FindLaw | Legal News & Information
| Law and Order NBC Wednesday 10 pm/9 central | |||||||||
Reviewed by Frank Barrepski January 17, 2001 The "monkey business" in the latest episode turns out to not be funny at all. Detectives Briscoe and Green are called to investigate the death of a researcher, Ronald Lee. The lab where he worked was conducting AIDS research on monkeys that had been injected with the virus, with the hope to develop a vaccine. The co-workers who find the deceased researcher also find that all but one of the monkeys are gone, and the one remaining is out of its cage. The medical examiner discovers that the loose monkey had bitten Lee, and determines that the cause of death was an unexpected allergic reaction to an antigen in the monkey's saliva - not the AIDS virus itself. The detectives question an animal rights activist who had been detained at the lab in September, Maxine Wilder. She escaped arrest for her involvement in the protest by telling a guard, George Peavy, that she had a doctor's appointment she needed to go to. While questioning Maxine in her dorm room, Briscoe notices a stun gun in her bookcase and seizes it as being illegal in New York. Since the detectives evidently entered the dorm room with Maxine's consent, the seizure of the stun gun is permissible under the plain view doctrine. Continuing investigation leads Briscoe and Green to the missing monkeys, and the "caretakers" claim that a person named George had asked them to take the monkeys and revealed their HIV status. George Peavey is arrested and, when questioned about Maxine's involvement, states that he acted alone. George is charged with manslaughter in the second degree, but his attorney refuses to accept the offered plea bargain of criminally negligent homicide, and the case goes to trial. However, George is somewhat lucky in this regard; he could have been facing a murder charge under the felony murder rule. At trial, the medical examiner states that Lee died from an allergic shock caused by an antigen in the monkey's saliva and testifies that the bite mark matched that of the lone monkey left loose. On cross-examination, she admits that monkey bites are not always fatal and opines that there probably would have been no homicide but for the allergic reaction to the saliva. When Jack McCoy conducts re-direct, he simply asks whether the monkey was caged when Lee was discovered, and he elicits a response that it was loose. This testimony should not have come from the medical examiner, but rather a person who was on the scene at the time, such as such as the uniformed officers who first responded to the call. Since the ME was not personally at the scene, her testimony that the monkey was loose is hearsay related to her by others who were present. The defendant should have objected to the testimony as outside the witness's scope of personal knowledge. George's defense begins with his testimony that he believed most of the monkeys would not survive and that he brought them to the refuge for them to be treated as if they were in a hospice. When asked how he felt about Lee's death, McCoy objected on the basis of relevance, which was sustained. On cross-examination, George concedes that he never informed any authorities about the loose monkey and only spent fifteen to twenty minutes trying to capture it.
Abbie prophetically forecasts the verdict, commenting, "Based on the number of jurors ordering hamburgers for lunch, I'd say we have more than a sporting chance. George's mother then walks in and requests that Jack make another plea offer to her son. Jack again offers criminally negligent homicide. George's new attorney heeds the judge's warning to serve his client and advises him it's a reasonable offer. Yet this isn't enough for George; he asks to speak to Maxine, who just happens to be sitting on a bench in the hallway outside. Maxine also states he should accept the offer and assures him there will be other test cases. Despite this consensus, George elects to take his chances with the jury. If his plan was to extend the law of defense of others to include animals, then he will get his chance when he appeals his manslaughter conviction. |
|||||||||
|
Frank Barrepski is an attorney licensed in Massachusetts. Along with other practice areas, he handles criminal defense matters and appeals in his practice. |
