s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
Lt. Brady's son is intimately involved with a murder victim, a female musician with a daughter that he wants to adopt. Naturally, the mother
is directly involved with the investigation.
Her son is a recovering drug addict and blames his mother for tough love
she showed to force his recovery. The victim is still using drugs.
Someone in recovery really shouldn't be living with a drug user.
The son looks good for the murder. He jealous of her relationship with
her new producer and sent actual threatening messages. Why was he so out
of control angry? His alibi was taking care of the daughter, but of
course she was asleep during the murder.
The producer looks better for the murder as there's blood and DNA
evidence and he sent a threatening text message too. The case is really
weak as the forensic evidence can be explained. However, there is an
actual brick of cocaine and video footage of a duffel bag being
transported by the victim and the police found the drugs in the same
duffel bag at the victim's home. With the actual drugs, why not look for
a hard connection to the producer? Always charge murder first on weak evidence; no drug charges.
Defense wants to use a theory of the crime that Brady's son did it and
his mother interfered; she did. There's inference but no evidence
against him. That's ok. There's case law that absense of evidence
doesn't mean the defense can't offer their theory of the crime.
In the stupidest trial moment, the son and not the police is used to introduce the drugs even though the son never saw them. He just saw the duffel bag. The defense rightly objects that it's speculative.
It goes
to the prosecution's theory of the crime that was the motive for the
murder. Gosh, it's kind of important to get right.
Tne defendant does a nice job explaining away the forensic evidence.
They need a better alibi from the son.
Lt. Brady figures out that her son lied. He'd left the girl and got
drunk. There's video evidence of him in the bar. He changes his
testimony on the stand.
Odelya Halevi does not appear.
On Jan 15, 2026 at 8:48:40 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
Lt. Brady's son is intimately involved with a murder victim, a female >>musician with a daughter that he wants to adopt. Naturally, the mother
is directly involved with the investigation.
Her son is a recovering drug addict and blames his mother for tough love >>she showed to force his recovery. The victim is still using drugs.
Someone in recovery really shouldn't be living with a drug user.
The son looks good for the murder. He jealous of her relationship with
her new producer and sent actual threatening messages. Why was he so out
of control angry? His alibi was taking care of the daughter, but of
course she was asleep during the murder.
The producer looks better for the murder as there's blood and DNA
evidence and he sent a threatening text message too. The case is really >>weak as the forensic evidence can be explained. However, there is an
actual brick of cocaine and video footage of a duffel bag being
transported by the victim and the police found the drugs in the same
duffel bag at the victim's home. With the actual drugs, why not look for
a hard connection to the producer? Always charge murder first on weak >>evidence; no drug charges.
Defense wants to use a theory of the crime that Brady's son did it and
his mother interfered; she did. There's inference but no evidence
against him. That's ok. There's case law that absense of evidence
doesn't mean the defense can't offer their theory of the crime.
Which makes sense. Just because you can't prove someone else did it, >shouldn't preclude you from showing the jury how the crime could have >happened without you.
In the stupidest trial moment, the son and not the police is used to >>introduce the drugs even though the son never saw them. He just saw the >>duffel bag. The defense rightly objects that it's speculative.
Except it wasn't speculative. Price asked him what the police found and he >answered factually: the drugs. There was no speculation there. It was a >bizarre objection which was sustained for no other reason than the judge was a >graduate of the Law & Order Judicial Academy. But yes, the detectives should >be the ones introducing that evidence.
It goes to the prosecution's theory of the crime that was the motive
for the murder. Gosh, it's kind of important to get right.
Tne defendant does a nice job explaining away the forensic evidence.
They need a better alibi from the son.
Lt. Brady figures out that her son lied. He'd left the girl and got
drunk. There's video evidence of him in the bar. He changes his
testimony on the stand.
But only *after* the prosecution rested its case. I have no idea how
Price was able to call him back to the stand for more direct testimony
after he rested his case. Maybe there's also a Law & Order School of
Criminal Procedure that teaches either party can just stand up and call >witnesses whenever they want.
Odelya Halevi does not appear.
I didn't even notice until well after I'd finished watching the episode.
It would be nice if they'd occasionally give the second chair eye candy >lawyer the opportunity to try a case on her own on this show. 27 seasons
and the girl never gets to do anything more than arraignments.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jan 15, 2026 at 8:48:40 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Which makes sense. Just because you can't prove someone else did it,
shouldn't preclude you from showing the jury how the crime could have
happened without you.
Fair enough. If the third party is named in the defense's theory, how
closely connected to the crime does the named party have to be?
In the stupidest trial moment, the son and not the police is used to
introduce the drugs even though the son never saw them. He just saw the
duffel bag. The defense rightly objects that it's speculative.
Except it wasn't speculative. Price asked him what the police found and he >> answered factually: the drugs. There was no speculation there. It was a
bizarre objection which was sustained for no other reason than the judge was >> a
graduate of the Law & Order Judicial Academy. But yes, the detectives should >> be the ones introducing that evidence.
Price's theory is that the drugs and duffel bag belonged to the
defendant, which Brady's son couldn't testify about.
I wanted the
evidence introduced so that the jury could understand the time line.
First introduce the video showing the victim removing the duffel bag
from the defendant's home. Then have the police testify about the
discovery of the drugs in the duffel bag. Then have the son testify that
he had never seen the duffel bag in the apartment before its discovery
by the police. The son would not be speculating whom the drugs belonged
to.
If Price had done that, there couldn't have been an objection as
everybody is testifying to what he knows.
It goes to the prosecution's theory of the crime that was the motive
for the murder. Gosh, it's kind of important to get right.
Tne defendant does a nice job explaining away the forensic evidence.
They need a better alibi from the son.
Lt. Brady figures out that her son lied. He'd left the girl and got
drunk. There's video evidence of him in the bar. He changes his
testimony on the stand.
But only *after* the prosecution rested its case. I have no idea how
Price was able to call him back to the stand for more direct testimony
after he rested his case. Maybe there's also a Law & Order School of
Criminal Procedure that teaches either party can just stand up and call
witnesses whenever they want.
I was going to ask about that. I could see the son being recalled to
rebut testimony given by the defendant. But that's not what he did.
Instead, he rebutted his own testimony, having lied on the stand.
Is there any procedure for the prosecutor to expose the lie made by his
own witness?
Odelya Halevi does not appear.
I didn't even notice until well after I'd finished watching the episode.
When she's not on the episode, the staging is different. Price stands in
the well of the court in front of the table while questioning to
distract from the lack of a second chair.
It would be nice if they'd occasionally give the second chair eye candy
lawyer the opportunity to try a case on her own on this show. 27 seasons
and the girl never gets to do anything more than arraignments.
Good point.
Jan 17, 2026 at 11:11:13 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jan 15, 2026 at 8:48:40 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Which makes sense. Just because you can't prove someone else did it, >>>shouldn't preclude you from showing the jury how the crime could have >>>happened without you.
Fair enough. If the third party is named in the defense's theory, how >>closely connected to the crime does the named party have to be?
You can't directly accuse someone of committing the crime with no foundation, >at least in Texas where I went to law schoolin', but you can allege "someone" >could have done x, y, or z.
In the stupidest trial moment, the son and not the police is used to >>>>introduce the drugs even though the son never saw them. He just saw the >>>>duffel bag. The defense rightly objects that it's speculative.
Except it wasn't speculative. Price asked him what the police found and >>>he answered factually: the drugs. There was no speculation there. It
was a bizarre objection which was sustained for no other reason than
the judge was a graduate of the Law & Order Judicial Academy. But yes, >>>the detectives should be the ones introducing that evidence.
Price's theory is that the drugs and duffel bag belonged to the
defendant, which Brady's son couldn't testify about.
True, but that wasn't what the defense objected to. She specifically objected >when Price asked what the police found and the defendant answered: the drugs. >*That* wasn't speculation and the objection should have been overruled.
. . .
Tne defendant does a nice job explaining away the forensic evidence. >>>>They need a better alibi from the son.
Lt. Brady figures out that her son lied. He'd left the girl and got >>>>drunk. There's video evidence of him in the bar. He changes his >>>>testimony on the stand.
But only *after* the prosecution rested its case. I have no idea how >>>Price was able to call him back to the stand for more direct testimony >>>after he rested his case. Maybe there's also a Law & Order School of >>>Criminal Procedure that teaches either party can just stand up and call >>>witnesses whenever they want.
I was going to ask about that. I could see the son being recalled to
rebut testimony given by the defendant. But that's not what he did. >>Instead, he rebutted his own testimony, having lied on the stand.
Is there any procedure for the prosecutor to expose the lie made by his
own witness?
The state would inform the judge and the defense of the new evidence and if >the state had already rested, it would be up to the defense if they wanted to >call him back to the stand to impeach him. But in this case, impeaching him >for the lie would also establish his alibi and torpedo their defense so they >probably wouldn't do that. The judge could allow further direct testimony on >her own motion but that would be exceedingly rare.
They don't even have to give her the whole case. Just let her question
a witness or two. That's the way it works in real life. If a case is >important or complicated enough to have a second chair, the state will
split the workload, with each lawyer questioning and cross-examining
half the witnesses and the other lawyer taking the other half. The
"first chair" attorney decides the theory of the case and develops the >overall strategy but that doesn't mean he does all the work while the
second chair just sits there doing nothing but looking pretty.
Notice how only the prosecution in the world of Law & Order has a second >chair. There's only ever one lawyer at the defense table.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 174:57:00 |
| Calls: | 188 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 80,045 |