We’ll have to disagree about that.
Webb was going to use the same style for the “Emergency!” pilot movie. Fortunately, Jim Page – who helped inspire the show – was able to talk Webb out of doing that. Webb even allowed Page to reprogram the TelePrompter. (pages 12 & 14).
Well, maybe in the past, but Blue bloods is recent times.
“It’s got a cop motor, a four-hundred-and-forty cubic inch plant, it’s got cop tires,
cop suspension, cop shocks, it was a model made before catalytic converters so it’ll
run good on regular gas. What do you say? Is it the new Bluesmobile or what?”
There’s an episode that takes place over 3 weeks in a night school classroom. Just about everybody (about 12 students plus Jack and the ‘professor’) is wearing the exact same outfit every class. It’s easy to spot because many of them are typically ‘groovy’ and ‘far out’. Even Jack sports a bright red cardigan…every night.
Since he was the former husband of jazz legend Julie London, I would certainly hope so.
I finally got around to looking these up:
In the landmark 1965 case People v. Dorado, the California Supreme Court ruled that a confession obtained during police interrogation is inadmissible if the suspect was not advised of their right to counsel and their right to remain silent. (must just be luck of the draw that you get your Miranda Warning, and not your Dorado Warning?)
In People v. Morse (1964), the California Supreme Court ruled that it was improper for a jury to consider the possibility of parole, clemency, or the “protection of society” when deciding between a death penalty or life sentence in capital murder cases. (I don;t know how that hurts police work, if a guy gets life in prison or death.)
The ruling in Escobedo v Illinois applied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in interrogations. In particular, the Court established that after an arrest a suspect has the right to request a lawyer during police interrogations, even if the suspect has not been formally charged.
The Cahan ruling (People v. Cahan, 1955) was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of California that adopted the exclusionary rule in state courts. It established that evidence obtained in violation of constitutional search and seizure protections cannot be used against a defendant in a criminal trial. (Referred to as ‘the fruit of the poisoned tree’ at Law & Order law school. 
)
Oh my GOD Friday! It’s all such liberal whiny-ness. Might as well give the skells, the crooks, the dirtbags, the pimps, abusers, rapists, murderers, a cookie and a free ride home. Cops can’t do their jobs if they have to be restrained by librul judges. Probably Bidumb appointees, amirite!
I’m with you. The scene in the men’s room when Friday arrests the Reverend is Pants-Pissing funny!
Watched some more this morning and it reminded me of one of the things I hate about the dialogue. Someone will be speaking and say something like
“They had one thing in common”
(pause for around half a second)
Someone else jumps in and says
“What’s that?”
The “what’s that?” response comes too quickly for the listener to have digested what they are hearing. It is like (and is) that they were waiting to immediately say their line the moment the pause happens.
Plus, do they actually need to ask that, or are they just interrupting the speaker? If they hadn’t jumped in to say “what’s that?” would that have been the end of their statement and they both just stand there staring at each other in awkward silence?
“French horns!”
Its almost like back in those days the writers didn’t quite believe the audience knew how to watch TV drama. So the writers believed they had to help the audience along with extra exposition, extra cues on when to decide about what was just said, when to laugh, etc.
Given the rapidly exploding number of families with TVs post WW-II and continuing into the 1960s, I’m not sure the writers were all that wrong.
Here in the 2020s we may have gotten rid of a lot of that cruft, but laugh tracks are still with us. Hint to writers & directors everywhere: I can decide when I want to laugh without your help. Really.
But much less common than they used to be.
Now it is a studio audience with the laughter “enriched” more often. Since there is a studio audience , they can claim the sitcom is laugh track free.
…& replaced it with reality TV. 
From a mechanical point of view, teasing out all the dialogue piece by piece like that with all those back and forth shots could have been done in order to make editing the show a little easier. If they were running long or short on time, they could trim or pad out some of those “What’s that?” exchanges.
But I also think it might be some kind of meta-commentary by Webb on how people ramble on and never get to the point and how that must really annoy cops who are interested in just the facts.
Yep. As we see on the Dope where some folk’s OPs amount to stream of consciousness exposition around whatever it is they are thinking, but lacking lots of context that’s only in their head, never getting to the screen.