FindLaw | Legal News & Information

This week's episode combines a far-fetched, overly complex story with some preposterous legal twists. But, as usual, there is more than enough food for thought.

A young woman named Cecilia Knowles is found unconscious in her apartment. She has ligature marks on her neck and has been injected with Demerol, causing a coma and brain injury. Cecilia has no family and her sister has been missing for three years. The investigative portion of the show quickly establishes that the prime suspect is Kenneth Taylor, the boyfriend of Cecilia's sister Julie at the time she disappeared. We also learn that Cecilia was convinced that he had killed Julie in a fit of temper when she tried to break up with him.

There are no witnesses to Cecilia's attack, only DNA evidence. But the episode highlights that, without witnesses, DNA alone cannot explain how the evidence arrived at the scene. Investigation of the scene turns up one pubic hair without a root. Hair without a root cannot undergo DNA analysis, although it can be examined for certain ethnic characteristics. Such an examination, unlike DNA analysis, will not provide a "fingerprint" match. An examination of Cecilia is negative for seminal fluid, although two drops of seminal fluid are found on the bed sheet and one on the carpet. The DNA in the seminal fluid matches that of Taylor, seemingly placing him in the room with the victim at the time of her attack.

On the strength of the DNA evidence, the police arrest Taylor, who vehemently protests his innocence and insists that it is impossible that his seminal fluid was found in Cecilia's apartment. Taylor rejects an offer by Assistant District Attorney Jack McCoy to plead to both the murder of Julie and the assault on Cecilia in exchange for a reduced sentence.

McCoy then presents the case against Taylor to the grand jury, providing one of the show's more interesting scenes. Taylor testifies before the grand jury in an effort to convince them not to indict. He tells the grand jury that he did not attack Cecilia, that Cecilia was obsessed with the idea that he killed Julie, and that she faked her own assault in an effort to frame him. He admits that he uses Demerol, but says that Cecilia knew this as well, implying that she injected herself. In response to questions from McCoy about the presence of his seminal fluid in the room, Taylor tells a seemingly ridiculous story about two sexual encounters with women from an escort service the week before Cecilia's attack, suggesting that Cecilia used a prostitute to obtain his semen. Not surprisingly, the grand jury votes an indictment charging Taylor with the rape, assault and attempted murder of Cecilia.

A defendant rarely exercises his right to testify before the grand jury unless he has a very good chance of convincing them not to indict. By testifying, the defendant locks himself into that story for the rest of his case. The prosecutor can cross-examine the defendant with his grand jury testimony if his testimony at trial varies. Further, the defendant's grand jury testimony gives the prosecutor advance notice of his defense. Thus, the prosecutor can present the case at trial with an eye toward disproving the defendant's defense.

Aside from the fact that Manhattan grand juries do not sit in the plush surroundings portrayed, the show does a pretty good job of demonstrating how a defendant testifies before the grand jury. The defendant must sign a waiver of immunity because in New York anyone who testifies before the grand jury gets automatic immunity for anything he testifies about. (Contrast this with the federal system where witnesses do not receive such immunity). The defense attorney is present in a New York grand jury, but is not permitted to speak. (Again, contrast this with the federal system where a defense lawyer is never permitted to accompany his client before the grand jury. Instead, the lawyer must remain outside the room, available to consult when the client so chooses.)

The show takes a detour from reality with McCoy's questioning of Taylor before the grand jury. Prosecutors strenuously cross-examine a defendant who testifies before the grand jury because it may be their best opportunity to expose the flaws in the defendant's story. This is especially true because prosecutors are not permitted to make arguments or summations to the grand jury. That said, statements by McCoy such as "This is a heck of a story, Mr. Taylor -- no wonder you were so anxious to tell it to the grand jury" and "I think you lie as effortlessly as I breathe" go too far into the realm of argument and inappropriate comment. To make such comments risks dismissal of the indictment by a court. Moreover, a good prosecutor would never stop a defendant from telling his story in the grand jury as McCoy did when he cut Taylor off by saying "your statement is over." Again, to do so could risk dismissal of the indictment because the defendant did not have a fair opportunity to tell his whole story. A good prosecutor wants the defendant to talk as much as possible so there is more fodder for cross-examination at trial.

In another authentic touch, the prosecutors and the police investigate Taylor's patently ridiculous defense. As Assistant District Attorney Abby Carmichael says, "it's a matter of what he can get a jury to swallow." When the prosecutors have located one of the two women with whom Taylor had a sexual encounter, they offer Taylor an even better plea than they did pre-indictment, and he accepts. Carmichael, who is becoming skeptical of Taylor's guilt, challenges McCoy on his failure to advise the defense that they have located one of the women with the escort service. But McCoy is correct that there is no obligation to do so because the information they have at that point is not exculpatory.

But that quickly changes -- and here is the far-fetched part -- when the police find the second woman. She tells them that Cecilia hired her to get a semen sample from Taylor because "Taylor killed her sister and she was going to make him pay for it." The show doesn't explain how Cecilia manages to preserve the semen until she needs it. We also learn that Cecilia had access to Demerol from a co-worker. It is worth mentioning that not every prosecutor continues to investigate a case after the parties verbally agree on a plea. But the good ones do, especially where the defendant's story is corroborated. The upshot is that the defense is notified of this development and the plea deal is off.

Using a list of assets provided by Taylor as part of the plea agreement, the prosecutors search a piece of property upstate that Taylor had inherited from his father. There, in the barn, the police find Julie's body wrapped in a sail bag that has impressions on it compatible with the deck of a boat belonging to Taylor's brother. On this evidence, McCoy proceeds to trial, a decision I find questionable. The evidence that seemed to place Taylor at the scene of the crime - the semen and Demerol - has been compromised by the evidence that Cecilia planted Taylor's semen in her apartment and had access to Demerol. All the prosecutor has is Julie's body found on the defendant's property wrapped in his brother's sail bag, with no other evidence tying Taylor to Julie's murder. In my opinion, McCoy does not have evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The situation is further complicated by the existence of Cecilia's psychiatric records, which establish that she had been seeing a psychiatrist for seven years and was obsessed with Taylor. Taylor's counsel wants to use these records at trial to establish that Cecilia wanted Taylor for herself, killed her sister out of jealousy, and framed Taylor for her own assault to get revenge for his rejection of her. The judge correctly rules that, despite the probative value of these records, the defense cannot use them without the consent of Cecilia or her legal guardian because they are privileged. Defense counsel notes that Cecilia has no guardian, but the show neglects to mention that the court could easily appoint one. Given the fiduciary duty such a guardian would owe to Cecilia, it is unlikely that a guardian would permit the release of psychiatric records damaging to the penal interest of her charge.

A few quick points about the trial. In reality, McCoy would never be permitted to ask the police detective investigating Julie's murder to testify to his theory regarding her disappearance. He could testify to all the facts he knows, but the inferences and conclusions to be drawn from those facts would be left to the prosecutor to argue in summation. Second, a judge would never grant the defendant's request to declare Cecilia's co-worker a hostile witness based on her answer to just one question, particularly when she merely declares that she doesn't understand the question. When a court declares a witness hostile, she is permitting the party who called her, here the defense, to ask leading questions of the witness on direct examination. But this determination is made based on a number of factors, including repeated refusals to answer questions.

Perhaps the most preposterous aspects of this show are the summation arguments made by the lawyers at the conclusion of trial. Defense counsel improperly refers to evidence the court had ruled inadmissible. He tells the jury that he wanted them to know what Cecilia told her therapist, but the prosecutor had those records suppressed. The judge refuses McCoy's requests to strike the summation and improperly denies his request for a sidebar to discuss an instruction to the jury to cure the prejudice caused by defense counsel's remarks. McCoy then takes matters into his own hands and proceeds to deliver a textbook example of an improper summation worthy of a contempt citation. He refuses to stop even when the judge orders him to do so. He chastises the court for lacking "the guts to protect the rights of the weak and voiceless." At his worst, McCoy violates the court's ruling and tells the jury that Cecilia put herself in a coma to call attention to the fact that Taylor killed her sister. The judge declares a mistrial. Two points. No prosecutor, indeed no lawyer, would deliberately and repeatedly violate a court's orders by referring to evidence suppressed by the judge. Nor would he deliberately insult the judge. To do so could risk criminal contempt, jail, and sanctions by a bar disciplinary committee. Second, McCoy's argument doesn't even make sense because it makes Cecilia look like a crazy, obsessed person who would do anything to get Taylor.

The episode ends with the discovery of two strands of Julie's hair in the trunk of a car Cecilia sold right after Julie's disappearance, pointing back to Cecilia as the murderer. McCoy decides to wait until Cecilia wakes up from her coma before going any further. He should have made that decision a lot sooner.

Past Reviews

Message Boards

Disclaimer