Klonor
13-02-2008, 05:42
Verdict: Overturned
Judge: Disbarred
Lawsuit: In the millions, and naming the judge, state, and God-knows-who-else as defendants
I was flipping through the channels a little while ago, watching a little of this and a little of that, and I noticed that the TV Guide listed Boston Legal as coming up in half an hour. I've only see one episode prior to this, but I found it interesting (Even if a case was won by suborning perjury) and I thought I'd take a peek (What can I say, Shatner and Spader together combines two different "Star-" universes into one). I watched it, laughed a bit here and there, and then felt like wretching when the verdict for the primary trial of the episode was revealed.
It concerned building a new nuclear power plant, an inhabitant of a town was suing to keep the plant from being built there, and in my opinion it was a pointless crusade, with the worthy victor obviously the plant. However, that's irrelevent, since the judge admitted he was disregarding all the evidence and rendering a verdict based on personal bias!
It turns out the judges mother lives in that town, and he doesn't want a nuclear plant built there. So, he rules in favor of the plaintif, saying it was because his mother lives there, and calls it a day. Let's run this down, shall we?
The judge should have recused himself before the trial even started. The second he even read the motion, and saw that it pertained to a family member, he was legally obligated to say "I can not be impartial" and step aside as the presiding judge.
If he does not recuse himself, for whatever reason, he has a legal and moral obligation to remain impartial and render a verdict based on the facts of the case.
If he does not remain impartial, he has an obligation to common freaking sense to not announce that he is rendering an illegal verdict.
That all, of course, completely disregards all the major infractions of protocol and law that occured during the actual trial, since the trial never should have begun, and thus those other infractions shouldn't have happened in the first place.
I, who have not attended law-school and have no judicial experience, could get that verdict overturned on appeal. The judge would then be disbarred (Fired, in other words) for such a gross violation of the laws of court. I could then, if I wanted to, sue him for God-knows-what. That lawsuit I'm not saying I would necessarily win, like I said I'm not a lawyer and don't know if this is an actionable offence, but it would at least get before a judge.
Now, like I said, this is only the second episode of Boston Legal that I have seen, so I'm not going to say the entire series is like this. However, this episode was just so...so...so damn ridiculous. If this is a representation of the overall show I honestly do not get how it has remained on the air until now. It is, honest to God, as if a newscaster reporting on an election announced "And it looks like Senator XXXX has received a nearly unanimous victory, but I like YYYY and will be announcing his victory instead" and then everybody watching went along with it! It makes no sense!
I don't know why I'm so incensed at this particular episode of a TV show, I've seen greater errors in court on other TV shows, but for some reason I am just so very pertubed. Maybe it's because I decided yesterday to go to law school, but whatever it is, I am just seething.
Anybody else see the episode?
Judge: Disbarred
Lawsuit: In the millions, and naming the judge, state, and God-knows-who-else as defendants
I was flipping through the channels a little while ago, watching a little of this and a little of that, and I noticed that the TV Guide listed Boston Legal as coming up in half an hour. I've only see one episode prior to this, but I found it interesting (Even if a case was won by suborning perjury) and I thought I'd take a peek (What can I say, Shatner and Spader together combines two different "Star-" universes into one). I watched it, laughed a bit here and there, and then felt like wretching when the verdict for the primary trial of the episode was revealed.
It concerned building a new nuclear power plant, an inhabitant of a town was suing to keep the plant from being built there, and in my opinion it was a pointless crusade, with the worthy victor obviously the plant. However, that's irrelevent, since the judge admitted he was disregarding all the evidence and rendering a verdict based on personal bias!
It turns out the judges mother lives in that town, and he doesn't want a nuclear plant built there. So, he rules in favor of the plaintif, saying it was because his mother lives there, and calls it a day. Let's run this down, shall we?
The judge should have recused himself before the trial even started. The second he even read the motion, and saw that it pertained to a family member, he was legally obligated to say "I can not be impartial" and step aside as the presiding judge.
If he does not recuse himself, for whatever reason, he has a legal and moral obligation to remain impartial and render a verdict based on the facts of the case.
If he does not remain impartial, he has an obligation to common freaking sense to not announce that he is rendering an illegal verdict.
That all, of course, completely disregards all the major infractions of protocol and law that occured during the actual trial, since the trial never should have begun, and thus those other infractions shouldn't have happened in the first place.
I, who have not attended law-school and have no judicial experience, could get that verdict overturned on appeal. The judge would then be disbarred (Fired, in other words) for such a gross violation of the laws of court. I could then, if I wanted to, sue him for God-knows-what. That lawsuit I'm not saying I would necessarily win, like I said I'm not a lawyer and don't know if this is an actionable offence, but it would at least get before a judge.
Now, like I said, this is only the second episode of Boston Legal that I have seen, so I'm not going to say the entire series is like this. However, this episode was just so...so...so damn ridiculous. If this is a representation of the overall show I honestly do not get how it has remained on the air until now. It is, honest to God, as if a newscaster reporting on an election announced "And it looks like Senator XXXX has received a nearly unanimous victory, but I like YYYY and will be announcing his victory instead" and then everybody watching went along with it! It makes no sense!
I don't know why I'm so incensed at this particular episode of a TV show, I've seen greater errors in court on other TV shows, but for some reason I am just so very pertubed. Maybe it's because I decided yesterday to go to law school, but whatever it is, I am just seething.
Anybody else see the episode?