BIPOC MeFites, we'd like your input on
starting a BIPOC advisory board
; all Mefites are welcome to join the recent
The Night Of
: The Art of War
July 31, 2016 8:02 PM - Season 1, Episode 4 -
Stone works to uncover information about the crime.
(7 comments total)
1 user marked this as a favorite
So glad and also sad that Naz is becoming less naive and better at (possibly) surviving in prison. I'm glad Stone is poking at the case still (so maybe we'll know who did it at some point, but I don't think it will impact the outcome of the case).
Even with everything he has at stake, it's sweet that Naz is still concerned that his parents need to know he's innocent. It's extremely sweet and kind of pure (? dunno, unusual). I'm glad he finally got a chance to coherently explain what he remembers of the night.
on July 31, 2016
This episode made me think that its probably always better to go to trial. One, because pleading removes your right to appeal and, two, because the more courtroom interaction gives more chance for someone to do something that would cause a conviction to be overturned on appeal.
And that lawyer from the firm is an asshole. She had no intention of ever taking this to trial. She may have been very pleased with herself that she was able to get such a deal from the prosecutor, but if she wasn't prepared to go to trial, she shouldn't have taken the case to begin with. Mr Snow may be a joke to the courtroom but he treated Naz like a person and was (or at least seemed) prepared to take it to a trial.
My future prediction is that Naz rehires Snow and the Indian lawyer who was being used as a prop will help Snow with the case.
on August 2, 2016 [
Having zero relevant experience, I keep wondering how much of this is realistic. The scenes inside Rikers-- I'm prepared to believe pretty much anything can and does happen. The courtroom scenes though, I wish I had a better perspective on. I loved the way it unfolded when he rejected the deal but do they ask that much of you when you accept one?
on August 2, 2016
I finished this episode puzzled over why Susan Sarandon't's lawyer character ever took on the case at all. So that she could flaunt the fact that she got a reduced sentence for a Muslim murder suspect? What cachet would come from that?
on August 2, 2016 [
I'm with you, turbid dahlia. Couldn't figure that one out. Fame and notoriety for ... getting a plea bargain?
on August 2, 2016
Having zero relevant experience, I keep wondering how much of this is realistic.
It is a very realistic depiction of the NY criminal justice system. And yes, it is absolutely required for a guilty plea that the defendant "allocute," i.e. provide a factual basis for the plea. I think it is standard in NY that defendants state under oath what they did.
I love this show. I think the lawyer took the case because she is a publicity hound and it made her look good to the cameras to purportedly stand up for a minority. In reality of course she is a blatant racist -- witness, as Stone says, her use of her POC associate as a "prop" -- and intended to score a quick deal so she wouldn't have to devote any time and resources to actually defending her client. Ergo she bowed out when he declined to admit to a crime he didn't commit.
I also think you just saw a great demonstration of how much pressure there is on all defendants, innocent or guilty, to plead guilty. Going to trial is a huge gamble, because if you lose, and most trials do end in convictions that are affirmed on appeal, you face mondo time in custody.
on August 5, 2016 [
And yes, it is absolutely required for a guilty plea that the defendant "allocute," i.e. provide a factual basis for the plea. I think it is standard in NY that defendants state under oath what they did.
No. TV shows love the allocation sequence because they can make it very dramatic, but it's not this dramatic, ever, nor does the defendant ever give a detailed account of what he did. The plea consists of the judge asking the defendant if he understands the rights he's waiving and then saying, "Did you do such and such as charged in the indictment?" and the defendant saying, "yes." That's it. (Incidentally, the judge, not the prosecutor, asks the questions in a plea, so that part was inaccurate too.)
on September 3, 2016 [
« Previous Episode
Next Episode »
BoJack Horseman: Best Thing Th... | Preacher: Call and Response...
You are not logged in, either
create an account
to post comments
IMDb Series Info
I wrote this