It would have worked better, if the case was different, with the righteous person standing accused, and Veronica hypothesized them to reasonable doubt and acquittal, instead of into a conviction.
Well, not *just*
better.
It's appropriate for jurors to hypothesize their way into reasonable doubt. It's
not
appropriate for them to hypothesize their way into beyond reasonable doubt. ESPECIALLY using evidence acquired outside of trial. The jury's burden is not to send guilty people to prison and exonerate the innocent: it's to decide whether or not the government has proved a case against the defendants.
Not only is deciding based on outside research classic error, but Veronica can't reasonably bring her suspicion of witness tampering and perjury to the police-- because it should reveal exactly how that verdict came about. No, what she's done, is created an instantly overturned verdict which would lead to a later acquittal.
Anyway. It's just a show. Just my ish with the presumption that a jury has limitless discretion.
Well, not *just* better. It's appropriate for jurors to hypothesize their way into reasonable doubt. It's not appropriate for them to hypothesize their way into beyond reasonable doubt. ESPECIALLY using evidence acquired outside of trial. The jury's burden is not to send guilty people to prison and exonerate the innocent: it's to decide whether or not the government has proved a case against the defendants.
Right. Maybe I should have just said, "It might have worked, if..."
I'm trying to write up a recappy sort of commentary for my LJ, right now, and every time I get to a scene that involves the trial, I basically give a small fact, and then say, "But I really don't want to talk about trial details." They just didn't work.
Episode eh -- I too was bothered by the "12 Angry Men" reverse. However, the defendants have pretty close to a slam-dunk appeal unless VM told the judge about the PCHer's attempt to intimidate her. (And I'll just skip over Keith's attempt at jury tampering.)
Oh, um, NO ONE MADE A COPY OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN A MURDER TRIAL? Well, ok then. If the defense didn't have a chance to examine and test the authenticity of the tapes, then this prosecution is in some trouble.
Meg. Oh, poor dead (maybe) dear. Yet, she looked pretty good for a woman who feel over a cliff and was in a coma for a few months. I do wonder if it's Duncan's kid though -- that dad is way creepy.
NO ONE MADE A COPY OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN A MURDER TRIAL?
They did. He just stole all the copies, because...because...I have no idea.
Yeah, that was lame.
I wonder if they ever store copies of important evidence in more than one location?
And wouldn't the prosecution have it? Or does the evidence stay in lock-up while the prosecution is preparing it's case?
Narrator's right. Defense would have a copy, assuming the prosecutor has started turning stuff over. It's not exculpatory, though.
There is the possibility that they gave us a crap episode so we wouldn't miss it so much over the break? At least I have the return of Wallace to anticipate in January!
Yeah. Lamb looked good in this episode
I felt oddly pandered to there.
I felt oddly pandered to there.
Like, they're usually not so, uh, naked about it? Yeah, that scene was really off in the interaction between the two, too.
As I'm reading the TWoP boards I'm remembering all the other "off" things. Like Veronica's reaction to anything Duncan did.
But I chalk it all up to the timing of the episode.
