Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ubiquitous Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: What Did You Watch? 2024-04-18 (Thursday) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 04:30:51 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <401471085.735224292.555876.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:10:16 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="022ddd2aaed6e8285c34f40a61854e6f"; logging-data="979385"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19t5qktArvLsfV8KU4rpo+TtG1I9FNw0rM=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:p2ba1vJMnpaKuKd473ojqcgaaIM= X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.12N (x86 32bit) Bytes: 2971 atropos@mac.com wrote: > "Arthur Lipscomb" wrote: >> On 4/19/2024 6:03 AM, anim8rfsk wrote: >>> Another absolutely terrible episode of the new Law & Order. I don't know >>> why the DVR won't let me cancel the recording of it. A celebrity chef gets >>> murdered and they try the wrong guy and realize he must be innocent without >>> having any idea who the real killer is so they tell the judge to cancel the >>> trial and let the guy go and then as he's walking away, the DA has a >>> literal lightbulb go off over his head, and suddenly knows for no possible >>> reason they Told us who the real killer is and they arrest her. With no >>> evidence at all. And it stops dead right there. >>> >> You liked the episode a lot more than I did! >> I was about ready to throw something at the TV during the trial scene >> when the defense had a monitor set up and proceeded to show images that >> the DA had never seen before. So why exactly did the DA think there was >> a TV in the court room for? Why didn't the DA object *before* he >> started to show the images? And once the surprise pictures were shown, >> why did the judge let them in? We just got the pictures last night is >> not a reason! And we just got them the night before doesn't mean the >> pictures aren't fake! > >You can't just show evidence to the jury that hasn't been authenticated, >accepted by the court, and marked and logged first. If you do something like >that, you'll trigger a mistrial and get yourself reported to the bar by the >judge for sanctions, and likely have to serve some type of contempt charge. > >EVERYONE in court should have been asking what that TV was for since nothing >that could be shown on it had been introduced to the court as evidence. The >judge, the court clerk, the prosecutors... everyone. Obviously, they were going to play movies during the trial intermissions. -- Let's go Brandon!