From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   BTR1701  wrote:   
   >On Jan 15, 2026 at 8:48:40 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman  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.   
      
   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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)