Yeah, the trial issue always bugged me. I don't like trials in entertainment generally, because of the fact that nobody seems to get them right. I know what Loeb is trying to do with this issue, and I'm sure he feels that the trial specifics are irrelevant, but he probably could have found a different way to do it. He could have told the same story without messing everything up with a trial.
Hmm, sort of related, but for the people here:
How good is Law & Order usually, with regard to showing a trial that actually vaguely fits reality ( within the limits of the TV format, hence them going from investigation to conviction/acquittal in a relatively short timeframe )??
I don't tend to watch L&O with a critical eye, and I generally think most of the liberties they take are the result of dramatic demands. I think the biggest liberty they regularly take on the show has to do with excluding evidence. Real judges don't exclude evidence from trial nearly as often as L&O judges do.
It happens that way on the show because of the standard story structure; when the first half of the episode is spent convincing the audience that Mr. Defendant committed the murder, they have to create some reason why that same evidence wouldn't all but guarantee a guilty verdict. So the evidence gets excluded and Jack McCoy has to find an alternative way to prove his case.
And while I'm not experienced on the police side, I don't think suspect interrogations happen the way they always seem to on L&O: the suspect is more than happy to answer questions, until the lawyer (who has been obtained by who-knows-what means) storms into the room and states that the questions are through. I don't imagine that that many defendants are bright enough to hire a lawyer immediately, but dim enough to keep talking until the lawyer shows up. But maybe I'm wrong.
I know what Loeb is trying to do with this issue, and I'm sure he feels that the trial specifics are irrelevant, but he probably could have found a different way to do it. He could have told the same story without messing everything up with a trial.
Agreed. The point of the issue seems to be to bolster the heroic history of the Challs, using testimonials to illuminate and the prosecutor to dispute their heroism. It's not a bad idea at all, but the whole pro- and anti-heroism thing just doesn't make any sense in a murder trial context. Loeb would have been better served structuring it as a TV investigative report or such.
So basically Loeb's writing here was sloppy, unrealistic, inconsistent, and lazy. hey --- just like always!
I think that trials in comics are even less compelling than in television and movies: you can affect pacing and speed in the moving pictures, but in a comic it's always just a bunch of talking heads sitting around. Not the best use of the comics medium--not to say it should be restricted as a subject.
Are there any good or mostly good comics portrayals of trials you could point to?
Also, say, whatever happened to Bob Ingersoll? Didn't he used to offer to provide free story advice to anyone who wrote a comic book concerning criminal law or court trials?
Commenting by HaloScan
