Allison Leotta's Blog, page 8
April 3, 2013
SVU Episode #14-19: Born Psychopath
What they got wrong:
At the Children’s Advocacy Center, Henry pointed to a concealed camera, and asked Nick and Olivia, “Are you recording this?” Interviewers at real-life CACs usually inform the kids right off the bat that they’re being recorded. (In my view, that’s only fair.) And it would be unusual to have two detectives questioning the boy – the whole point of that cheery, child-friendly room is to put the child at ease.
A nit about Henry’s arson. This family lived in a palatial Upper West Side with two-story windows, a floating staircase, and billion-dollar views. And yet, when the house was filled with smoke, the only reason anyone knew was because Henry called Olivia’s personal cell? Didn’t that posh apartment come with a smoke detector?
Finally, while there are cases where a CU kid does one or two horrible things, I’ve never heard of a case where a kid goes on such an incredibly productive and creative crime spree. I think the writers took every CU incident in the world and gave it to this one incredibly deranged kid. Chalk it up to dramatic license.
What do you think, SVU fans? What would you do if you thought your child was a psychopath? Should such diagnoses be given to kids so young? And how will Nick’s son react to learning that Uncle Nick is really “Dad”? Leave your comments!
March 29, 2013
Jodi Arias’s Makeunder
March 28, 2013
SVU Episode #14-18: “Legitimate Rape” — by Leslie Budewitz
At trial, Olivia testifies with competence and compassion that rape survivors can take years to come forward. Rick was her co-worker–reporting the assault could damage her reputation, harm others, and cost her her job. But ultimately, she could not let him get away with it. Nick notes the stalking is strong evidence of nonconsensual sex, and Fin found copies of the videos on Rick’s hard drive. Jason, the weenie, balks at testifying, then agrees. Rick had gone after him, too–the reason he broke off the affair.
A first-class egomaniac, Rick interrupts the trial repeatedly and demands to represent himself. We’re spared the legal process–and mid-trial, the judge would have kept it short–but the witnesses aren’t spared one bit when Rick starts his cross. No, sirree. Ever seen a rape victim keep the baby, he asks Olivia, who replies with equanimity: “It happens.”
Avery–played by Lauren Cohan, who’s looking like the Walking Dead about now–explains how she’s come to bond with the child she thought she could never have.
Rick calls his expert, a congressman and retired obstetrician playing the part of Todd Akin, the former Missouri congressman and 2012 Republican candidate for U.S. Senate who torched his campaign with the idiotic remarks that give this episode its title. Over token objection, he testifies that it is “nearly impossible for a victim of legitimate rape to become pregnant,” that a woman’s body has “a mechanism for shutting down ovulation.” (No one points out that sex doesn’t trigger ovulation, and that Avery’s egg was likely in transit long before Rick’s semen entered her body. If she’d ovulated after sex, not before, she’d likely have conceived a girl.) But Fin and Amanda have done their job. The prosecutor establishes that the doctor’s research is 40 years old and he hasn’t practiced in 12 years following disciplinary action. (Translation: bad acts, probably sexual, that the victim is barred from discussing.)
The jury convicts Rick of stalking but acquits him of rape. A female juror bought the “legitimate rape” argument. Avery goes into labor and has a healthy boy.
But it was only 47 minutes after the hour. What next? Does Avery kill Rick? No. Rick sues her for custody, claiming she’s such a mess–unemployed, depressed, on meds–that she’s not a fit mother. We’re told 31 states allow such suits, generally used to pressure the complainant to drop charges, but that New York has no law. The family court judge tells Rick that despite the verdict, his actions were “reprehensible.” She awards Avery sole custody but “with great reluctance” gives Rick as biological father 2 hours of weekly supervised visitation.
The first Saturday, Rick waits at the precinct, a chilly place. Olivia is with Avery, who’s packing to leave. Not a good idea, Olivia says; wait for him to make a mistake and take him to court. But Avery’s had enough of courts.
Olivia returns to the station alone. The detectives all keep up the pretense that they don’t know what’s going on, that Avery and the baby are still at the pediatrician’s. “Somewhere beyond extradition,” Olivia tells Nick. And then the kicker: “Remember when you asked me about my father and I told you it was a long story? It’s not that long.” And that, friends, is why we love this series.
MY FAVORITE LINES: The prosecutor’s objection: “Argumentative and ridiculous.” I may borrow that one. And Avery’s custody lawyer’s comeback when Rick testifies he called and sent photos to show Avery how much he loved her: “You never heard of flowers?”
WHAT THEY GOT RIGHT:
1) The judge rightly says Rick has the right to represent himself–called pro se or pro per, although often, questions arise about the defendant’s mental competence to make that choice and whether he has sufficient intelligence, understanding, and language skills. No such questions here.
Judges hold pro se defendants to the same legal standards as lawyers, but give them some leeway on procedure. I thought both the criminal judge and the family court judge a touch lax with Rick, tolerating too many badgering questions and loaded comments–especially in questioning Avery–but it all served the drama.
2) I don’t know enough about custody laws to call that one, but the judge did apply the right standard, the best interests of the child. The hearing took place awfully soon–barely a month–but an emergency hearing for a temporary arrangement could be fast-tracked.
KINDA SORTA NOT REALLY: Rape shield laws prevent a victim from being questioned about her sexual history, unless it’s past sexual conduct with the accused, or it’s relevant to show the origin of semen, pregnancy or disease at issue in the case. (State laws vary; I’m quoting Montana’s.) Avery’s relationship with Jason was relevant to show the presence of semen from two men–but that wasn’t relevant to the rape charge. She admitted sex with Jason, and there was no doubt that she’d had sex with Rick–only a question of consent. But the writers didn’t make her sexual history a big issue, so I’ll give them a pass.
WHAT THEY GOT WRONG:
1) Good criminal defense lawyers are tough. They’ve got strong personalities and brook no nonsense. This one let Rick make faces and objections. Client control ain’t easy–I say, having once practically tackled a client to keep her from charging the bench and interrupting opposing counsel–but this guy was a wuss.
2) Oh, where to start on this so-called expert? Experts can testify only if their specialized knowledge will help the jury understand the evidence, or is necessary to determine a fact at issue. Okay, so far. But the expert must be qualified. Dr. Congressman testified based on his experience, but made no showing that he had particular experience in dealing with rape victims. Many O.B.s don’t (says the doctor who watched the show with me). And we’re told that admissibility has been decided pre-trial–as most such challenges would be–under Frye, a 1923 Supreme Court case. My late-night five-minute legal research says Frye still applies in New York–it’s been superseded in the federal rules and in many states. (We’ll ignore the “pure opinion” wrinkle because I doubt it applies.) Generally, Frye requires that expert testimony be “generally accepted” in the scientific or medical community. And the medical experts who filled the airwaves after Akin’s remarks made clear that the “mechanism” argument flunks that test.
But of course, if they’d gotten that right, we’d have had to watch American Idol and please, please, not that.
Crime, slime, and a satisfying ending, sharply written. What more could you ask for?
What do you think, SVU fans? Fry Rick–or anyone else–in the comments, but be gentle with your humble substitute!
March 27, 2013
Plaintiff’s Attorney Chris Burdett Responds to HuffPost Live’s “Ill Consent” Discussion
———————
I thank Mr. Burdett for reaching out to set forth his point of view and to engage in a thoughtful discussion of this important case.
March 20, 2013
SVU Episode #14-17: Undercover Blue
The opening scene, where Barba was prepping Cassidy for his testimony in the actual witness chair was all wrong. DA’s might prepare a child witness in the courtroom, so the kid can see what it looks like and relax. But a veteran cop like Cassidy would have testified hundreds of times. He wouldn’t practice his testimony in the courtroom. Heck, if this were realistic, he might resist even talking in Barba’s office, saying, “Whatever, just read my paperwork.”
This entire episode would be a non-starter in real life. If the warrant charging Cassidy with rape came across my desk, I would have scribbled a long red “DECLINE” across it. In the “reasons” section of my memo, I’d write: “4-year-late disclosure, major bias issues, likely frameup to exonerate pimp charged w/murder.” Then I would have started an obstruction of justice investigation against Heather. (Heather’s claim would be turned over in the trial where Cassidy was the witness, as impeachment material on him.) The idea that the DA’s office would instead rush to charge its star witness with such a ridiculous and obviously false rape allegation is silly.
Finally, the idea of tricking two criminals into meeting each other for a drug buy/debt repayment seemed off to me – although it sparked a debate in my living room. My defense-attorney husband argued that nothing prohibits the cops from doing this, and that, as a plot device, it was clever and fresh. I argued that in real life, the detectives would set up undercover operations for each of the criminals separately, using police officers – who are much more predictable and safe and can testify later – as the UCs. Goes to show you – ask any two lawyers a question, and you’ll get two different answers. But since I’m the one writing this post (Ha, ha, sweetie! Get your own blog!), I’m putting this in the “wrong” column.
What do you think, SVU fans? Were you inspired to take a pole-dancing class? Who won that bathroom brawl? And how many episodes do you predict Olivia and Cassidy will last? Leave your comments!
March 12, 2013
February 28, 2013
Leave Him or Die: SVU’s Warning to Rihanna and You
I had to weigh the power of her choice against the likelihood that he would kill her. My job was homicide prevention. Because domestic violence doesn’t go away quietly; it spirals upwards, with each incident getting more violent and brutal. I saw too many cases where a victim refused to testify – and was killed by the man she was trying to protect.
One in four American women will experience domestic abuse in her lifetime. Each one of those women will decide whether to testify against her abuser. And in making her decision, each will consider various pop culture images. On one hand will be glamorous Rihanna, dancing in black leather shorts while crooning about how good the pain feels. On the other will be SVU’s image of a similar woman’s death at the hands of the man who brought that pain. It’s not pretty. But it’s real.
A cautionary tale was in order. Kudos to SVU for providing it.
February 27, 2013
SVU Episode #14-16: Funny Valentine
But many of this episode’s best moments came from the challenges of prosecuting everyday DV case, not the celebrity ones.
It aptly demonstrated the DV cycle of violence, which goes something like this: Anger -> Beating -> Repentance -> Forgiveness -> Bliss -> Anger -> Beating. Victims are most willing to testify when they’re post-Beating, but don’t want to ruin the Bliss.
Nick took pictures of Caleb’s hands, noting his bruised knuckles. Well done, Nick. Police officers know that DV victims are likely to recant, and try to build the strongest possible case assuming they won’t have that testimony.
Strangling cases are particularly worrisome, because strangling can easily become lethal. This is a particularly alarming sign in an abusive relationship.
The protection-order issue was authentic. Sometimes an abuser goes back to the victim’s house, despite a stay-away order, because the victim invites him. Her invitation doesn’t remove the order – that belongs to the court, not her. Technically, the same penalties apply. That said, many judges look more sympathetically on a violator who was welcomed into the home.
DV incidents start in many ways – but the most common I saw was jealousy or suspicion that one partner is seeing someone else.
Caleb’s “I love you, baby, please forgive me” speech on the talk show was absolutely pitch-perfect. I’ve heard this call (often captured on jail calls, rather than Oprah’s couch) so many times. This is exactly what it sounds like.
Barba said, “There’s only so much you can do until the victim is ready.” So true, Barba. Still, prosecutors often try, like Barba did, to make the case despite the victim’s best efforts.
Finally, I nodded at the club shooting where no one would admit they saw the murder. We had a similar real case in DC, where a guy was repeatedly stabbed on a dance floor – surrounded by people who didn’t see thing.
What they got wrong:
No way – no way! – does Caleb’s lawyer let him talk to the police after the shooting. No defense attorney with an ounce of self-preservation would allow his obviously guilty and unpredictable client anywhere near an interrogation room. A lobster is just as likely to throw itself into a boiling pot.
What do you think, SVU fans? Did Chris Brown and Rihanna watch the episode? Will it affect their relationship? And were Olivia and Barba walking intriguingly close to each other as they left court? Leave your comments!
SVU’s Dire Warning to Rihanna: Leave Chris Brown or Die
But many of this episode’s best moments came from the challenges of prosecuting everyday DV case, not the celebrity ones.
It aptly demonstrated the DV cycle of violence, which goes something like this: Anger -> Beating -> Repentance -> Forgiveness -> Bliss -> Anger -> Beating. Victims are most willing to testify when they’re post-Beating, but don’t want to ruin the Bliss.
Nick took pictures of Caleb’s hands, noting his bruised knuckles. Well done, Nick. Police officers know that DV victims are likely to recant, and try to build the strongest possible case assuming they won’t have that testimony.
Strangling cases are particularly worrisome, because strangling can easily become lethal. This is a particularly alarming sign in an abusive relationship.
The protection-order issue was authentic. Sometimes an abuser goes back to the victim’s house, despite a stay-away order, because the victim invites him. Her invitation doesn’t remove the order – that belongs to the court, not her. Technically, the same penalties apply. That said, many judges look more sympathetically on a violator who was welcomed into the home.
DV incidents start in many ways – but the most common I saw was jealousy or suspicion that one partner is seeing someone else.
Caleb’s “I love you, baby, please forgive me” speech on the talk show was absolutely pitch-perfect. I’ve heard this call (often captured on jail calls, rather than Oprah’s couch) so many times. This is exactly what it sounds like.
Barba said, “There’s only so much you can do until the victim is ready.” So true, Barba. Still, prosecutors often try, like Barba did, to make the case despite the victim’s best efforts.
Finally, I nodded at the club shooting where no one would admit they saw the murder. We had a similar real case in DC, where a guy was repeatedly stabbed on a dance floor – surrounded by people who didn’t see thing.
What they got wrong:
No way – no way! – does Caleb’s lawyer let him talk to the police after the shooting. No defense attorney with an ounce of self-preservation would allow his obviously guilty and unpredictable client anywhere near an interrogation room. A lobster is just as likely to throw itself into a boiling pot.
What do you think, SVU fans? Did Chris Brown and Rihanna watch the episode? Will it affect their relationship? And were Olivia and Barba walking intriguingly close to each other as they left court? Leave your comments!
February 20, 2013
SVU Episode #14-15: Deadly Ambitions
What they got wrong:
Amanda’s decision of when to talk to IAB without her delegate was all wrong. She clammed up when everything seemed like a routine defense-of-others case. But when things got dicey – exactly when she needed a good rep – she trotted on over to cruel Lt. Tucker with no protection. Unwise, at least. But perhaps necessary to advance the plot, since any rep worth her salt would have advised Amanda to remain silent, and prevented her night in jail.
Finally, Kim’s plan was really bad. “Suicide by cop” is a real phenomenon. “Murder by cop” seems a lot harder to pull off. I’ve never heard of it happening in real life. Amanda could as easily have gotten herself killed, Amanda’s Annie-Oakley-like aim notwithstanding.
What do you think, SVU fans? When is ambition really deadly? Is there anything more likely to push our buttons than our own family? And should Finn’s apartment have featured a well-oiled Coco sprawled on black satin sheets? Leave your comments!
