He reminds me of Bayliss from Homicide: Life on the Street. I think that's why I'm giving him some of a pass. I think his partner is very laid back, so it helps give some balance.
Law & Order: LA: "Harbor City" - Oct. 13 - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Danny99
- Start date
Yeah, quite a lot of bullshit. I thought the strategy of dismissing the terrorism charges was an interesting one. Cut down on quite a lot of further bullshit I was expecting, at least.
Not sure I like the dynamic between the DA and ADA Decker (has the DA appeared with Morales at all?). It could be interesting, but it was just tiresome in this episode.
Not sure I like the dynamic between the DA and ADA Decker (has the DA appeared with Morales at all?). It could be interesting, but it was just tiresome in this episode.
And with that strategy a case was only made against the boyfriend, not the co conspirators in the terrorist plot. Where was the motion to throw out the conviction on the other two? Or how was the plot to kill a drug dealer a special circumstance case? Meaning unless Governor Brown interferes there might be executions 30 years from now for the parents to witness. It doesn't seem like a thing a DA outside of Texas would actually bring up.
For the first half, basic conspiracy theory says that (as Jack McCoy would put it), the right hand doesn't have to know what the left hand is doing as long as they're both acting to carry out the same criminal act. The drug dealer was going to rat them out and threaten their bomb-making, so they killed him. Of course, that brings back the bomb evidence and any grandstanding you wish to associate with that.
As far as special circumstances. I don't know enough about California death penalty laws to comment.
As far as special circumstances. I don't know enough about California death penalty laws to comment.
Though, just story wise, I was surprised the Defense Attorney didn't object, asking for a continuance, because that would throw out their defense, etc. Of course, in the interests of time, the writers probably couldn't do that... but it did shake my "belief" in the reality of the world.
He hasn't. Which is interesting to me why they think they need that relationship with Howard and not Molina. Maybe it's to show Howard's character's idealism. Or political aspirations.
First episode, I assumed idealism. This episode they implied political aspirations. Could be either or both, I'm curious to see. He hasn't weighed any political consequences for his actions, so I'm not sure politics is the answer. But the writing on that dynamic isn't exactly stellar at this point. The District Attorney's office is a political office. It would be nice to see some of that dynamic as well (Prosecutors don't have to be perfect people and they aren't always going for the thrill of the win like McCoy either).
BTW, I'm going back and forth with that continuance thing. On the one hand, that's almost unfair surprise. On the other hand, a defense attorney should be preparing his defense for everything and that defense shouldn't be arguing for jury nullification. Dismissing the charges should technically only be a positive, like the Judge tried to argue in this case.
BTW, I'm going back and forth with that continuance thing. On the one hand, that's almost unfair surprise. On the other hand, a defense attorney should be preparing his defense for everything and that defense shouldn't be arguing for jury nullification. Dismissing the charges should technically only be a positive, like the Judge tried to argue in this case.
It seemed like a weird thing. The writers showing their hand, how clever we'll make the prosecutor! That the reality of that moment didn't ring true for me, even in an Law And Order universe.
Well, I was surprised when they almost had it flipped around. His strategy did almost backfire.
^ She's never been on the show before. And if that really was her, I didn't recognize her at all...
I recognized her in 2 seconds. Maybe it was because she had her hair pulled back?
That's the first time an ME appeared as far as I'm aware.
Anyway, episode was Law and Order at its most generic. I enjoy lawyer personal interactions the best. They're not just adversaries, but colleagues and all that. Plus, only Law school students and people who speak Latin could find the "Res Ipsa Loquitur" reference amusing.
Overall, the show isn't really something I feel like coming back to each week, but it's worth catching on hulu when I'm bored. It's like Law and Order original with a new cast and brighter lighting. That's about it.
Anyway, episode was Law and Order at its most generic. I enjoy lawyer personal interactions the best. They're not just adversaries, but colleagues and all that. Plus, only Law school students and people who speak Latin could find the "Res Ipsa Loquitur" reference amusing.
Overall, the show isn't really something I feel like coming back to each week, but it's worth catching on hulu when I'm bored. It's like Law and Order original with a new cast and brighter lighting. That's about it.
So it comes down to do you want to watch a continuation of Law and Order with Robbery Homicide detectives instead of Major Crimes and Deputy District Attorneys instead of ADAs or whatever else is on NBC?
More or less. I just found out that The Whole Truth (which I've started to watch as well) is on the same time on ABC. I'd rather watch that until they run out of episodes (it's already been canceled) since it's a vastly superior show.
Well she is back on Ballona Creek, I guess she got the gig.
What did everyone think of this week's episode? I missed the first 15 minutes, but it seemed solid to me. Good mix of emotion and legal strategies.