Last night, I watched Law and Order for the first time since the new season started.
About two-thirds into the show, right when the lawyers were discussing Fiona Reed’s age, I fell asleep.
What was the resolution of Reed’s and the other guy’s cases?
Thanks, y’all,
Robin
Brief synopsis:
They went to trial, defense psychiatrist (not Skoda) explained that in her mental state she had no idea she was not a 16 year old.
McCoy questioned Fiona, she said she had no knowledge of being Marguerite. McCoy asked for a recess til the next day.
Everyone was called in for a meeting, McCoy revealed that he had evidence that Fiona had used her Marguerite drivers license in the bar at Milford. That she was screwed because her lawyer could no loner use an insanity defense because it would be unethical.
Fiona said it didn’t matter, she didn’t need a lawyer, everyone would believe her over the teacher.
Her foster mother (who had been present the whole time) said that they would believe her testimony.
Fiona took a deal (I forget for what). All charges against Boz (the teacher) were dropped.
IIRC the deal was for 8 1/2 to 16 years.
When McCoy revealed that she used her other driver’s license, the actress playing Fiona acted all confused, then did an about face and said “You’re good.” Her lawyer’s jaw dropped b/c she had been duped into thinking her client was crazy. Good scene.
BTW, wasn’t the actress that played the defense lawyer the neighbor in that Sopranos episode where she also played her twin sister and Carmella wanted her to write a letter of recommendation for Meadow to get into Columbia?
Am I the only one getting creepy Jack and Serena vibes? He kept harping on her having sex on prom night and they are starting to act like an old married couple. Elisabeth Rohm is growing on me kind of and last night was by far her best performance. Her breasts are all over the place this season too.
I brought that up in an earlier L&P thread, stylize. I noticed last week also that she’s getting a little more flirty this season. As for her breasts, at least she hasn’t shown up in that white blackjack dealer coat with black lapels she wore all the time last season…
Fiona’s motive for killing the teacher was because they had previously been teacher and student in Milford; Fiona could no longer stick with the claim of being 16 as long as Teacher knew her as a student from before.
Haven’t watched Law and Order in a while, but I thought this was a really good episode. Fiona was equally believable as a 16-year-old and as a 20-something psycho (although there was one shot of her where it flitted through my brain that she looked like she was in her 20s. It didn’t stick, though, and I was surprised at the end).
Yeah, but what was her motive for posing as a high school student over and over? Jack implied she was a scam artist, but who was she scamming? The foster family?
Seems like a pretty good scam to me for someone living on the streets - free room and board, manipulate teachers and other students, live with no responsibility and no care about the future, and then move on and do it again for four more years…
There was an article in Salon about the case that I’m guessing the L&O was based on.
Did anyone catch the name of the actress playing the defense attorney? She seemed so familiar…I know I’ve seen her elsewhere (and not on the Sopranos!).
She could easily get work portraying Julia Robert’s little sister…
This had me scratching my head. What, exactly, could the foster mom testify to? What she heard in the meeting?? Could that be introduced at trial?
Minty? Jodi? Bricker?
Sure! I can see the scene now as the conversation is intoduced:
Defense Attorney: Objection! Hearsay.
McCoy: Declaration against penal interest, your honor.
Judge: Overruled!
I’ve been watching this show too much!
Susan Floyd.
IMDB gives this: http://us.imdb.com/Name?Floyd,+Susan
She’s a LOT more attractive than Julia Roberts.
I didn’t see the end of the show.
While Labdad is correct in saying that an out-of-court statement, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule if it was an admission against the declarent’s penal interest, other conditions must also be met – for example, the declarant must be unavailable to testify concerning the matter.
The statement might also be offered into evidence not for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement, but to impeach an inconsistent statement made by the accused. In other words, if she testified, “I’ve never heard the name Marguerite,” and then said, out of court, “Yes, I used ID in the name of Marguerite, and claimed to be her,” the latter statement may be introduced against her by someone that heard her say it, not for the truth of whether she actually DID use false ID, but for the inconsistency in her two claims.
A statement admitted in this way is not an exception to the hearsay rule… it’s not hearsay at all.