I had no idea that the donuts path of questioning would be relevant at all, and neither did I realize that list of questions is actually a set thing for defenders to approve
The thing about the doughnuts question was that she had clearly found a hole in his story and was prying further. Now, even if it STILL was only incidental to the murder investigation, if he was just lying just because, or because he went to buy a joint, or whatever, that was going to affect the terms of his deal, and so it was Jackson's job to say something. And yeah, the questions are pre-screened so Jackson would know whether or not Speedy would incriminate himself by answering any of them.
So if they agreed to Jackson's suggestion of manslaughter, but can they actually do deals like that outside of the suspect's presence?
Negotiations like that aren't usually done in the suspect's presence, but of course if they HAD come to terms, it would still be Speedy's decision whether or not to agree.
Basically, interrogation kicks in when the suspect isn't reasonably free to leave. Initially, they'd probably say it was more like an interview, because he was a cooperating witness on an unrelated matter. He would have been free to get up and walk out. But once it was clear to them and to him that he was a suspect, that's a different story. But regardless of whether it's an interrogation or an interview or whatever, he has a right not to incriminate himself.
how many of BLJ's confessions DID lead to an appeals, and did they really have a 90% conviction rate, or maybe that's just faulty memory again?
The conviction rate includes plea agreements, and so yeah, you're usually going to see 90% or higher, because the vast majority of cases end in plea agreements. And it's not that the actual number of cases overturned would drop their conviction rate overall in a statistically significant way, but they probably had a lot more appeals than most comparable police departments. And even if it was some miniscule-sounding .5% or less, that's still got to be dozens of murderers let free on appeal because of preventable unprofessionalism, and that's not including the statistically significant number of innocent people who take plea agreements because a few unprofessional cops bully them into it (and even for the Brendas of the world who don't care about innocent people, that's at least as many guilty people going free with the cases closed).
See, I kind of wanted to see him cancel the date on his own terms, and them supporting his decisions that way? But they definitely roughshod over his concerns
Well, of course that's the ideal, but nobody says "okay Rusty, you don't have to do anything you don't want to do, let's talk about what you're going to say to Kris." They just make him feel more and more cornered, which pretty clearly set him up to be in the worst possible mental state to be interrogated by her parents.
I'm also wary, because one of the things about Sharon that I have always most admired about her and seen as integral to her character is her ability to work within the boundaries of the rules and laws that tie the system together
Oh, me too, definitely. But I very much like the idea of a character who's generally very dependable but still faces some consequence for the occasional mistake.
this will also be an interesting lead-in to the tenth episode this season, which, according to the synopsis,they get questioned by/the-stink-eye frin (metaphorically speaking) a judge about... well something the summary was deliberately vague about.
OOOOH, I didn't know about this but I will be SO PLEASED if it's about this case.
HEE THANK YOU FOR ALL THE LEGAL EXPLANATIONS!!! *hugs* (AND OH- the right not to incriminate oneself! That's an interesting call back then to the first episode this season when Sharon, ironically, explaining to Rusty about how he could "plead the fifth"! :O)
I now feel like I have a better idea of what I watched from this? :3 If that makes any sense, because most of the time I get that a lot of my initial reactions are all emotional-based rather than rational, and after this ep, I could literally sum up my reactions as: 1)Sharon, are you sure you want to/are allowed to bring him in as the public defender on one of your cases (this was instinctual and can be blamed almost entirely on CSI); 2)Oh, nope. Bad things are happening, and did Sharon really slam that door? That's odd.; 3)Jackson, stop it; 4) Well, I'm relieved they caught the right guy; 5)I am really worried about Rusty..; and 6)Oh, no, Jackson, HOW DARE YOU LIKE THAT AFTER YOU TOLD RUSTY YOU'D BE THERE TO SEE HIM AGAIN?!? (To be honest, that was the thing I was most upset with him about.)
And yeah, they didn't listen to him, not really, at all. :( About the only person who did was Jackson, and he's not exactly... the most dependable person (if not your lawyer, apparently) to give advice, is he? And we saw the results this week. :3
Oh! Definitely. It will also be interesting to see how she handles such mistakes and their aftermath - after such a long time cleaning up for the LAPD for the same/similar mistakes. I just mainly hope that this DOES NOT become a regular thing, because that's the thing that made me so frustrated with The Closer (besides the fact that they were not nearly called out on it very often/ever except for that one big case to set up for the lawsuit). :3
Hmmm, no, I just revisited the synopses page on MCtv.net, and it seems to be a different case that they "rushed"... :3
Saw this interesting tidbit at the end of Duff's blog post for this week's episode:
"Next week, in the next-to-last episode of our summer season, Sharon Raydor faces a unique challenge (and a furious judge) as she carefully retraces her steps on the way to trapping a criminal who has already confessed."
Sooo... possibly interesting, though I'm keeping my fingers very, VERY crossed now. :3
The thing about the doughnuts question was that she had clearly found a hole in his story and was prying further. Now, even if it STILL was only incidental to the murder investigation, if he was just lying just because, or because he went to buy a joint, or whatever, that was going to affect the terms of his deal, and so it was Jackson's job to say something. And yeah, the questions are pre-screened so Jackson would know whether or not Speedy would incriminate himself by answering any of them.
So if they agreed to Jackson's suggestion of manslaughter, but can they actually do deals like that outside of the suspect's presence?
Negotiations like that aren't usually done in the suspect's presence, but of course if they HAD come to terms, it would still be Speedy's decision whether or not to agree.
Basically, interrogation kicks in when the suspect isn't reasonably free to leave. Initially, they'd probably say it was more like an interview, because he was a cooperating witness on an unrelated matter. He would have been free to get up and walk out. But once it was clear to them and to him that he was a suspect, that's a different story. But regardless of whether it's an interrogation or an interview or whatever, he has a right not to incriminate himself.
how many of BLJ's confessions DID lead to an appeals, and did they really have a 90% conviction rate, or maybe that's just faulty memory again?
The conviction rate includes plea agreements, and so yeah, you're usually going to see 90% or higher, because the vast majority of cases end in plea agreements. And it's not that the actual number of cases overturned would drop their conviction rate overall in a statistically significant way, but they probably had a lot more appeals than most comparable police departments. And even if it was some miniscule-sounding .5% or less, that's still got to be dozens of murderers let free on appeal because of preventable unprofessionalism, and that's not including the statistically significant number of innocent people who take plea agreements because a few unprofessional cops bully them into it (and even for the Brendas of the world who don't care about innocent people, that's at least as many guilty people going free with the cases closed).
See, I kind of wanted to see him cancel the date on his own terms, and them supporting his decisions that way? But they definitely roughshod over his concerns
Well, of course that's the ideal, but nobody says "okay Rusty, you don't have to do anything you don't want to do, let's talk about what you're going to say to Kris." They just make him feel more and more cornered, which pretty clearly set him up to be in the worst possible mental state to be interrogated by her parents.
I'm also wary, because one of the things about Sharon that I have always most admired about her and seen as integral to her character is her ability to work within the boundaries of the rules and laws that tie the system together
Oh, me too, definitely. But I very much like the idea of a character who's generally very dependable but still faces some consequence for the occasional mistake.
this will also be an interesting lead-in to the tenth episode this season, which, according to the synopsis,they get questioned by/the-stink-eye frin (metaphorically speaking) a judge about... well something the summary was deliberately vague about.
OOOOH, I didn't know about this but I will be SO PLEASED if it's about this case.
Reply
I now feel like I have a better idea of what I watched from this? :3 If that makes any sense, because most of the time I get that a lot of my initial reactions are all emotional-based rather than rational, and after this ep, I could literally sum up my reactions as: 1)Sharon, are you sure you want to/are allowed to bring him in as the public defender on one of your cases (this was instinctual and can be blamed almost entirely on CSI); 2)Oh, nope. Bad things are happening, and did Sharon really slam that door? That's odd.; 3)Jackson, stop it; 4) Well, I'm relieved they caught the right guy; 5)I am really worried about Rusty..; and 6)Oh, no, Jackson, HOW DARE YOU LIKE THAT AFTER YOU TOLD RUSTY YOU'D BE THERE TO SEE HIM AGAIN?!? (To be honest, that was the thing I was most upset with him about.)
And yeah, they didn't listen to him, not really, at all. :( About the only person who did was Jackson, and he's not exactly... the most dependable person (if not your lawyer, apparently) to give advice, is he? And we saw the results this week. :3
Oh! Definitely. It will also be interesting to see how she handles such mistakes and their aftermath - after such a long time cleaning up for the LAPD for the same/similar mistakes. I just mainly hope that this DOES NOT become a regular thing, because that's the thing that made me so frustrated with The Closer (besides the fact that they were not nearly called out on it very often/ever except for that one big case to set up for the lawsuit). :3
Hmmm, no, I just revisited the synopses page on MCtv.net, and it seems to be a different case that they "rushed"... :3
? <- big old question-mark
*crosses fingers*
Reply
"Next week, in the next-to-last episode of our summer season, Sharon Raydor faces a unique challenge (and a furious judge) as she carefully retraces her steps on the way to trapping a criminal who has already confessed."
Sooo... possibly interesting, though I'm keeping my fingers very, VERY crossed now. :3
Reply
Leave a comment