FindLaw | Legal News & Information

Law and Order gets rid of characters like a snake sheds skin. And, like some snakes, it does so about once every year. This year we lost District Attorney Adam Schiff, the last character from the first season still on the cast after 10 years. Steven Hill, a character actor with other legal work on his resume such as "The Firm" and "Legal Eagles", played the complex politician/lawyer, often getting to say the last poignant words of each episode.

Dianne Wiest replaces Hill, playing "interim" District Attorney Nora Lewin. The academy award winner's resume in Hollywood is quite impressive, with starring roles in movies such as "Hannah and Her Sisters" and "Parenthood." Her decision to leave movies for television only demonstrates the quality of this show.

There has been little fanfare about the venerable actress joining the show. Instead, the writers came up with more shockers, such as the cameo appearance by Rudy Giuliani who introduced the new DA to Assistant District Attorneys Jack McCoy (Sam Waterston) and Abbie Carmichael (Angie Harmon).

But the biggest surprises take place during the episode.

When a disabled child dies in a fire accelerated by deliberately spread paint thinner, our emotions are aroused. When it begins to look like the child set the fire himself (he had a penchant for playing with matches), our curiosity is piqued. Then the police discover paint thinner on his mother's nightgown and she is arrested and charged.

Unfortunately for her, her attorney has an ego far outpacing his IQ. At one point, I began to feel sorry for the defendant, because the best thing going for her seemed to be an appeal based on incompetence of counsel.

Now, how is this for shocking? The People's attorneys come to realize that the only way the defendant will get a fair trial is if they look at her side of the story… and suddenly, the lead attorney for the prosecution is arguing that the defendant should be acquitted!

The prosecution had presented such overwhelming evidence proving that the mother had set the fire, that the judge asks defense counsel to justify his rejection of a plea for first-degree manslaughter. He can't justify it, so he changes the plea to not guilty by reason of insanity.

Jack openly mocks the expert testifying in her defense, and things begin to look bleak for the defendant. With a changed plea in the face of seemingly overwhelming evidence, she must take the stand to tell the jury her story. Of course, her lawyer doesn't know how to elicit testimony on direct examination. The judge must help the defendant finish her testimony. Then Jack asks her if she set the fire that killed her son. She answers that the fire didn't kill her son. She said she failed to give him medication when he went into a seizure, and she thought that was what had killed him. She then ate all of his pills in a futile attempt at suicide. She never intended to kill him through asphyxiation. Surprise!

While waiting for the verdict and discussing the case with Nora and Abbie, Jack dismisses the possibility of getting the jury to convict on felony-murder (despite her admission to the underlying felony) and instead decides to let her off the hook. He does not object to the defense request for a single charge of second-degree murder, even though he knows that the chances of a conviction on second degree are "nil." The judge even encourages Jack to seek lesser-included charges of manslaughter one and two, openly mocking the defense counsel for misstating the law. But in the biggest shocker of all, Jack declines, practically guaranteeing an acquittal.

Nora says she is glad that Jack let the defendant off the hook. She claims she personally would have gone for the conviction, but that she feels that the mother had punished herself enough. Obviously, the writers are trying to create a character as complex and compelling as the previous DA. Whether they are successful could determine whether the "interim" appointment will become permanent.

Past Reviews

Message Boards

Disclaimer