I thought both episodes were fairly interesting, though corny in parts.
Things I like:
- The relationship between the DA and the prosecutor. I’m guessing they’re using the same lawyer and judge on every episode. (Which makes sense; you have to have some regulars on a primetime drama.)
- The narrative device whereby the trial is exposed via flashbacks from the jury’s perspective. A very interesting angle which I don’t think I’ve seen on cheesy courtroom dramas before.
- The flashback after the verdict that shows you What Really Happened.
Things I don’t like:
- Obnoxious shakey hand-held cameras during tense scenes. IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO HAND-HELD WITHOUT MAKING IT SUPER SHAKEY! DO THESE MOFOZE HIRE EPILEPTIC CAMERAMEN?!?! YOU DON’T NEED TO SHAKE THE THING AND CONSTANTLY ADJUST THE FOCUS TO GIVE IT THAT TENSE HANDHELD FEEL! JUST SHOOT IT NORMAL!
[/rant] - One dimensional, stereotypical characters in the jury. I was doing a lot of eye-rolling at the Big Important Lawyer Whose Negotiations Were Breaking Down.
All in all, I say it pales in comparison to my own jury experience, wherein I and eleven other intrepid soles condemned a man to time served for embezzling $6,148.92 from a pretzel stand.