I have seen it on Blue Bloods and the regular L&O.
IIRC, they did a Law & Order episode where the interrogators eventually get a whiny eighteen-year-old to confess while cheerfully ignoring the way he keeps asking for his mom; the reason that episode managed to fill an entire hour was that — well, his mom is a lawyer, and so the court ruled that he was asking for a lawyer, and so the confession gets ruled to be inadmissible.
To be fair, there are undoubtedly a wide variety of explosive events that would kill a person without damaging their eyes.
If it happened in a major movie, yeah-- this was in a series, albeit starring Lucy Lawless, I don’t think has much of a US following. You have to subscribe to Acorn streaming service (totally worth it, BTW) to see it in the US, unless you cable service happens to sell each season at a time.
Right now, I think only Aus and NZ can see it broadcast-- unless the BBC is buying it.
It’s a great show, notwithstanding this one ending. Lawless is fantastic.
I’m sure that there are some Annie Oakley types who could pull it off - the kind of people who can hit targets over their shoulder using a mirror, stuff like that.
That said, if the hole was big enough and the pistol had a laser sight, any reasonable shooter could hit the target. At that range it’s just point and click.
The person confessing already has already been shown to have committed the crime. Perry comes up with a logical explanation as to why the person did it before they confess. They can be charged on the basis of that evidence, not the confession.
And the evidence and the confession create reasonable doubt. Burger has no reason to try Mason’s clien; he can’t win. He can prosecute the one with confessed without the confession.
A false confession wouldn’t have the evidence and would be prosecued as such.
However, finding out in open court that someone else did it- by a true confession- is such a rare thing. Most of Masons cases would not be in the actual courtroom, Mason would meet with Burger and present his evidence, and Burger would drop the case.
Though Trudy is by canon left in a condition bad enough that “she faked her death” was considered possible, so “explosion left her head intact” is unlikely.
It’s known as “dramatic licence.” Would you prefer to see a show consisting of Mason presenting affidavits to Burger?
Also, Mason doesn’t know have any basis for reasonable doubt until he hears the testimony from the various witnesses. Heathen spots the discrepancies. Would the show be improved by watching him reading dispositions?
On a case by case episode basis, no. In the aggregate, totally. Law and Order can make dramatic episodes based on evidence, dispositions, and plea arrangements.
And don’t forget, people were wondering about Burger’s skill when the show was still on the air.
In all fairness to ‘Ham’ Burger and Lt. Tragg, the accused always had circumstantial evidence pointing to him/her. They were following the evidence that was known to them. Unlike real life (and this is based on being an ID addict), Burger always seemed to accept that Mason had smoked out the right person. From what I’ve seen on some crime docs, even after evidence shows up that exonerates a convicted or shows that there was reasonable doubt, judges and prosecutors don’t like to admit they were wrong.
I always wanted to see Mason take the case of the person he just got to confess. He should be able to get him or her acquitted. Shouldn’t he?
How do you make an aggregate unless you’re showing it each case? Would showing it in even one case be better drama than showing the confession? Better TV?
I don’t remember a specific episode. Wikipedia currently reports 512 episodes so far. But Law & Order took huge liberties in the trials.
ADA Jack McCoy often brings up material that may not get in that wins his case.
I guess Evidentiary hearings would take away too much time from the plot.
I’m not sure; the odds are pretty good that the followup trial will take place on a Tuesday, maybe a Wednesday…
That might be a conflict of interest.
You can tell a transplanted cornea from the star pattern of the stitches.
Sorry for the quick factor there.
They have scars upon thars?
So Monk might have subconsciously noted both the stitches and the tattoo date and thought of Trudy without knowing why. Could have been explained better.
That does not change the fact that a cornea does not do a goddam thing for RP.