real life, the fiancée could not testify that Gene told her he was scared of Lena.
What do you think, SVU fans? Leave your comments!
November 8, 2013
November 6, 2013
SVU Episode #15-6: Dissonant Voices
Olivia and Nick were so outraged at the coach’s statement that they stormed out of the interrogation room. “Wait!” the suspect cried, “I want to talk to you!” “You had your chance,” Nick snarled, before slamming the door. Hang that in the Bad Detective Hall of Fame. Any time a defendant is willing to talk, a good cop listens. Even if he’s not telling you the truth, even if you don’t believe him. Give him enough room to spin his lies, and he just might tangle himself up in them.
Amanda sounded shocked when she announced that medical tests were “inconclusive as to sex abuse.” That is actually very common. Children who are sexually abused bear many psychological scars but few physical ones.
“He’s four years old,” the ADA said. “No judge will find him swearable.” Not true. While competence is often an issue for child witnesses, the question is basically: can the child tell the difference between the truth and a lie? If she can, she can be a witness, whatever her age. Usually, the very first questions a detective in a Children’s Advocacy Center asks concern the child’s ability to distinguish truth and lies. When Amanda finally asked Cooper that — in the last ten minutes of the show – it was seriously bad form. Think of all the heartache she could have saved if she’d just asked that at first!
After the kids confessed that they’d lied, ADA Barba advised the detectives: “Go ask the coach about it.” No. Do not keep collecting evidence. Go to court. Go directly to court. Do not pass “Go.” Do not collect $200. Inform the court and the defendant that all of the victims have recanted. Prosecutors have a duty to turn over any evidence that shows the defendant might be innocent. In this case, where the defendant is sitting in jail awaiting trial, this information was urgent. Besides, no decent defense attorney is going to let his client be interrogated by the detectives at this point.
Finally, was I the only one shaking my head when the bad guys turned out to be the two teenage girls? I guess I should be relieved that we got through five full episodes before SVU’s instinct to blame the cute girls kicked in.
What do you think, SVU fans? Leave your comments!
October 24, 2013
SVU Episode #15-5: October Surprise
This case would have been dismissed before the second commercial break. First, Lindsey said, “I’m not sure I want to press charges now.” Nick sternly replied, “It’s a little too late for that.” But in real life, victims change their minds all the time, at all sorts of different stages of the prosecution. The victim’s decision about whether to bring charges is not solely dispositive, but must be considered. The prosecution can still go forward, because they represent the entire community, and sometimes the community’s interest in putting away a predator trumps the victim’s interest in staying off the stand. But there are laws pertaining to sex assault victims’ rights; their wishes must be taken into account.
Not only was Lindsey a reluctant victim, she had serious credibility issues. After the cops discovered she had extorted four men and was the subject of six restraining orders, the case was over. DECLINE would be scribbled on the folder and it would be sent to closed files. The SVU detectives would go out for a drink. They would not to continue to investigate a possible political corruption case over which they had no jurisdiction.
I don’t have to tell you that Barba shouldn’t have been on this case, right? You saw how that played out. Oh my god, I’m so conflicted, Barba emoted, what should I do? Help my childhood best friend or the justice system I’m sworn to uphold? This is exactly the reason why there are conflict-of-interest rules, and why no DA in his right mind would allow Barba on the case. I can imagine Jack McCoy throwing a very thick bar journal at Barba if Barba tried to stay on this case.
Finally, there’s no way Muñoz would have been charged within a day. Prosecutions based on the emails of politicians are notoriously painstaking, and time consuming. They require warrants, subpoenas, email wiretaps, and a lot of interviews. Here, the detectives didn’t even get a warrant to look at the images on Muñoz’s phone before charging him. In real life, Muñoz would have been well into his first term before the Grand Jury had finished hearing the evidence against him.
What do you think, SVU fans? Leave your comments!
October 16, 2013
October 9, 2013
SVU Episode #15-3: “Internal Affairs”
This episode accurately captured many of the challenges of prosecuting a case like this: credibility issues, the “thin blue line” of officer’s protecting each other, and the difficulty of cobbling together a story with a witness who can’t remember everything that happened on the night in question. Olivia’s efforts to get the victim to trust her and talk, despite intimidation and fear, was well done and rang true.
What they got wrong:
Cassidy was the worst possible choice to be the undercover cop here. Sending in a UC, you want someone who is going to have impeccable credibility, because he’ll likely have to testify about everything later at trial. But Cassidy himself was in trouble with IAB. And when Tucker promised his badge back, he handed West his defense on a silver platter. Imagine the cross-examination: “You lied about what you saw, didn’t you, Officer Cassidy, in order to get your job back?”
It was ridiculous for Quinn to be a woman. A male cop would do this for terrible but obvious reasons. But Quinn does it to protect her serial-rapist colleague because she’s in love with him? I’ve seen some serious cases of falling for bad boys, but this was too much. Chalk up another example of SVU making the perp a woman whenever humanly possible (and sometimes even when it’s not).
What do you think, SVU fans? Leave your comments!
October 2, 2013
SVU Episode #15-2: “American Tragedy”
What do you think, SVU fans? Be part of that conversation. Leave your comments!
SVU Episode #15-3: “American Tragedy”
What do you think, SVU fans? Be part of that conversation. Leave your comments!
