Thursday, August 26, 2010

Get It Right

Ugh. I find glaring legal inaccuracies in television shows to be incredibly annoying. For instance, tonight I was watching a rerun of "Law and Order: SVU." Stabler and Benson were working a rape case, and it became clear upon the suspect's confession of an earlier rape that an innocent man was in prison. The entire episode had this hotshot DA who gave the cops all sorts of grief for the way they bend the rules. She came off as a real bitch, but a smart one.

So they have the confession. Stabler goes to the prison and promises the innocent guy that he'll get him out. But then the confessor falls/jumps/is thrown out a window and dies. Stabler's not too upset that the scumbag is dead until the DA tells him that now, without the dead guy's testimony, there is now way to exonerate the innocent guy. The rules of hearsay don't allow the prior confession to be admitted. Cue the dramatic music and fade to the Dick Wolf credits. Tough shit, huh? Man, the legal system sucks.

Except...

THE FUCKING RULES OF EVIDENCE DO ALLOW IT. It's called the statement against interest exception. When the declarant is unavailable to testify (say, because he's DEAD) then his statement is admissible if it is so against his best interest that it's deemed to be true. This scenario was the PERFECT example of how that rule would be applied. (Also, there was additional corroborating evidence to back up the statement.)

What the hell? Who's doing the legal advising for that show? That's second-year law school stuff.

2 comments:

Salieri said...

Does New York use the FRE? (Also it pisses me off whenever someone on TV starts testifying that God told them to kill somebody. That's classic hearsay.)

Litigious Mind said...

Because I'm a huge dork, I looked it up. Without Westlaw, I couldn't find a satisfactory answer, but I found something that indicated that they have an analogous state rule.