# The law of "Law & Order" - New York & criminal  law types help

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-law-of-law-order-new-york-criminal-law-types-help/554455>\
**Category:** Cafe Society\
**Created:** [September 20, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-law-of-law-order-new-york-criminal-law-types-help/554455 "2010-09-20T20:22:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-law-of-law-order-new-york-criminal-law-types-help/554455/21 "2010-09-23T14:27:13Z")

</div>

Just to emphasize.

> [@](#):
>
> First of all, my understanding, which is entirely casual and comes from TV, is that spouses may refuse to testify against one another - it’s a choice, not a mandate.

The spousal immunity right is exercised by the defendant, not the person testifying. You can’t convict me through testimony of my wife, even if my wife is willing to do it.

For further information about state court names – [State court - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_court#Nomenclature)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@dzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzero)\
**Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-law-of-law-order-new-york-criminal-law-types-help/554455/22 "2010-09-24T02:26:49Z")

</div>

Police can, incident to an arrest, search the area under an arrestee’s immediate control - chimel v. california - [Search Incident to Arrest - United States Constitution](http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendment-04/14-search-incident-to-arrest.html)

although the “bright-line” idea of Belton (see above) would seem to be inconsistent with that approach.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-law-of-law-order-new-york-criminal-law-types-help/554455/23 "2010-09-25T16:42:15Z")

</div>

> [@DoctorJ](#):
>
> If I can add a query…there’s a courtroom trope that I’ve seen all over but mostly on L&O that has never rung true to me. Let’s say the defense attorney is cross-examining a witness:
> 
> DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Now, isn’t it true that you like to molest goats in your spare time?  
> PROSECUTOR: Objection!  
> DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Withdrawn.
> 
> This was clearly an attempt to say something to the jury that they weren’t supposed to hear. Is this common in real courtrooms, or would real judges smack this down?

Something like that can happen, but it’s not nearly as common as it is on television. A lawyer who makes a habit of that is risking a judicial ass chewing (or even worse, an appellate ass chewing). I can think of times I’ve seen somebody try to get something in they know full well is objectionable, though. I saw the punishment phase of a death penalty trial when I was a kid (literally, like mid teens) where a psychiartrist was testifiying for the state who was notorious for providing such testimony. When the prosecutors passed the witness, the very first question the defense attorney asked was “You’re referred to in the newspapers as “Doctor Death,” aren’t you?”, which caused the prosecutor to be on his feet objecting in a matter of seconds.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-law-of-law-order-new-york-criminal-law-types-help/554455.md?page=1)