FindLaw | Legal News & Information

"Law & Order" has a problem. It has set the bar so high for itself that any mediocrity results in disappointment. This week's episode is not bad compared to television shows in general, but it is not up to the high standards that the show has consistently adhered to over the years.

This week, the writers tried very hard to create a show with surprises: motives that are red herrings, suspects with alibis, unlikely coincidences. For example, detectives discover that a murder victim's priceless violin has been stolen. After tracking down the thief and arresting him for murder, they determine that the violin was stolen before the musician met her demise. The investigation goes back to the drawing board.

Then it comes out that the conductor was having an affair with the violinist. Everybody in the orchestra knew it, including the conductor's wife (who played harp in the orchestra), but the conductor forgot to mention that fact to the police. He insisted that his wife was OK with his affairs (apparently she is very understanding) and that he didn't kill his paramour.

But circumstantial evidence against him starts to mount. The violinist's friends say she ended the relationship, both personally and professionally, and was seeking greener pastures. But it turns out that the victim was killed by the same kind of gun that the conductor's wife had owned for years. Of course she "dropped it into the Hudson River," so definitive testing is out of the question. Plus, EZ Pass records show that the conductor's car did not go through the EZ Pass lane at the time he claimed he drove home.

This is where the writers lost me. The DA is aggressively prosecuting the vain orchestra conductor, because he was having an affair with the victim and his wife owned the same kind of gun. His wife provides his only alibi. Yet it doesn't occur to anybody that his wife might have done it? I hate it when TV dramas ignore the obvious. "Law & Order" has managed to successfully avoid this problem in the past. What is going on this season?

I have probably already spoiled the ending if you haven't caught this episode yet, but their big surprise just wasn't a big surprise for me. The only surprise was that the trial judge seemed to change his bias after a confrontation with the Interim DA. I am not so naïve as to believe that real life judges are without foibles or bias, but I hate to think that a judge would roll over so easily after a threat from a temporary, unelected politician. I don't think that was the surprise that the writers intended.

Am I judging the show too harshly? Let me know by posting your comments on the FindLaw message boards.

Past Reviews

Message Boards

Disclaimer