I was watching Rizzolli and Isles on Netflix last week. It’s a very good show, good characters, good plots, well-written. Set in Boston. It aired in the 2010’s.
But on this particular episode, they captured a very bad person, a person who killed indiscriminately, a person who set fire to Rizzolli’s apartment, a person who shot up another cop’s wedding at a bar. A really bad person, the kind you shouldn’t invite out for pizza.
Four episodes concerned tracking down this person and capturing her. When she was finally cornered and taken into custody, a sigh of relief from all of the characters on the show.
Not so fast.
Rizzolli is informed that the very bad person’s lawyer has requested a “probable cause” hearing and is seeking to dismiss the charges. Cut to the courtroom where the defense lawyer is telling the judge that Rizzolli is biased and probably lying and that he has thirty affidavits from people who were present when the very bad person supposedly shot at Rizzolli and gave the gun to someone else, instructing them to shoot a bystander, all of whom say the very bad person did nothing wrong and did not shoot and is a real mensch and Kind to Animals and used to rewind her VHS tapes at Blockbuster.
The judge furrows his brow.
“Does the prosecution have anything else to present?” he asks the prosecutor.
“No, your honor.”
“Then I have no choice but to dismiss the charges…”
And that’s when the lawyer in me objected to the stupidity.
Here in California, we call a “Probable Cause” hearing a Preliminary. The standard is whether there is sufficient cause to believe a crime might have been committed and that the defendant might have done it. It’s the lowest standard in criminal courts. I have had a number of prelims in which the judge found probable cause but then told the DA, “You’re going to have trouble proving this at trial.”
But that’s California. So I looked up “Probable Cause Hearing in Massachussets” and the AI told me that it’s a hearing held after charges are filed to determine whether there’s probable cause to believe that a crime might have been committed and that the defendant might have committed it. A police officer’s sworn testimony is sufficient for probable cause.
In other words, just like Cally.
Oh, by the way, hearsay is not allowed. Which is what those thirty affidavits would be. Hearsay. Inadmissible.
I realize that, for dramatic purposes, the writers needed to get the very bad person released so she could continue to menace Rizzolli. But scenes like this just contribute to the layperson’s dissatisfaction with the law. “Criminals can be released on a technicality and menace the population.”
Elsewhere in this show, the writers are meticulous to explain obscure medical conditions or technical issues. The equipment in the Medical Examiner’s Office is described with excruciating accuracy.
But suddenly we need to release a bad person for the plot to bubble along, so we just throw out legal procedure. It disappointed me greatly.
Listen, television is traditionally sloppy with the legal stuff. Rare are the shows like L.A. Law, where the writers and consultants were meticulous in making sure that, no matter how outrageous the plot was, the legal procedure was spot on. For the most part, TV adopts the Perry Mason approach and runs roughshod over the law.
Which, as I said, leads your person in the street to think that law and justice are two different things.
Which makes my job as a lawyer even harder.
Oh well. This show stopped making new episodes years ago. I have about 12 episodes left to watch in the series. And there’s no one I can write to in order to complain.
Except you.
Mark Bruce, Writer 