MovieChat Forums > The Defenders (2010) Discussion > Terrible...they need a real lawyer to he...

Terrible...they need a real lawyer to help write the scripts

posted 14 years ago by tdvda
7 replies | jump to latest

I had high hopes for this show but after catching the first episode I was extremely disappointed.

I lost track of how many times opposing counsel failed to make objections to Hearsay, Leading Questions and questions that Assume Facts not in Evidence.

That didnt bug so much, I was able to look past it considering it is quite possible a lot of those matters were handled in a motion limine not depicted in the show (for time and flow reasons obviously)

However, I lost it when Jim Belushi violated "The Golden Rule" also known as the Golden Argument Rule. A lawyer is not allowed to directly ask jurors to put themselves in the position or prospective of the defendant because that is prejudicial and could possibly make their judgment be based on EMOTION instead of facts and evidence.

The second Belushi did this there would have been an objection and a mistrial without question.

Hopefully in future episodes there will be at least a little more research in the Federal and Nevada rules of Evidence.

[–] pope_duke 14 years ago

Hmmm, well, I suspect they are more interested in dramatic entertainment than following the strict rules of the court. They are going for more mass appeal, and in the same vein, trying to appeal emotionally to the audience. It is quite contrived, but it's obvious they expect it to work for them.

[–] NickiDrea 14 years ago

Agreed and Law and Order: SVU must also have fired their legal adviser because they are making legal and Constitutional mistakes left and right that are pretty blatant.

I'll volunteer to do it... six classes of evidence + 4 years of trial lawyering does teach one a bit about evidence and trial practice.

"Proud to be a PD!!!"

[–] tdvda 14 years ago

Haha, nice Nick...however, why did you take 6 classes of Evidence? I took one in Law School, it was more than enough to teach me not to make the makes dipicted in this show.

Were the additional 5 classes for CLE credits?

[–] NickiDrea 14 years ago

Nope. I took those classes back in law school. I practice criminal defense which was always my goal, so I took Evidence I (required), II (required), III (elective), Forensic Evidence (elective), Forensic Evidence II (elective) and Evidence in Practice (elective).

I love evidence. I had the best evidence professor ever, most of my classes were taught by the same guy and he's amazing. Now I'm an evidence geek.

"Proud to be a PD!!!"

[–] kiezzi 14 years ago

I agree! I was so excited about this show, and now after 2 episodes, I'm not even sure if I can watch it. The Golden Rule violation bothered me a lot, not to mention times when they should have demanded things be stricken from the record. What was even worse, though, was the way they acted like it was so smart to suggest the victim turned away as he was shot. Even a C-average law student (like myself) knows that the first thing you do with a victim shot in the back/at a downward angle is hire an expert to say that the victim might have turned away and crouching down, or that the defendant was higher up than the victim (like up some stairs . . . ?), and they didn't even get an expert after their "epiphany."

On the 2nd episode, they should have demanded a ruling on one objection and proffered their "expert" as an expert (or his "expert opinion" wouldn't have been admissible), among other things. I can let that go, but not being able to withdraw your plea? I doubt Nevada's rule is that different from Pennsylvania's 10 days to withdraw your plea for any reason (instead of having to show "ineffective counsel" to withdraw it - what, were they getting a PCRA ruling the day after the plea?).

Of course, I'm no expert on this stuff, but if a young, not-that-smart law student can't buy these guys as decent lawyers, intelligent NON-lawyers probably won't buy it. So sad when this show could've been so good! I agree that entertainment is way more important than accuracy on such a show, but how can you be entertained by the main characters' supposedly genius antics if these antics are in reality. . . "ineffective"?

Jerry O'Connell's side stories, like the gambling embezzler, are a little easier to swallow and fairly entertaining. I guess they, and the good acting, give me enough hope to try one more episode. . . .

[–] NickiDrea 14 years ago

I can let that go, but not being able to withdraw your plea? I doubt Nevada's rule is that different from Pennsylvania's 10 days to withdraw your plea for any reason (instead of having to show "ineffective counsel" to withdraw it - what, were they getting a PCRA ruling the day after the plea?).

I practice in PA and trust me, some judges just don't care. If you ever practice here you'll find out exactly how ridiculous our judges can be.

I've had judges refuse to allow my clients to withdraw pleas. In juvenile court and in adult court.

I wish real lawyering was like law school but sadly it's nothing like it at all!!!

ETA: And I'm lucky to practice where I do because in some of the counties it's even worse.

"Proud to be a PD!!!"

[–] davidsfrench 10 years ago

Obviously I know very little of US law (and Spanish for that matter),In one episode a character was given immunity for giving evidence for the defence.Could that be correct?I thought only those who help the District Attorney get this sort of deal.