Hee.

Meanwhile, enjoyable change in format tonight. Although, I don't think I'd want every week to be based around a trial.

Oh! That's who that is. I kept mixing him up with the guy from Buck Rogers.

Ah, yes, Gil Gerard. Did he ever do anything again?

eta: Huh, he's got a TV movie coming out this year, Bone Eater Sounds like porn to me.

It is a nice change of pace to see it from the trial--and I agree, I'd rather keep it in the field, usually. But it's interesting to see things from a different perspective--especially because the trial usually shows up on Law and Order, not The Closer!

Who thinks Schaefer did it?

Any lawyers want to weigh in on how the dog hair got admitted? Can excluded evidence be put back in play that easily? And if so, how bone-headed was the defense lawyer acting? It's interesting that Brenda was treating the defense lawyer the same way she treats suspects—she got him to admit something that he didn't want to.

Who thinks Schaefer did it?

He's guilty of something; if not murder, then obstruction. He might be covering for the wife or something.

I'm with Tom-- there is something coming - a twist - it's the wife or the ex-gf or something.

DH interviewed VK last week -- I'ma xpost in the B&A thread because he also talks about AtS.

[eta: And, heh, this is a quote about playing Connor, but it's SUCH a Pete Campbell thing to say:

I showed up to play that character and I had a lot of ideas. And they didn’t like any of those ideas. That’s okay, I’m in the business of having my ideas rejected. But after about 7 or 8 episodes of coming in with ideas and realizing it just didn’t matter, I became really complacent and jaded and angry at the project.]

The defense lawyer said "did you find ANY evidence that links my client to the crime" Brenda didn't answer and the judge instructed her to do so. The lawyer opened the door. I think it's an appealable issue, though. But, what the hell do I know.

Yeah, it's like the attorney didn't know the answer to the question - it's not so much that it wouldn't work - it just seems unlikely that a good defense attorney would let that slip by. Particularly since there was probably some ruling that said that the evidence wasn't allowed.

Yeah, it's like the attorney didn't know the answer to the question - it's not so much that it wouldn't work - it just seems unlikely that a good defense attorney would let that slip by. Particularly since there was probably some ruling that said that the evidence wasn't allowed.

No probably about it. however, if the defense asks a question, the witness is allowed to answer it. In this case, he just got caught up and asked the wrong question.

An interview with JK Simmons.