I don’t expect TV shows to be letter-perfect on matters of law. Unless of course the writers are actually lawyers. But when they do things that even from watching episodes of L&O they should know better than to do, I find it very irritating. How hard is it, even for TV writers, to figure out things like that in a trial the defense doesn’t go first?*
*Yes, the prosecution can call rebuttal witnesses to impeach the defense, but since covering up the affair with Lilly was the motive for killing her, the aggravated assault Aaron was charged with was (presumably) against Veronica and he was charged with statutory rape based on the tapes, Veronica, Keith and Logan can’t be rebuttal witnesses.
I understand the DA impuning V’s and Logan’s testimony - V for her “questionable sexual past” (btw - if she got it from Duncan - did he get it from Charisma’s character? I guess that answers the question of whether or not they actually ever got it on) and Logan for his own checkered past of run ins with the law. Also they’re both ‘kids’ (even tho of age) and therefore not to be taken at their word. In the TV universe, adults never believe young folk (unless said young folk is under the age of 10. In TVU, pre-teens and teens are notorious liars, especially in courtroom dramas)
I missed the first 10 minutes of last week’s episode, so I didn’t know about the VD until this week. I was really puzzed as to why Veronica asked Logan who else Duncan had been seeing.
I’m feeling a little dense-- when Kendall took the hair from Duncan’s shower, is that the clip they keep showing during the “previously on VM” bits? I always thought she was okanting something, like a recording device, underneath the shower grate.
Oh, and poor Jackie and Wallace!
If (as I suspect) the baby isn’t Duncan’s, then what happens to it? I think Duncan will return it, but to who? The Mannings? Will he get arrested for kidnapping?
Duncan’s 100% stuck with that baby forever, and a fugitive. You don’t get a “get out of jail free” if it turns out the baby you kidnapped and removed from the country isn’t yours.
Otto, I don’t expect the legal stuff to be 100% perfect either, but the points you made were what I’m talking about. I just want them to get the basic stuff right since many of us TV viewers have been attended Dick Wolf’s Law School for that past 15 years or so.
True enough, but if I were Duncan’s TV lawyer, I’d make the argument that Duncan was acting out of fear for the baby’s safety. If Grampa and Dad are the same guy, it’s not unreasonable to think that leaving a female child with him would be a grotesque mistake. That, plus a billion dollars, would most likely take care of Duncan’s legal problems.
But since Teddy Dunn is off to law school or some damn thing, we’ve probably seen the last of Duncan and the little Lilly.
Speaking of Kane men and their legal problems, I wonder if we’ll be seeing the return of Jake Kane next season? IIRC he was up the coast somewhere awaiting his turn in the dock for obstruction of justice for his part in the Abel Koontz confession. With Aaron slithering out of the net, I can see the DA either going for broke to convict Jake or letting it go as a waste of time. But he probably wouldn’t see any jail time anyway, because, you know, billion dollars.
We could see Jake Kane again, given that* Commander in Chief* is now cancelled and leaves Kyle Secor more available than he was this year. I don’t know where he’d fit into the story, but I’m always happy to see him. I loved him on Homicide.
I watched the replay of the ep last night, and a thought occurred to me: the prosecution seemed to base its case, at least as far as the statutory rape charge, on Veronica’s and Logan’s testimony of what they saw on the missing tapes. Question: these tapes were in police custody for a period of time. Didn’t anyone in the Sherriff’s department view the tapes during that time? Maybe I missed something from an earlier episode, but it seems like when evidence like that comes to light, the first thing that would happen would be someone at the station viewing the contents of the tapes. So then isn’t there someone in the department (Lamb, perhaps?) who could corroborate the kids’ account of what was on the tapes?
This would be no small matter. I recently got called for jury duty, and a lot of the questioning of potential jurors revolved around the possible testimony of a number of police officers. The gist tended to be that, except for the jurors who had personal biases against the cops, police testimony seems to be accepted as more rock solid than that of the average witness.
So I think, if the Sherriff or a deputy testified that he too saw the same thing as Veronica and Logan, it would have been almost impossible to get an acquittal for Aaron, at least on the rape charge. Is this an oversight by the writers, or something that is explained by the storyline back several episodes (or even a season) ago?
Unless the deputy who watched the tapes was Leo. I don’t think the testimony of a deputy who sold evidence to the highest bidder would be worth much. (Plus, did we ever find out who leaked the first video - of Lilly’s body? That sheriff’s department has quite a problem holding onto evidence.)
If Lamb was the only one who saw the tapes, he may have a reason, albeit a corrupt one, for not coming forward. Or maybe he was deep into the campaign and shelved it, intending to come back to it later
I sort of assume the writers have just missed it. If it was a ‘why aren’t the police testifying to the contents’ aspect of the case, why wouldn’t Veronica have noticed?
I think we can all agree that the trial was a pretty shoddy piece of storyline, not up to the usual standards. Too quick, too many holes. Maybe it’s just a case of, we knew where it was going to wind up, come hell or high water–Aaron acquitted–so what’s the point of getting too nuanced with details? I guess.
A scant nine hours away now. Maybe if I fall asleep at my desk I can wake up just in time for the show…