s
p o
i l
e r

s
p a
c e

Jeffrey Donovan wants off this crap show in the worst way!

The episode title has nothing to do with the plot. At no point does an
appraisal take place. The first half is about an art gallery and an
artist. Madison, an artist's representative, is throwing a huge opening
for a artist, Sarah, and selling her art for thousands, if not 10s of
thousands, to moronic rich guys. It's a line of dialogue that she was
offering the art at a price but not stating its value. No appraisal.

We get the cute scene at the art gallery to which Cosgrove and Shaw have
been called. Some guy on the street wants to walk through the crime
scene to get to his destination; police tell him to walk around. He then
starts a "defund the police" chant. Man, this dialogue is great drama.

The beat cop showing them around the crime scene gets cagey, given that
there's no corpse. There's evidence of a fight and some bad blood loss
that could have been enough to indicate homicide. They demand to know
why they were called in. The beat cop finally points out brains
spattered on a gallery wall.

Police were called because Madison is missing, presumed dead.

The red herring -- still no appraisal -- is Madison sold a sucker who
truly deserved to be ripped off an NFT for $500,000. The sucker insisted
it had that value if it were real. He said he understood that she didn't
know it was fake (I'm getting a headache) and was willing to refund his
money but needed time to get funds together. He was at the gallery but
had an alibi.

They find video of a guy using an SUV to move a crate and figure that's
how Madison's body was disposed of.

The criminal's actions make no sense whatsoever. He hadn't cleaned up
the substantial amount of forensic evidence at the crime scene. What did
he gain by moving the body?

Cosgrove and Shaw head to a dump. They find Madison's purse but the body
in the crate turns out to be Sarah's.

The bullet recovered has minimal striation and no detectible marks from
rifling, so they conclude instantly that it was fired from a gun printed
with a half million dollar industrial grade 3D printer. They never do
anything with this and they never find the printer.

Decades ago, I remember an episode of McMillan and Wife in which a
bullet had no striations from rifling. I think they decided that the
murder weapon was a starter pistol whose barrel had no rifling. They
implied it was to be used as evidence against the defendant but that
show never really got into the courtroom and police procedure -- a
commissioner solving homicides typically in situations he's been part of
-- was absurd. Susan Saint James was dumb but hot.

There's nonsense with Sarah's landlord who had forced is way into her
apartment with a passkey. He claimed he was fixing a clogged drain but
that doesn't explain failure to knock on the door. At his office,
Cosgrove and Shaw arrest him because he's installed video surveillance
into the apartments of hot young women.

His lawyer lets him argue -- get this -- he was looking for unauthorized
subtenants defrauding him who were not eligible to benefit from rent
control. Cosgrove and Shaw don't buy it.

From video surveillance of the hallway, they discover yet another rich
guy, a former boyfriend of Sarah's, pounding on her door but he doesn't
get in.

They have no trouble identifying him and learn that he drives an SUV
similar to the one at the crime scene. They get a warrant for the SUV,
and even impound it but learn nothing from the vehicle.

The rest of the episode simply has no investigations at all. McCoy
learns from the state attorney general that the former boyfriend is some
sort of murderous Sam Bankman-Fried type (although the moronic script calls
him a Bernie Madoff type) doing fraudulent transactions in
crypto-currency of public pension funds.

They keep claiming he wiped out public pension funds. Oh my gawd. Pension
monies are NEVER invested in anything this volatile or... unreal.

The handwaiving gets worse. Sarah was murdered because she was going to
testify against him before the statewide grand jury.

Wait. What? She was a girlfriend. What could she have possibly know? The
script does not tell us.

The boyfriend gets arrested. Cosgrove demands that Price charge both
murders, despite the lack of Madison's body. The theory is that Madison
was killed because she was there and therefore collateral damage. Of
course she was there. She was the one who put on the exhibition at that
gallery! (Again, the perpetrator's crime makes no sense, given that he'd
know that he'd be killing Sarah in front of a witness.)

In the formula evidence exclusion portion of the episode, defense argues
that Price cannot use EVIDENCE with respect to Sarah because there is no
evidence the defendant knew Sarah was a witness for the prosecution.
Evidence gets disallowed.

Which evidence? The judge doesn't say. All I can see is the judge
correctly ruling that Price cannot make any statement about motive
lacking evidence that the defendant was aware that Sarah would testify
against him.

Once again, Anthony isn't available so Price asks the police to find
evidence that the defendant was aware of the potential testimony. Police
learn that the defendant hacked the email account of Madison's brother.
Confronting the brother and threatening to charge obstruction, the
brother reveals that Madison is hiding in a warehouse upstate.

Madison is alive!

Cosgrove and Shaw get to the warehouse ahead of local police. (Don't
ask.) When police are four minutes away, Cosgrove bursts in because the
door is open. Yeah, the perpetrator (having cut off his ankle monitor)
is there. Cosgrove gets shot in the chest (or the shoulder; the bullet
changed position from one line of dialog to the next) but still manages
to get up to confront the bad guy with Shaw restraining him.

In opening statements, defense tells the jury Price is a liar and cannot
be believed because of the indictment error in charging the second murder.
Then she suggests that Madison might be the murderer.

Shouldn't Price have objected? The defense had no intention of laying a
foundation in support of an alternative theory of the crime.

Madison makes a dreadful witness and ends up refusing to identify the
perpetrator.

HUGE STOOPID

Price asks for a brief recess to get the witness to compose herself but
the defedant's lawyer starts arguing about double jeopardy having
attached because the jury was seated. What the hell did that have
to do with asking for a recess?

Cosgrove arises from this hospital bed to take the stand to repeat
Madison's statements to him as an excited utterance. Cosgrove is the
one who comes up with the hearsay rule exception.

I'm really confused now. I thought that had to do with a dying
declaration, not when the witness is available but let herself get
intimidated by the defendant.

HUGER STOOPID

The defendant HAS NOT been charged with the crimes at the warehouse.
Now, I realize it's a different jurisdiction but if he'd been properly
indicted for weapons charges, unlawful restraint, taking a hostage, and
attempted murder of a law enforcement officer, Price could have laid a
foundation for why Cosgrove's hearsay testimony. Instead, Cosgrove had
to defend himself against the defense lawyer and on re-direct, Price had
to ask specific questions about the events at the warehouse. "Defense
opened the door!"

Also, the email hacking was a crime over which Price had jurisdiction
which was necessary to let the jury know how the defendant found the
second victim. That wasn't charged either.

After conviction, Cosgrove loses his mind, stops day dreaming about
taking a safer job and retiring at age 50 (I assume his pension is fully
vested and hopefully not destroyed by crypto-currency manipulation) and
gives a "There's no place like home" speech.

I really want Donovan off this show so he can do better television.

On May 12, 2023 at 2:35:26 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> There's nonsense with Sarah's landlord who had forced is way into her
> apartment with a passkey. He claimed he was fixing a clogged drain but
> that doesn't explain failure to knock on the door. At his office,
> Cosgrove and Shaw arrest him because he's installed video surveillance
> into the apartments of hot young women.
>
> His lawyer lets him argue -- get this -- he was looking for unauthorized
> subtenants defrauding him who were not eligible to benefit from rent
> control. Cosgrove and Shaw don't buy it.

And even if that was the reason, so what? It's still a crime to install hidden
cameras in someone's home without their knowledge and watch them in their most
intimate moments.

The guy's lawyer was like, "Just hear us out", as if that was supposed to be
an exonerating explanation or something.

> The boyfriend gets arrested. Cosgrove demands that Price charge both
> murders, despite the lack of Madison's body. The theory is that Madison
> was killed because she was there and therefore collateral damage. Of
> course she was there. She was the one who put on the exhibition at that
> gallery! (Again, the perpetrator's crime makes no sense, given that he'd
> know that he'd be killing Sarah in front of a witness.)
>
> In the formula evidence exclusion portion of the episode, defense argues
> that Price cannot use EVIDENCE with respect to Sarah because there is no
> evidence the defendant knew Sarah was a witness for the prosecution.
> Evidence gets disallowed.
>
> Which evidence? The judge doesn't say.

It was a motion in limine to prevent Price from mentioning the girlfriend's
testimony in the fraud case as evidence of motive.

> Once again, Anthony isn't available

Of course he wasn't. Didn't you see last week's episode? He was off chasing
that thug. Erin was probably begging him to drop it and work on Price's case.

> so Price asks the police to find
> evidence that the defendant was aware of the potential testimony. Police
> learn that the defendant hacked the email account of Madison's brother.
> Confronting the brother and threatening to charge obstruction, the
> brother reveals that Madison is hiding in a warehouse upstate.
>
> Madison is alive!
>
> Cosgrove and Shaw get to the warehouse ahead of local police. (Don't
> ask.) When police are four minutes away, Cosgrove bursts in because the
> door is open. Yeah, the perpetrator (having cut off his ankle monitor)
> is there. Cosgrove gets shot in the chest (or the shoulder; the bullet
> changed position from one line of dialog to the next) but still manages
> to get up to confront the bad guy with Shaw restraining him.
>
> In opening statements, defense tells the jury Price is a liar and cannot
> be believed because of the indictment error in charging the second murder.

Which is ridiculous. Indictments are amended all the time when new evidence
surfaces. It's not proof of prosecutorial misconduct and that defense attorney
should have been sanctioned for saying so in front of the jury. Hell, that was
probably grounds for a mistrial right there in the opening moments of the
trial.

> Then she suggests that Madison might be the murderer.

Accusing someone else of murder with no foundation is also a massive violation
of not only the rules of evidence but the canon of ethics as well.

That lawyer would be lucky to still have her law license after that opening
statement. If anyone-- Price or the judge-- was doing their job, that is.

> Shouldn't Price have objected? The defense had no intention of laying a
> foundation in support of an alternative theory of the crime.
>
> Madison makes a dreadful witness and ends up refusing to identify the
> perpetrator.

And then out in the corridor we start the biggest STOOPID in all of LAW &
ORDER history, which continues all through the end of the episode:

While begging Madison to testify and identify the defendant as the killer,
Maroun says, "If you don't, then he'll go free and you don't want that."

Excuse me? Not only did he kill the artist, but also attempted to kill
Madison-- twice! AND HE SHOT A COP! That's attempted capital murder. Plus a
lot of lesser-includeds. Plus federal charges for killing a witness in the
fraud case and federal computer fraud for the email hacks.

Whether she identifies him as the artist's killer or not, HE'S NEVER GOING TO
BE FREE AGAIN.

> Price asks for a brief recess to get the witness to compose herself but
> the defedant's lawyer starts arguing about double jeopardy having
> attached because the jury was seated. What the hell did that have
> to do with asking for a recess?

Price didn't ask for a recess. He bizarrely asked for a continuance, which are
usually on the order of weeks or months. Not something that happens right in
the middle of trial.

> Cosgrove arises from this hospital bed to take the stand to repeat
> Madison's statements to him as an excited utterance. Cosgrove is the
> one who comes up with the hearsay rule exception.
>
> I'm really confused now. I thought that had to do with a dying
> declaration, not when the witness is available but let herself get
> intimidated by the defendant.

No, dying declaration and excited utterance are two different exceptions.

> HUGER STOOPID
>
> The defendant HAS NOT been charged with the crimes at the warehouse.
> Now, I realize it's a different jurisdiction but if he'd been properly
> indicted for weapons charges, unlawful restraint, taking a hostage, and
> attempted murder of a law enforcement officer, Price could have laid a
> foundation for why Cosgrove's hearsay testimony. Instead, Cosgrove had
> to defend himself against the defense lawyer and on re-direct, Price had
> to ask specific questions about the events at the warehouse. "Defense
> opened the door!"
>
> Also, the email hacking was a crime over which Price had jurisdiction
> which was necessary to let the jury know how the defendant found the
> second victim. That wasn't charged either.
>
> After conviction, Cosgrove loses his mind, stops day dreaming about
> taking a safer job and retiring at age 50 (I assume his pension is fully
> vested and hopefully not destroyed by crypto-currency manipulation) and
> gives a "There's no place like home" speech.
>
> I really want Donovan off this show so he can do better television.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>On May 12, 2023 at 2:35:26 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>There's nonsense with Sarah's landlord who had forced is way into her
>>apartment with a passkey. He claimed he was fixing a clogged drain but
>>that doesn't explain failure to knock on the door. At his office,
>>Cosgrove and Shaw arrest him because he's installed video surveillance
>>into the apartments of hot young women.

>>His lawyer lets him argue -- get this -- he was looking for unauthorized
>>subtenants defrauding him who were not eligible to benefit from rent
>>control. Cosgrove and Shaw don't buy it.

>And even if that was the reason, so what? It's still a crime to install hidden
>cameras in someone's home without their knowledge and watch them in their most
>intimate moments.

>The guy's lawyer was like, "Just hear us out", as if that was supposed to be
>an exonerating explanation or something.

The script didn't say but I hope he was charged off screen with crimes
related to video surveillance. I loved that office with all sorts of
people running around who could simply see the spying within apartments
taking place.

>>The boyfriend gets arrested. Cosgrove demands that Price charge both
>>murders, despite the lack of Madison's body. The theory is that Madison
>>was killed because she was there and therefore collateral damage. Of
>>course she was there. She was the one who put on the exhibition at that
>>gallery! (Again, the perpetrator's crime makes no sense, given that he'd
>>know that he'd be killing Sarah in front of a witness.)

>>In the formula evidence exclusion portion of the episode, defense argues
>>that Price cannot use EVIDENCE with respect to Sarah because there is no
>>evidence the defendant knew Sarah was a witness for the prosecution.
>>Evidence gets disallowed.

>>Which evidence? The judge doesn't say.

>It was a motion in limine to prevent Price from mentioning the girlfriend's
>testimony in the fraud case as evidence of motive.

Ah. I thought the judge was suppressing evidence beyond Price discussing
the motive for the crime. All right; that's legitimate.

>>Once again, Anthony isn't available

>Of course he wasn't. Didn't you see last week's episode? He was off chasing
>that thug. Erin was probably begging him to drop it and work on Price's case.

Hehehehehehe

>>so Price asks the police to find
>>evidence that the defendant was aware of the potential testimony. Police
>>learn that the defendant hacked the email account of Madison's brother.
>>Confronting the brother and threatening to charge obstruction, the
>>brother reveals that Madison is hiding in a warehouse upstate.

>>Madison is alive!

>>Cosgrove and Shaw get to the warehouse ahead of local police. (Don't
>>ask.) When police are four minutes away, Cosgrove bursts in because the
>>door is open. Yeah, the perpetrator (having cut off his ankle monitor)
>>is there. Cosgrove gets shot in the chest (or the shoulder; the bullet
>>changed position from one line of dialog to the next) but still manages
>>to get up to confront the bad guy with Shaw restraining him.

>>In opening statements, defense tells the jury Price is a liar and cannot
>>be believed because of the indictment error in charging the second murder.

>Which is ridiculous. Indictments are amended all the time when new evidence
>surfaces. It's not proof of prosecutorial misconduct and that defense attorney
>should have been sanctioned for saying so in front of the jury. Hell, that was
>probably grounds for a mistrial right there in the opening moments of the
>trial.

Even for tv, that was one amazing bad defense attorney.

>>Then she suggests that Madison might be the murderer.

>Accusing someone else of murder with no foundation is also a massive violation
>of not only the rules of evidence but the canon of ethics as well.

>That lawyer would be lucky to still have her law license after that opening
>statement. If anyone-- Price or the judge-- was doing their job, that is.

Thanks.

>>Shouldn't Price have objected? The defense had no intention of laying a
>>foundation in support of an alternative theory of the crime.

>>Madison makes a dreadful witness and ends up refusing to identify the
>>perpetrator.

>And then out in the corridor we start the biggest STOOPID in all of LAW &
>ORDER history, which continues all through the end of the episode:

>While begging Madison to testify and identify the defendant as the killer,
>Maroun says, "If you don't, then he'll go free and you don't want that."

>Excuse me? Not only did he kill the artist, but also attempted to kill
>Madison-- twice! AND HE SHOT A COP! That's attempted capital murder. Plus a
>lot of lesser-includeds. Plus federal charges for killing a witness in the
>fraud case and federal computer fraud for the email hacks.

>Whether she identifies him as the artist's killer or not, HE'S NEVER GOING TO
>BE FREE AGAIN.

Good point

I just couldn't believe that he hadn't yet been charged with all those
related crimes. It did seem unusual that the off-screen grand jury was
state and not federal, given all the wire fraud he'd have been charged
with.

>>Price asks for a brief recess to get the witness to compose herself but
>>the defedant's lawyer starts arguing about double jeopardy having
>>attached because the jury was seated. What the hell did that have
>>to do with asking for a recess?

>Price didn't ask for a recess. He bizarrely asked for a continuance, which are
>usually on the order of weeks or months. Not something that happens right in
>the middle of trial.

Ok. That was stupid. Still, the defense should have just flat out
objected to the continuance given that the witness was available.

>>Cosgrove arises from this hospital bed to take the stand to repeat
>>Madison's statements to him as an excited utterance. Cosgrove is the
>>one who comes up with the hearsay rule exception.

>>I'm really confused now. I thought that had to do with a dying
>>declaration, not when the witness is available but let herself get
>>intimidated by the defendant.

>No, dying declaration and excited utterance are two different exceptions.

Thanks

It was legitimate for Cosgrove to state what she said even though she
was available?

>>HUGER STOOPID

>>The defendant HAS NOT been charged with the crimes at the warehouse.
>>Now, I realize it's a different jurisdiction but if he'd been properly
>>indicted for weapons charges, unlawful restraint, taking a hostage, and
>>attempted murder of a law enforcement officer, Price could have laid a
>>foundation for why Cosgrove's hearsay testimony. Instead, Cosgrove had
>>to defend himself against the defense lawyer and on re-direct, Price had
>>to ask specific questions about the events at the warehouse. "Defense
>>opened the door!"

>>Also, the email hacking was a crime over which Price had jurisdiction
>>which was necessary to let the jury know how the defendant found the
>>second victim. That wasn't charged either.

>>After conviction, Cosgrove loses his mind, stops day dreaming about
>>taking a safer job and retiring at age 50 (I assume his pension is fully
>>vested and hopefully not destroyed by crypto-currency manipulation) and
>>gives a "There's no place like home" speech.

>>I really want Donovan off this show so he can do better television.

In article <u3o9pl$24qnp$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >On May 12, 2023 at 2:35:26 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

> >>Cosgrove arises from this hospital bed to take the stand to repeat
> >>Madison's statements to him as an excited utterance. Cosgrove is the
> >>one who comes up with the hearsay rule exception.
>
> >>I'm really confused now. I thought that had to do with a dying
> >>declaration, not when the witness is available but let herself get
> >>intimidated by the defendant.
>
> >No, dying declaration and excited utterance are two different exceptions.
>
> Thanks
>
> It was legitimate for Cosgrove to state what she said even though she
> was available?

Yes.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>On May 12, 2023 at 2:35:26 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>>Cosgrove arises from this hospital bed to take the stand to repeat
>>>>Madison's statements to him as an excited utterance. Cosgrove is the
>>>>one who comes up with the hearsay rule exception.

>>>>I'm really confused now. I thought that had to do with a dying
>>>>declaration, not when the witness is available but let herself get
>>>>intimidated by the defendant.

>>>No, dying declaration and excited utterance are two different exceptions.

>>Thanks

>>It was legitimate for Cosgrove to state what she said even though she
>>was available?

>Yes.

Thanks. Give me a moment to process that the script got something right
about courtroom procedure.

In article <u3om08$2aclu$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>On May 12, 2023 at 2:35:26 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>
> >>>>Cosgrove arises from this hospital bed to take the stand to repeat
> >>>>Madison's statements to him as an excited utterance. Cosgrove is the
> >>>>one who comes up with the hearsay rule exception.
>
> >>>>I'm really confused now. I thought that had to do with a dying
> >>>>declaration, not when the witness is available but let herself get
> >>>>intimidated by the defendant.
>
> >>>No, dying declaration and excited utterance are two different exceptions.
>
> >>Thanks
>
> >>It was legitimate for Cosgrove to state what she said even though she
> >>was available?
>
> >Yes.
>
> Thanks. Give me a moment to process that the script got something right
> about courtroom procedure.

It was probably only by accident.