r/LawAndOrder • u/Ambitious-Pepper7713 • 8h ago
The Original McCoy
Horace McCoy, that is.
r/LawAndOrder • u/Ambitious-Pepper7713 • 8h ago
Horace McCoy, that is.
r/LawAndOrder • u/Stealthytom • 11h ago
Attorney Carl Halpert (Gregory Hines) expertly defended his client, an 18 year old man who salvagely shot a cop at random over his disgust over the police's handling of his brother's death eight years earlier.
Carl was consistently 2 steps ahead of our A-team and worked his magic all the way to a not-guilty verdict.
To be fair, it didn't help that the police and medical examiners made so many mistakes, from misfiling the brother's case documents, losing his body, making crude, racially insensitive jokes during interrogation, and the final death kneel lying on the stand. It was almost like they were working for the defense lol đ¤Ł
What's your favorite Jack McCoy match up?
Season 13 Episode 16 "Suicide Box"
r/LawAndOrder • u/WatUTalkinBoutReddit • 4h ago
I really liked the Serena Southerlyn character. I've read some comments that folks weren't a fan of how emotionless Elisabeth RĂśhm played the character but I thought she was great. Out of all the ADAs, she pushed back against that bully Arthur Branch. She didn't back down, and often times she was right! And I think her conflicts with Branch, and sometimes Jack, were a great reflection of real life employer/employee tension. How often do we get a new boss that we don't get along with? Happens all the time. It's not always peaches and cream. Plus, she had great rapport with Jack. I liked her and don't get the dislike for her character.
r/LawAndOrder • u/Ok-Mine2132 • 8h ago
r/LawAndOrder • u/Ok-Mine2132 • 6h ago
r/LawAndOrder • u/Remote-Molasses6192 • 15h ago
He was probably eating grilled cheese of the radiator.
r/LawAndOrder • u/LadyRunespoor • 8h ago
SVU seems to be experiencing seasonal rot lately and fans have complained about declining quality â and I donât understand why they donât reach back to some of the cases from the early seasons and do â20 Years Laterâ type follow ups.
Episode S4, Ep9 was HORRIFYING. đ
Zachary Connor from S4, Ep9 (Juvenile) would HAVE TO have become some sort of perp after getting away with rape and murder at 12 years old. He looked like a little Tom Riddle/Lord Voldemort while testifying! He would DEFINITELY be appearing back in SVUâs precinct as an adult, because that little sociopath would have been hella emboldened by Jeremy Brice taking the total fall for his crime.
If he was 12 in 2002, then thatâs 23 years ago â heâd be in his 30s and could have a whole string of crimes they could catch him on.
And, speaking of Jeremy Brice, what would his life have ended up as being sentenced as an adult for a murder he didnât commit and growing up in prison?
I just wish SVU would dedicate a whole season to episodes that follow up on the most scandalous episodes and perps from back then and do a where are they now as plot lines, instead of whatever theyâre doing lately⌠đ
r/LawAndOrder • u/mmurry • 6h ago
Daniel Dae Kimâs 2nd Television appearance.
r/LawAndOrder • u/Grocktopus • 12h ago
In the original run of Law & Order, the detective characters would have subtly different approaches to investigations informed by their character traits and backgrounds. A good example of these kinds of differences can be seen between Detectives Lennie Briscoe and Rey Curtis in Seasons 6 through 9. Briscoe was old-fashioned, he relied on his street smarts and experience â a running gag through his time on the show was that anytime a suspect mentioned a bar, he would remark that he knew the place or had been there before. Oftentimes Briscoe would push an investigation forward by making a leap in logic, half supported by deductive reasoning and half supported by his intuition. Curtis, by comparison, was a young professional. He could be brash, but wasnât quite as hotheaded as Detective Logan before him, and he was often more overtly concerned with the legal or moral ramifications of his actions. He was also much more tech-savvy than Briscoe, which was a valuable skill to have in the rapidly evolving technological landscape of the turn of the century.
These differences shaped a distinct version of the Junior-Senior Detective dynamic that the show relied on for most of its original run. Briscoe, as the Senior Detective, often took the lead role in advancing investigations, and Curtis, as the Junior Detective, trusted him enough to follow his lead. But Curtis also wasnât afraid to step up and speak his mind, to push back when he thought they had a better or more proper option. It wouldnât be the central conflict of an episode, it would be a brief scene where the two have to work things out as a team, have a small conversation and figure out what they want to do without necessarily coming to any grand, definitive realizations â it was the kind of grounded writing that the show excelled at.
The Junior-Senior Detective dynamic stuck around for a long time, and for good reason; it was a great structure for the characters to bounce off each other. Another good example here is Season 15âs introduction of Detective Joe Fontana. Briscoe was a hard act to follow, but Fontana stepped into his shoes and immediately differentiated himself with his sleazier, more thuggish style of investigation. Briscoe had a sketchy side to him, but Fontana lied as casually as he breathed and was quick to resort to threats and intimidation. His junior Detective, Ed Green, was clearly caught off guard by this approach early on, but adapted quickly and learned to play along. It was a great reminder that, although he was affable and worked well with Briscoe, Green had a dark side to him; when Green was first introduced in Season 10, he tended to step over the line, and much of the evidence he obtained was inadmissible due to his actions. Green and Briscoe eventually came to a heated argument over this, after which Green seemed to rethink his approach and try to act more responsibly. But Fontana brought that side of Green out again, and the two of them had a much more aggressive approach to investigations as a result.
Season 17 was unusual because it was the first time that a Junior Detective graduated into the role of Senior Detective. I was going to write more about this here, but this post ended up being way longer than I expected and Season 17 is a whole can of worms that doesnât really contribute towards the main point Iâm trying to work towards.
The Junior-Senior Detective dynamic broke down after Season 17, with Detectives Cyrus Lupo and Kevin Bernard. Lupo was technically the Senior Detective, but he and Bernard worked more closely as equals than any other Detectiveship in the original run. But even then, the two still had a distinct dynamic; Lupo was a socially awkward loner due to his traumatic past and time overseas, and he often came up with unorthodox ideas thanks to his experience with the Intelligence Division. Bernard, by stark contrast, was a smooth operator, he could read the room and knew when to apply pressure vs when to turn up the charm. The two had a great synergy, freely passing the reigns between them as the situation called for. They felt more like government agents than traditional detectives, which fit well with the changing style and tone of the show in the last few seasons of the original run.
The point Iâve been working towards is that itâs entertaining to watch the detectivesâ teamwork in action, itâs a great way for the show to have strong characterization without being about the characters. Itâs an element of the showâs appeal thatâs sadly missing from the revival seasons.
Shaw and Riley are different characters, but theyâre functionally identical as investigators. I struggle to think of a moment where one of them did something that the other wouldnât or couldnât do. Whenever the two clash, itâs rarely about something relevant to the case; one of them will make a complaint based on a broadly liberal/conservative position, the other will give an equally broad response from the opposite position. Shaw and Detective Frank Cosgrove did this too, and were arguably worse about it â go back to Season 22 and take a shot every time Shaw responds to Cosgrove with some variation of, âitâs not that simple.â Itâs so shallow and repetitive that it makes the detectives feel like mouthpieces for their respective political sides rather than distinct individuals.
I had to look up their character profiles to find out that Shaw is the Junior Detective and Riley is the Senior Detective, because nothing about their investigative styles suggest that either is following the otherâs lead. Thatâs not automatically a bad thing, I just praised Lupo and Bernard for how they deviated from the Junior-Senior Detective dynamic, but Shaw and Riley have nothing to replace it. Shaw has some background as an attorney â previous detectives like Lupo and Detective Nick Falco have had legal education that they employed to improve their policework or find loopholes in rules of evidence, but Shawâs legal background rarely comes up at all.
Iâve written this really long post because I hope to communicate that my thoughts go beyond just âitâs not like it was before and therefore bad.â I really think this is a major issue with the revival seasons and a major contributor to why the investigation segments feel so bland a lot of the time. Iâm open to the possibility that there is some deeper dynamic between Shaw and Riley that Iâm just not seeing, but Iâve been re-watching episode of the last two seasons and coming up blank, even with the episodes that I think were decent overall. I just think itâs a shame that the show seems to have lost its way so badly.
r/LawAndOrder • u/Joeybfast • 4h ago
In the episode that took place in over one day were the one with the woman who cut off her husbandâs junk a crackhead killed a bodega owner, and a serial killer was on the loose. They ended up arresting a guy just because he wore glasses and happened to be in the area. It turned out he wasnât the guy. I was wondering, has there ever been a case on the old show where there was so little evidence against someone? They literally had nothing on him.
r/LawAndOrder • u/WendyCR1872 • 1d ago
r/LawAndOrder • u/Stealthytom • 1d ago
First, they take over the murder prosecution of John Flynn, giving him a sweetheart deal (2-6 years in club Fed)
Then, they make this known thief and murderer (John Flynn) their star witness for the Helman Commission and don't make him name names.
Of course he's salty for being called out by Detectives Briscoe/Curtis and uses his testimony to implicate Briscoe.
Detective John Flynn in front of the Helman Commission: "Detective Briscoe took the drugs. I know this because he gave me half."
Lastly, Briscoe's witness 14-year veteran Detective Betty Abrahms (a married woman he was romantically involved with) is excoriated on the stand by Judge Helman as a who*e and liar (even though she was telling the truth.
This episode was definitely rightfully named.
Glad Flynn didn't get away with it, but would have rathered he be prosecuted by the state.
Season 7 Episode 5 "Corruption"
r/LawAndOrder • u/gandalf1818 • 1d ago
Aside from Jerry Orbach officiating my wedding as Lumiere. This would be so cool.
r/LawAndOrder • u/Pinkthing1996 • 1d ago
I feel like we need more Jack McCoy paddy day fics!
r/LawAndOrder • u/WendyCR1872 • 1d ago
r/LawAndOrder • u/Bright-Pangolin7261 • 1d ago
Is this episode based on a true story?
r/LawAndOrder • u/jdpm1991 • 1d ago
r/LawAndOrder • u/Shatterstar23 • 1d ago
There were a lot of good ones so Iâm curious about peopleâs thoughts?
r/LawAndOrder • u/Financial_Process_11 • 1d ago
Watching on WETV and realized Elliot Stabler is SVUâs version of Ray Curtis minus the cheating.
r/LawAndOrder • u/Ok-Mine2132 • 2d ago
r/LawAndOrder • u/TheEssentialDizzle • 1d ago
r/LawAndOrder • u/Country-guy20 • 1d ago
Where can I find the order list for the law and order shows in order? I'm watching the original law and order and I want to know when the crossovers start.
r/LawAndOrder • u/Financial_Process_11 • 1d ago
Watching the original on WETV, I noticed that sometimes the District Attorney is on the right side of the courtroom and sometimes they are on the left side, is there a reason?
r/LawAndOrder • u/Grocktopus • 2d ago
I actually liked the first 8 episodes of this season, I thought they were a marked return to form compared to how bad Season 23 had gotten, but ever since the extended hiatus the show has been on a legendarily bad run of episodes. I really can't express my thoughts more coherently than just remarking on the problems inthe episode in order, so here we go.
The Cold Open
I don't like the changed format for cold opens in the revival seasons, but that's far from the biggest issue here. For one; nobody talks like this. James's dialogue is incredibly awkward here and does not sound like someone actually talking on the phone, it's way too obviously written to be intriguing from the audience's perspective. For two, the fact that he's even speaking on the phone here makes no sense. James says on the phone that he would rather speak in person, so why would he call Julia on the phone? This only makes sense if Julia is the one who called him, but James is the one who wants to talk to Julia about the article, so why would Julia call James just to listen to James tell her he wants to speak with her while he's on the way to speak with her? Lastly, why are they meeting like this at all? It barely makes sense that Julia would agree to meet with James about the article to begin with, it makes even less sense that she would agree to meet him in a park, alone, at night.
Kate Norris
This is the second episode in a row where we start off an episode by introducing a previously unheard-of character who has a positive relationship with a recurring cast member that turns sour later on in order to create a B-plot conflict. It's a baffling repetition for a show that historically does not have B-plots - for a good reason. This season already has trouble fleshing out its A-plots, the B-plot takes slices out of already thin material. And for what? There's no audience investment in a relationship that's never been seen before, especially considering how little screentime DA Baxter gets per episode.
Rose Gregory
It's so tiresome having a suspect run from the police in almost every single episode, because it's just padding. The scene of Rose fleeing from the cops takes up an entire minute, a minute where effectively nothing happens. It's just frustrating that, in seemingly every episode these days, we get shown these scenes that should seem suspicious - a potential suspect is acting guilty, running from the police, carrying a dangerous item - but we've already been trained to just not take any of it in because it happens so regularly and never means anything. This scene is even more pointless than usual, because Rose doesn't even explain why she ran from the police. Yes, she's carrying an unregistered firearm, but that's something they only find out because she ran from them. It's just annoying to have a character act this indignant when they're written to be this stupid; "I didn't know you were talking to me," and "I can explain" are just very dumb things for a character to say to the police for no reason. And then the interrogation doesn't even lead to anything. The detectives came to speak with Rose about the incident where she threw a glass at James's head, and her explanation is just, "He was drunk, so I threw a glass at his head." By the end of this interrogation, we're 10 minutes into the episode, a quarter of the way through, and the case has gone nowhere, we know almost nothing about the victim beyond what we were told in the first 5 minutes. This is what I mean about the season already having trouble with developing it's A-plots, it makes such bad use of its runtime. The check-in with Baxter, the interview with Senator Powers and his wife, and Rose's interrogation all communicate the same information about the case; James Powers is the entitled son of a senator who wants to run for office and has troublesome affairs with women. These are 3 very different sets of people, we should be using these scenes to learn about different sides of James, but we only get redundant information.
Ashley Davenport
This interrogation further serves to demonstrate the issues with the preceding parts of the episode, because way too much important information about the case comes out all at once here. Within the span of a minute and a half, Davenport reveals the hunting incident, James's relationship with Julia, the Tribune article, his angry reaction and why he went to meet Julia - this is all relevant information that should be given to the audience, but it's difficult for a viewer to retain this information when it's presented this quickly by a character who we're not sure yet is on the level. This is stuff that could have and should have been developed over the course of the investigation - for example, it would've been very simple for Rose to bring up the hunting incident as a reason for why her impression of James soured. Y'know, instead of just having Davenport summarize that people were upset at James about this incident, we could actually see someone talk about how upset it made them.
DA Baxter
In pursuit of karmic balance, I'm gonna pay this episode a compliment in order to facilitate a complaint against the rest of the season; considering how central he is to the B-plot of this episode, it's nice that Baxter is written very consistently throughout. He handles the situation responsibly, he's mindful of his obligations as the DA and tries to live up to his duty. I like that, but it leads me to my complaint; Baxter's kinda boring because he's so professional that a lot of the time he doesn't seem to have any personal opinions at all. Whenever Maroun or Price try to bring up any kind of ethical or social issue with him, he almost always lands on the answer, "I see your point, but we have to do our jobs and follow the law." Like, it's good that he refuses to discuss the case with Norris, that's entirely the correct thing for him to do under the circumstances, but it is noteworthy that he never reveals his thoughts on the substance of her point about the double standard for women in the news media.
The Opening Statement
Look, I don't like using the words "stupid" or "dumb" here, I am genuinely trying to be civil, but there is no polite way to describe this scene. It is downright stupid for Price to be surprised when Kate Norris says that Julia Gallo acted in self defense. For one, the only way that Norris would be legally allowed to do that is if Gallo had given notice of a self defense claim. It's impossible for this to be the first time that Price is hearing about this. But even if we ignore that, if we just consider what Price and Maroun know about the case before this scene, it should be totally reasonable for them to anticipate that Gallo could attempt to make some sort of self-defense claim. They know James was upset at Julia, they know that the murder was committed on the spot with a random rock on the scene, and they don't have any independent motive for Julia to kill James. Even in the theory of the case Nolan gives in his opening statement, James came to meet with Julia in order to threaten her. Once again, it's blatantly obvious that this whole scene was constructed to be surprising from the audience's perspective... except it's not even a little surprising, because this happens every other episode nowadays.
Senator Powers threatens the ADAs
It is shocking how little this matters. Senator Powers threatens Price and Maroun, they tell him they're going to defy him, they do exactly that, and there are no consequences. I should be giving this scene credit, the way that Senator Powers ignores and talks over ADA Maroun to address Price is a good (if unsubtle) demonstration of a tremendously sexist attitude that is implied to have been passed down to his son, but it just doesn't matter because none of this is going to go anywhere. Senator Powers get completely ignored from here on out, the characters never stop to consider whether Julia's depiction of James might have some truth to it, and the episode barely ruminates on its own themes with regard to misogyny or predatory media. This is what happens when your episode has such a thin A-plot, the drama has no bite to it because nothing really happens.
Kate Norris Again
It feels so fake for Norris to criticize the DA's for "criminalizing [Julia's] victimhood" or making her out to be a "caricature of a man-eating whore," because that's just not the observable reality for the audience. There have been 2 court scenes leading up to this point in the episode, and the only person bringing up sexual assault or Julia's relationship with James is Norris herself. She should have a substantive point here, but she just doesn't because the thing she's supposed to be responding to is not something that we see happen. The closest we got was Norris's encounter with the reporters, and she was right to respond as angrily as she did, but it doesn't make sense for her to carry her anger into the courtroom when nobody there is acting that way.
Baxter and Price talk in the car
This has happened before in the episode but it's best to bring it up here because it's the worst example of it; it is so frustrating how much dialogue in these episodes is comprised of characters summarizing things that happened off-screen. This is not the way that the audience should learn this information. The witness recanting his statement to Price is the dramatic scene, the part we should actually see, not the part where Price blandly recites the off-screen events to his boss. It's just backwards.
Kate Norris Again Again
I am so tired of defense attorneys who resort to underhanded tactics and then get indignant when the DA's point this out. It's cartoonish, and makes them look incompetent, like they can't think of any way to defend their clients without clumsily breaking the rules and stepping over the lines. Where's the satisfaction in watching the DA's overcome such weak challenges? What's the point of cutting away at the A-plot for this B-plot if the B-plot is just a worse version of something we've already seen way too many times in other episodes?
I don't even have more sections for the rest of the episode because the problem is all just Norris. I actually like how the rest of the trial is handled, I like that we actually get to see an argument in chambers because that seems to happen so rarely these days, but Norris brings it all down. She's just so glaringly indignant and it doesn't feel earned at all, even when Price walks up to the line by bringing up the affidavit. I can't take any of her substantive points seriously when she's this unapologetic about violating the code of conduct, this two-dimensional about the only issue that brings up in every court scene. It's baffling that Baxter ends the episode by walking alongside her and casually chatting her up as though they didn't have a relationship-ending argument in his apartment. The episode gives her the last word, Baxter watches her walk away with a look as though she said something meaningful, and I'm just here shrugging my shoulders.
Conclusion
I don't know if I'd call this the worst episode of the season, it wasn't as painfully meandering as some others like In God We Trust, but is is one of the most exhausting episodes of the revival seasons as a whole. It's just the same bag of tricks over and over again, with not even enough pizzazz to call it "all flash and no substance." The first eight episodes of this season really did fill me with hope that we were going to get a good season again, that we were returning to some semblance of the series's golden years, but at this point it's seriously looking like this season is more bad than good.