I’ve been watching a lot of Law & Order reruns lately. Sometimes on the show, the police will arrest and arraign a suspect. Then new evidence will be uncovered, and they will realize they have the wrong guy. So they arrest and arraign the right guy. At the right guy’s trial, the judge will often criticize the prosecution’s case–implying that since they got the wrong guy at first, that they must either a) be incompetent, or b) just not have much of a case. Sometimes, they even imply that since they didn’t get it right the first time, that they shouldn’t even be prosecuting at all.
Does this happen in real life? Do judges not understand that sometimes reasonable errors are made? Does Law & Order just do this as a dramatic device?
Yeah, I’ve noticed that too. It’s typical of Law & Order: Spend most of the show building a case against the wrong guy/gal, then reveal in the last few minutes that it was actually someone else. Then they (usually) arrest and try the right person.
Is this realistic? I doubt it. But it’s a helluva lot better than the likes of Matlock, or some equally inane show. I always wondered how that D.A. on Matlock was able to keep her job for so many years, considering she never once brought the right person to trial.
I know, I know… it’s only TV.
Anyway, as to the way the judges always castigate the prosecutors… yeah, it’s probably for dramatic effect. It adds a bit of tension above and beyond the “proving beyond a reasonable doubt” thing, I guess.
As to whether or not it happens often in real life, I can’t say, as IANAL. But you have to wonder. I know that people are falsely accused of crimes in this country, but in every single high-profile murder case in New York City? So, I guess the question is not whether or not judges behave this way, but whether or not cops/prosecutors screw up that often.
<random> One of the things I always loved about L&O is that they actually mention hwo many times the court has convened - hearing part 89 etc.</random>
It’s been my experience that judges commonly yell at lawyers. I don’t practice criminal law, but in the New York courts that I have practiced in, sometimes being berated by the judge for the way you have conducted your case is part of the job.
You’re there to present your client’s case as effectively as you can, and if sometimes it doesn’t go in cleanly, you have to just take the judges ire.
That being said, I would find it very unusual if the judge yelled at a lawyer in open court with a jury present. When the judge is in chambers or discussing a motion outside the jury’s presence, a little judicial anger is fine. To yell at a laywer in front of a jury, however, would likely be grounds for a mistrial.
By the way, in the New York Supreme Court (the state’s court of general jurisdiction which tries felonies like those on Law & Order), each judge’s section of court is assigned a Part Number. For instance, in Manhattan Supreme, Justice York has part 2, Justice Stackhouse has part 15, Justice Solomon has Part 55, etc. There are also special parts like the Ex Parte Motion Part and the Trial Assignment Part for specific functions.
In L&O, the judicial chastisement happens at the arraignment so no jury is present. I would think the open criticism is meant as a dramatic point, afterall they only have an hour to show crime-investigation-arraignment-trial-verdict. If there were any further judicial criticism on the show past the arraigment, it was usually done in the judges chambers or in a sidebar.