I’m a computer geek who enjoys watching all the Law & Order reruns I can get. I once remember hearing that it’s more close to reality than other, similar shows. However, the blatent use of computers and the Internet as a recurring deus ex machina annoys me to no end. That portion of the show is so horribly innaccurate, so it really makes me wonder about the portrayl of homicide investigations and criminal prosecutions.
FWIW, former Senator [Fred Dalton Thompson](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred Dalton Thompson) is a Doctor of Law.
I recall one episode in which L&O asserted that there is no right against self-incrimination in the US military. That’s 100% inaccurate.
Having said that, I thoroughly enjoy the series. Actually, I’m fairly addicted to it.
And one of the detectives now on the show was a policeman in a previous career.
Um, it’s kinda accurate. I don’t watch the original recipe very much (I’m more likely to watch SVu when I watch at all, and that’s much more focused on the police side). But when I do watch the original show, my experience is that they treat issues that really come up in a case (hearsay, serving of warrants, 5th A. rights), but they don’t treat them very well.
–Cliffy
My overall impression is much the same as Cliffy’s, with the caveat that I’ve never been a huge fan of the show, and I’m a long ways away from my experience with criminal law and the police. The big problems are that
(a) for an hour long show, without continuing story lines, that looks at both the police and the prosecutors, you’re going to have to do a lot of simplification; and
(b) much of real law and police work is pretty boring, so the writers naturally punch it up a bit.
For example, every TV court I’ve ever seen has lawyers nattering back and forth at each other without paying any attention to whose turn it is to address the judge. I doubt that that’s permitted in an American court room any more than a Canadian one, but it’s the easiest way to advance the story.
One error I’ve seen repeatedly goes as follows.
Attorney: Blah blah inappropriate question blah blah
Opposing attorney: Objection!
Judge: Sustained.
IIRC, the attorney must state a reason for the objection. Merely saying “Objection” doesn’t get a ruling from the judge. The attorney has to explain the objection.
In the one trial I served on as a juror, all objections were resolved with whispered conferences at the bench. You don’t see the courtroom antics of arguments between the lawyers.
As to locations - the impressive judicial edifice they often use is the civil branch at 60 Centre Street. The criminal courts are at 100 and 111 Centre street and are terribly dingy. 100 Centre especially. The architecture is ugly, the elevators suck (not that they play a role in anything), the lighting is bad, and it looks like the place hasn’t had a coat of paint since the '60’s. The dinginess is so overwhelming it even makes the lawyers, judges, and other employees look dingy.
There’s an odd little ritual I’ve often wondered about, one you’ll sometimes see on Law and Order and other similar programs. The ritual goes like this:
[ol]
[li]The jury returns to the courtroom, having finished deliberating.[/li][li]Judge asks the jury foreman, “Have you reached a verdict?”[/li][li]Foreman says, “We have, your Honor”. And then — instead of reciting the verdict — hands a slip of paper to the bailiff officer.[/li][li]Bailiff hands the paper to the judge.[/li][li]Judge reads the paper. Furrows his/her brow. Perhaps guffaws. But finally addresses the foreman, “How do you find the defendant?”[/li][li]The jury foreman now recites the verdict.[/li][/ol]
So does this happen in real courtrooms, or is it in the show only to build dramatic tension? If it does happen, what’s the point? Why does the judge want a couple minutes of private time with the verdict? Does this quirky courtroom procedure exist in some U.S. states and not others?
i just recently served on a jury (in TX) and our foreman did not speak the verdict at all : The verdict was returned to to the baliff, then to the judge, who read over it then read it outloud. The verdict form also included the sentence.
There are some reasons for having the judge read it over – he can make sure the form is filled out correctly, or that the correct form was filled out (we had a “guilty” and a “not guilty” form with specific questions and blanks on each)
In the federal court trial I was in, the verdict was given to the court clerk, who read it aloud. IIRC, that’s what happened in the OJ Simpson trial too.
As far as the judge reading it first, I assume that’s just to make sure all the I’s were dotted and T’s were crossed, everything filled out correctly? Or does s/he get a sneak peek because s/he’s The Judge?
This is what happened when I was a juror too. The jury didn’t get to hear the lawyers argue with the judge. We were only told whether the objection was sustained or overruled.
I don’t remember the exact protocol when we reached our verdict. Sorry.
I served on a jury in NYC and the foreman read the verdict.
I may be under a mistaken impression, but I think it’s a lot harder for even pricy hotshot attorneys to get evidence thrown out than they show on L&O. In fact, the rules of evidence as shown are so restrictive that it’s a rare episode where poor McCoy gets to use anything but half-baked eyewitness testimony (I feel sorry for the poor guy!)
Er… sometimes.
Sometimes the grounds for an objection are obvious to all concerned. In those cases, it’s not unheard of for an attorney to simply say “Objection.” If there is any ambiguity, or the slightest chance that your grounds are unclear, and you wish to preserve your objection for appeal, you certainly need to state grounds. But in many instances, the reason for a specific objection is obvious and the judge will rule on it immediately.
Do they not need to state the reason for the objection to get it into the transcripts?
What you described above is exactly what happens in a trial, particularly in motion practice (the show sometimes show motion practice, but it’s always in judge’s chambers in private, which was rare for me). Depending on the judge, it’s pretty obvious to all parties involved (well, the lawyers and the judge, possibly the clerk and bailiff if they’re smart and/or experienced) why there is an objection. Proper form dictates that the lawyer should state the reason for the objection; but, if it is repeatedly the same objection, or in the same context, merely stating an objection will suffice. It saves time not having to explain yourself. If the judge overrules the exception, the objecting lawyer may ask on what grounds, and object for a different reason. Likewise, the opposing lawyer may ask why an objection is sustained.
To avoid a mistrial, in my experience, it was safer to approach the bench to hammer out the objection. Also, you don’t want to look bad in front of the jury. If you think you can score points and the issue of law isn’t going to unfairly prejudice the jury, arguing out loud saves time. Often, though, such discussion of issues are procedure rules of law and nothing too substantive.
If the objection was overruled, and the objecting side wants to preserve the issue for appeal, yes. Otherwise… eh. Why waste the time?
Only if your objection is overruled.
The idea of speaking your objection is that you allow the judge to consider it at the time when he can easily take corrective measures (like ordering the witness not to answer and opposing counsel to move on). As opposed to letting it fester until appeal, when you don’t actually know if that error was the thing that tipped the jury and when both parties as well as the State have spent a ton more money on it anyway. So if a piece of testimony is objectionable, you must object at the time to give the trial judge the immediate opportunity to solve the problem. If he doesn’t do that, your objection is on the record, and you can use that point on your appeal. So if you win your objection, you don’t care what the transcript says – you got the evidence out that you wanted out. If you lose, that’s when you need to make sure the grounds of your objection are well-set-out in the transcript so that when you go to the appeals court, it will see that you offered the trial judge the opportunity to correct error immediately.
–Cliffy
It also prevents you from “gaming” the system… if you see an error, you might be tempted to think, “Well, I’ll leave it alone and let’s see what happens. Maybe I’ll get an acquittal anyway. And if I don’t, I can complain about the error on appeal!” But you can’t do that - by failing to speak up at the time the error happens, you generally[sup]*[/sup] lose the right to complain about it on appeal. And of course, if you timely object and the judge cures the error, then you can’t complain about it on appeal either.
So you can’t have it both ways – if you want to take the position that the error should be fixed, you can’t wait until you’re arguing to the appellate court to do so.
[sup][/sup](Certain errors are so egregious that they are exempt from this rule, at leat to a limited extent.)*