zlacker

I’m sure the dozens of TV shows don’t help this either. Law and Order is never wrong and their science and methods are flawless. Obviously I’m being sarcastic, but I think it clouds the jury’s thought process

>>jdechk+(OP)
Yup. Known as the CSI effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect

>>jdechk+(OP)
The original Law and Order was good, not perfect, but quite good. They tried to follow the procedures and most of the proof were real. Each story was original. (IIRC. IANAL. And perhaps a few more disclaimers.)

The spin-offs are bad. The suspects are interrogated until they confess, and nobody cares if they have no lawyer or they use dubios evidence.

>>ceejay+56
I was on a jury last month, an assault and battery case in which the identification of the rusty-colored substance on the grip of a handgun could easily make a big difference. We convicted on the assault and acquitted on the battery because of the lack of the evidence, though I think most of us thought the defendant was guilty of both.

This was the second try at this case after a prior jury hung, but the two years between the charge and the second trial were not enough to get _any_ results back on the substance. Apparently the lead time required is such that they didn't bother to try. Here's how they explained that: "This isn't CSI."

>>gus_ma+p8
It was embellished a little, and there were some procedural flaws, but it was an order of magnitude more realistic than subsequent L&O shows.

For the cops, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, the show doesn't give the proper sense of immense caseload. Each episode feels like they're focused 100% on a single thing, when in reality they're probably juggling dozens, and stretched thin.

The cop side of things in L&O is fairly unrealistic, but imo in more minor ways for pacing than anything egregious.

The prosecutors of course don't get called on 4th/5th amendment violations as they normally would, and my memory is the defendant testifies way too frequently (for homicide cases, in that time priod). And it doesn't do a realistic depiction of the rate at which people get completely screwed over by corruption. And it doesn't do a great job pointing out how often prosecutors will take cases prioritized for their own political careers.

I am not a lawyer, and the lawyers I watched L&O with were civil litigators not criminal litigators, so some of my perspective is probably off (though I suspect in ways that are more favorable to the show). Also it was like 25 years ago? Lol

>>dmoy+Pe
L&O does seem to showcase the attitude of laws as inconveniences to be sidestepped, by way of sophistry, and conduct worse than the defendant.

>>hirund+Id
If two years is not enough lead time someone is not doing their job.

>>Aeolun+bL
Agree. I could understand if the expense of a DNA analysis sufficient to identify only the victim could be more than the county could afford for a battery case. But not trying to even identify it as blood, let alone human blood, just seems lazy. Here's what the prosecutor gave us in place of that: "If it smells like a skunk, it's a skunk, you don't have to see it." I was thinking that I smelled one and was looking at it.