I was expecting Castle to tell Scary Old Irish Crook who had pulled in the drugs that were on his turf, and who had likewise killed one of his men. I figured Scary Old Irish Crook would have the appropriate response to having an Irishman as the culprit, especially an Irishman who killed his own brother.

I quite liked the fact that the chief hood was old, it speaks to an appreciation of decades of evil-doing.

I was so afraid they'd have Kate do the standard "Here's my badge, I'm going after the guy who perpetrated-the-defining-crisis-of-my-life" moment.

I really like that Castle is a real person. I liked that when he reared back and busted the guy in the nose, he hurt the back of his head, and looked surprised that it hurt.

"You were like Steven Segall."

"Is that a compliment?"

OK, a quick questions for lawyers. A recent episode of a show that may or may not belong in procedurals had a plot where a character Videotaped his crime, and the videotape ended up the hands of his lawyer. The lawyer (according to the show) was required by legal ethics to keep this videotape confidential, but chose human ethics over legal ethics (because in Hollywood defense lawyers are not human) and anonymously mailed the tapes to the prosecutor.

IANAL. But the problem with this plot point, as I understand it, is that physical evidence is NOT covered by Lawyer-Client confidentialiy. The defense attorney in fact had a legal obligation to turn over these videotapes to the prosecution, and thus faced no ethical dilemma. True? Or has show got legal ethics right, and I have legal ethics wrong? Buffista lawyers?

IANAL. But the problem with this plot point, as I understand it, is that physical evidence is NOT covered by Lawyer-Client confidentialiy. The defense attorney in fact had a legal obligation to turn over these videotapes to the prosecution, and thus faced no ethical dilemma. True? Or has show got legal ethics right, and I have legal ethics wrong? Buffista lawyers?

The answer, as it always is, is "it depends". The rules say that communications are confidential. I would not consider a videotape of the crime a communication, but you could maybe say that it was communication if the client gave the lawyer the tape. How did the lawyer get the tape?

The Lawyer got permission from the client to search the clients house in case there was incriminating evidence, and the search team found the videotapes.

Thanks for asking this, Typo. I was arguing with my TV on this same point.

I'm wondering if this is enough info for a definitive answer?

The Lawyer got permission from the client to search the clients house in case there was incriminating evidence, and the search team found the videotapes.

Hmm, it's a bit analagous to the client giving the attorney the murder weapon. I'd think that it's a case where if you have to worry about whether there is privilege, assume it attaches. As I recall, the only exceptions to privilege (and this varies by jurisdiction) are if there is if the attorney believes that there is imminent harm to another person.

I can't believe I am taking the bar again. Anyway, I think that if the lawyer had found a gun, he would have to turn it over. So a videotape is an object, not a communication (or so the prosecutor would argue). At least that's how I would write a bar question on the topic. (of course, you could also argue that the tape was a communication somehow. Although why a clent would ask an attorney to search his house when guilty, I don't know.)

eta: not any gun but as Vortex says, the murder weapon gun.