s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

An episode only moviePig could love, with absolutely ridiculous
discussion from Price about free speech. And the plot twist at the end
allows the writers to argue that, with the right failure of discovery by
the prosecutor, yes, Alec Baldwin's charges wouldn't have been dismissed
with prejudice.

Riley and Baxter do not appear. Walker works with Brady, whose
interrogation scenes just get dumber.

BTR1701's head must have exploded when they obtained and served that
search warrant then made the arrest (there couldn't have been an arrest warrant) in Connecticut.

Price goes to trial with some forensic evidence but no clue whatsoever
about a motive. Then, in opening arguments, Price says "the
preponderence of evidence will show", which made my head explode. Wrong evidentiary standard!

Then, the defense says they are going for "in defense of another", which
I assume required a pre-trial motion. Even Price objects. Walking out
of the judge's chambers, neither Price nor Maroun are surprised they were overruled. If in that scene a judge ever uphold's the state's motion,
I'd like to see Price pass out in a dead faint. The judge offered no justification.

The murder victim is a snake oil salesman and influencer. She ran a
clinic offering natural treatment because she herself is a cancer
survivor without surgery, chemo, or radiation. Price despises the murder
victim and can't keep his head straight about his duty to the victim as
he becomes more and more sympathetic toward the defendant. She's a
middle-aged woman whose daughter, just over age 18, has foregone her own
cancer treatments at the victim's urging and because she delayed
treatment, the cancer metasticized.

At one point, Maroun mentions that she believes in homeopathy and they
must protect such treatments. Regardless of whether homeopathy offers
actual treatment, the victim largely offered juice clenses, which ain't homeopathy. Homeopathy is the one in which you injest tiny amounts of
toxins in quantities too small to kill you. I have no idea how they
claim it works.

At various points, Price argues that even though it's snake oil, it's
free speech. Wrong. Commercial speech has fewer freedoms; there is no
First Amendment protection for false claims. When the prosecution heard
the claim that the daughter, while at the victim's clinic, had
communication from her doctors withheld, it dawned on Price that the
victim had a duty of care and was not exercising free speech.

Price gets so sympathetic, and realizes he's nearly lost the jury, that
he offers manslaughter. I don't see how it's a lesser-included charge.
The defense admitted to the murder, which was premeditated. Manslaughter
is never a premeditated crime. Her attorney recommends the deal; the
defendant refuses.

Now, here's the twist. Maroun, speaking to a member of the cancer
survivors' group the victim had been a member of, learned that her
cancer, which would have been incredibly painful, had no symptoms.

Somehow, at autopsy, they missed that there's no evidence the victim had cancer. They had to ask the pathologist again. Both Price and teh
defense attorney, both of whom would have studied the autopsy, missed
the lack of cancer. The pathologist looks at every organ and there would
have been evidence of cancer even though it was in remission.

Price is about to make it available to defense in discovery. Maroun
talks him out of it!

Whoa! Major ethical breach!

The failure of discovery in the Alec Baldwin case was of evidence the prosecution knew of but the police filed separately, was manufactured
after the fact in case it could have been used to exonerate the armorer
by a friend of her father's. It was never so used. Even though it
neither inculpated nor exculpated Baldwin, charges were dismissed for
failure of discovery.

Price allows himself to be talked into Maroun's unethical reasoning that evidence that the victim never had cancer doesn't exculpate the
defendant and therefore isn't subject to discovery.

Price wins merely by showing a bloody crime scene photo.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 06:03:07 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

An episode only moviePig could love, with absolutely ridiculous
discussion from Price about free speech. And the plot twist at the end
allows the writers to argue that, with the right failure of discovery by
the prosecutor, yes, Alec Baldwin's charges wouldn't have been dismissed
with prejudice.

Riley and Baxter do not appear. Walker works with Brady, whose
interrogation scenes just get dumber.

BTR1701's head must have exploded when they obtained and served that
search warrant then made the arrest (there couldn't have been an arrest >warrant) in Connecticut.

Price goes to trial with some forensic evidence but no clue whatsoever
about a motive. Then, in opening arguments, Price says "the
preponderence of evidence will show", which made my head explode. Wrong >evidentiary standard!

Then, the defense says they are going for "in defense of another", which
I assume required a pre-trial motion. Even Price objects. Walking out
of the judge's chambers, neither Price nor Maroun are surprised they were >overruled. If in that scene a judge ever uphold's the state's motion,
I'd like to see Price pass out in a dead faint. The judge offered no >justification.

The murder victim is a snake oil salesman and influencer. She ran a
clinic offering natural treatment because she herself is a cancer
survivor without surgery, chemo, or radiation. Price despises the murder >victim and can't keep his head straight about his duty to the victim as
he becomes more and more sympathetic toward the defendant. She's a >middle-aged woman whose daughter, just over age 18, has foregone her own >cancer treatments at the victim's urging and because she delayed
treatment, the cancer metasticized.

At one point, Maroun mentions that she believes in homeopathy and they
must protect such treatments. Regardless of whether homeopathy offers
actual treatment, the victim largely offered juice clenses, which ain't >homeopathy. Homeopathy is the one in which you injest tiny amounts of
toxins in quantities too small to kill you. I have no idea how they
claim it works.

At various points, Price argues that even though it's snake oil, it's
free speech. Wrong. Commercial speech has fewer freedoms; there is no
First Amendment protection for false claims. When the prosecution heard
the claim that the daughter, while at the victim's clinic, had
communication from her doctors withheld, it dawned on Price that the
victim had a duty of care and was not exercising free speech.

Price gets so sympathetic, and realizes he's nearly lost the jury, that
he offers manslaughter. I don't see how it's a lesser-included charge.
The defense admitted to the murder, which was premeditated. Manslaughter
is never a premeditated crime. Her attorney recommends the deal; the >defendant refuses.

Now, here's the twist. Maroun, speaking to a member of the cancer
survivors' group the victim had been a member of, learned that her
cancer, which would have been incredibly painful, had no symptoms.

Somehow, at autopsy, they missed that there's no evidence the victim had >cancer. They had to ask the pathologist again. Both Price and teh
defense attorney, both of whom would have studied the autopsy, missed
the lack of cancer. The pathologist looks at every organ and there would
have been evidence of cancer even though it was in remission.

Price is about to make it available to defense in discovery. Maroun
talks him out of it!

Whoa! Major ethical breach!

The failure of discovery in the Alec Baldwin case was of evidence the >prosecution knew of but the police filed separately, was manufactured
after the fact in case it could have been used to exonerate the armorer
by a friend of her father's. It was never so used. Even though it
neither inculpated nor exculpated Baldwin, charges were dismissed for
failure of discovery.

Price allows himself to be talked into Maroun's unethical reasoning that >evidence that the victim never had cancer doesn't exculpate the
defendant and therefore isn't subject to discovery.

Price wins merely by showing a bloody crime scene photo.

Sounds like the writing quality has taken a major detour.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Mar 5, 2026 at 10:03:07 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701's head must have exploded when they obtained and served that
search warrant then made the arrest (there couldn't have been an arrest warrant) in Connecticut.

I just assumed they'd liaised with the Darien PD and had them get the warrant from a local judge. But yeah, this being LAW & ORDER, they probably went to a New York judge for a warrant to search a house in Connecticut.

Price goes to trial with some forensic evidence but no clue whatsoever
about a motive. Then, in opening arguments, Price says "the
preponderence of evidence will show", which made my head explode. Wrong evidentiary standard!

Yeah, I was like, if all you've got is a preponderance, you've already lost
the case.

You notice how on these shows we never get both sides of the opening and closing arguments anymore. The writers just pick one side and we never see the other.

Then, the defense says they are going for "in defense of another", which
I assume required a pre-trial motion. Even Price objects.

Yes, it's another affirmative defense like insanity and necessity, which must be plead before trial because it shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.

I'm just tired of pointing out this particular absurdity at this point.

And of course the judge just allows it to happen. At least the prosecution has massive grounds for appeal if they lose any of these cases where this seems to continually happen.

Walking out
of the judge's chambers, neither Price nor Maroun are surprised they were overruled. If in that scene a judge ever uphold's the state's motion,
I'd like to see Price pass out in a dead faint.

The judge would be de-benched for violating the LAW & ORDER Code of Judicial Ethics.

They had to ask the pathologist again. Both Price and teh
defense attorney, both of whom would have studied the autopsy, missed
the lack of cancer. The pathologist looks at every organ and there would
have been evidence of cancer even though it was in remission.

Price is about to make it available to defense in discovery. Maroun
talks him out of it!

Whoa! Major ethical breach!

The failure of discovery in the Alec Baldwin case was of evidence the prosecution knew of but the police filed separately, was manufactured
after the fact in case it could have been used to exonerate the armorer
by a friend of her father's. It was never so used. Even though it
neither inculpated nor exculpated Baldwin, charges were dismissed for
failure of discovery.

Price allows himself to be talked into Maroun's unethical reasoning that evidence that the victim never had cancer doesn't exculpate the
defendant and therefore isn't subject to discovery.

Maroun was right in that it was irrelevant to the crime the defendant was charged with. The only value it could provide to the defense would be to
enrage and prejudice the jury against the victim.

It's a close call but I don't think it was a clear ethical breach.

Price wins merely by showing a bloody crime scene photo.

Which you would think he'd have shown the jury during the trial, making their shock and revulsion at seeing it bizarre.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Mar 7, 2026 at 11:34:08 AM PST, "BTR1701" <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Mar 5, 2026 at 10:03:07 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Price allows himself to be talked into Maroun's unethical reasoning that
evidence that the victim never had cancer doesn't exculpate the
defendant and therefore isn't subject to discovery.

Maroun was right in that it was irrelevant to the crime the defendant was charged with. The only value it could provide to the defense would be to enrage and prejudice the jury against the victim.

It's a close call but I don't think it was a clear ethical breach.

I meant to add that the defense has the same access to the autopsy records and the medical staff as the prosecution. If the defense misses something in those records, the prosecution is under no duty to specifically draw their attention to it and say, "Hey, look! I think you missed this thing that could really
hurt our case."



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Mar 7, 2026 at 11:34:08 AM PST, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Mar 5, 2026 at 10:03:07 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Price allows himself to be talked into Maroun's unethical reasoning that >>>evidence that the victim never had cancer doesn't exculpate the
defendant and therefore isn't subject to discovery.

Maroun was right in that it was irrelevant to the crime the defendant was >>charged with. The only value it could provide to the defense would be to >>enrage and prejudice the jury against the victim.

It's a close call but I don't think it was a clear ethical breach.

I meant to add that the defense has the same access to the autopsy records >and the medical staff as the prosecution. If the defense misses something
in those records, the prosecution is under no duty to specifically draw
their attention to it and say, "Hey, look! I think you missed this thing
that could really hurt our case."

The problem is we don't know the timing. At initial autopsy, the
pathologist would have looked at the interior of the stomach (they
always look for undigested food) and noted whether the tissue was
healthy or unhealthy. There's no way they would have forgotten to look
for cancer. A pathologist's job is to examine tissue for evidence of
disease. Forensic pathology is a subspecialty where they get into
evidence of trauma.

In the scene, it's like Price called the pathologist and asked him to
look for evidence of cancer. But the body is buried at this point. Would
the morgue retain tissue samples?

I'll agree with you if the pathologist merely reviewed his original
findings and didn't conduct further tests. Perhaps I'm wrong and it's
not an Alec Baldwin scenario.

But if there were tissue samples and the pathologist tested them, that
would be subject to disclosure. Correct?

Either way, all the lawyers were morons for missing that there was no
finding of cancer in the initial autopsy.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Mar 7, 2026 at 1:47:18 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Mar 7, 2026 at 11:34:08 AM PST, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Mar 5, 2026 at 10:03:07 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Price allows himself to be talked into Maroun's unethical reasoning that >>>> evidence that the victim never had cancer doesn't exculpate the
defendant and therefore isn't subject to discovery.

Maroun was right in that it was irrelevant to the crime the defendant was >>> charged with. The only value it could provide to the defense would be to >>> enrage and prejudice the jury against the victim.

It's a close call but I don't think it was a clear ethical breach.

I meant to add that the defense has the same access to the autopsy records >> and the medical staff as the prosecution. If the defense misses something
in those records, the prosecution is under no duty to specifically draw
their attention to it and say, "Hey, look! I think you missed this thing
that could really hurt our case."

The problem is we don't know the timing. At initial autopsy, the
pathologist would have looked at the interior of the stomach (they
always look for undigested food) and noted whether the tissue was
healthy or unhealthy. There's no way they would have forgotten to look
for cancer. A pathologist's job is to examine tissue for evidence of
disease. Forensic pathology is a subspecialty where they get into
evidence of trauma.

In the scene, it's like Price called the pathologist and asked him to
look for evidence of cancer.

Which the defense could also have done. The fact that they didn't think to do it doesn't impose an obligation on the prosecution to help them out.

But if there were tissue samples and the pathologist tested them, that
would be subject to disclosure. Correct?

If there were tissue samples, then both sides have equal access to them and
can run whatever tests they choose to have run. If one side thinks of
something the other does not, they're under no obligation to disclose those findings.

*That* should have been Maroun's argument to Price. But this is TV, where
drama and emotion are the most important things, so the easy procedural solution is ignored for the ethical angst.

Either way, all the lawyers were morons for missing that there was no
finding of cancer in the initial autopsy.

+1



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Mar 7, 2026 at 1:47:18 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

. . .

But if there were tissue samples and the pathologist tested them, that >>would be subject to disclosure. Correct?

If there were tissue samples, then both sides have equal access to them and >can run whatever tests they choose to have run. If one side thinks of >something the other does not, they're under no obligation to disclose those >findings.

*That* should have been Maroun's argument to Price. But this is TV, where >drama and emotion are the most important things, so the easy procedural >solution is ignored for the ethical angst.

That's very interesting. Thank you.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 06:03:07 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Price goes to trial with some forensic evidence but no clue whatsoever
about a motive. Then, in opening arguments, Price says "the
preponderence of evidence will show", which made my head explode. Wrong >evidentiary standard!

They're having a civil trial in a criminal court? (Civil normally DOES
use a preponderance of evidence standard - no one gets jailed by that
standard in any country I know of. And my late grandfather DID serve
as a juror in a capital murder trial when I was a teenager and told me
all about it.

Before Canada abolished the death penalty a capital murder jury was
required to vote twice - once for guilt or 'not guilty' - ie. NOT
'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' and only after finding the accused
guilty were they allowed to vote on 'whether to recommend mercy' and
he said that voting to NOT recommend mercy was the hardest thing he
ever had to do since even though he was completely convinced the man
had poisoned his wife actually making a vote that if carried out would
mean capital punishment was hard since he was a devout Christian and
that meant he was knowingly sending a man to Hell.

(He was released after serving 20 years, married his mistress and died
within 10 years)

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Fri, 06 Mar 2026 08:48:01 -0500, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

Price is about to make it available to defense in discovery. Maroun
talks him out of it!

Whoa! Major ethical breach!

In Canada the next step after that would be a disbarment hearing by
the bar society. Probably both for Price AND Marcoun - the first for withholding evidence from the defence, the second for trying to induce
the prosecutor to withhold material evidence. (Why do you think they
call this sort of hearing 'examinations for discovery?)

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Mar 2026 08:48:01 -0500, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

I wrote the quoted material.

Price is about to make it available to defense in discovery. Maroun
talks him out of it!

Whoa! Major ethical breach!

In Canada the next step after that would be a disbarment hearing by
the bar society. Probably both for Price AND Marcoun - the first for >withholding evidence from the defence, the second for trying to induce
the prosecutor to withhold material evidence. (Why do you think they
call this sort of hearing 'examinations for discovery?)

Please read the rest of the thread. If there were additional tests run on samples, BTR1701 said that this isn't newly-discovered evidence subject
to disclosure.

So I was wrong when I said it was an Alec Baldwin scenario.

The only thing he agreed with me on was how stupid all the lawyers were
for failing to notice the lack of a finding that the victim had ever had cancer.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Mar 15, 2026 at 1:00:54 AM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Mar 2026 08:48:01 -0500, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

Price is about to make it available to defense in discovery. Maroun
talks him out of it!

Whoa! Major ethical breach!

In Canada the next step after that would be a disbarment hearing by
the bar society. Probably both for Price AND Marcoun - the first for withholding evidence from the defence

Except they didn't withhold evidence. Both sides were given access to the forensic evidence. The prosecution decided to test it. The defense didn't.
That was a failure of the defense attorney not doing his due diligence.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)