Stupid tv I'm watching Law & Order "Castle in the Sky" 5/2/2024 (spoilers)

s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

Slightly ambitious script does a lousy job exploring castle doctrine,
homelessness, and [sic] "squatting" in a case in which the twist
is claimed to be self defense.

Of course the script did a shitty job exploring the legal issues with
the emphasis entirely on the sob story.

Too bad RichA isn't here as his head would have exploded with the
story's "victim" (that would be the perpetrator), making him the white
father of a deaf girl.

Some rich developer is getting a humanitarian award; interim DA Baxter
is a long time friend. Baxter witnesses a fight he has with his
drug-addicted son.

The son is the murder victim, found in one of his father's developments
with the son supposedly managing construction. There's a security guard
who claims to be good buddies with the victim. He doesn't work nights
and the son had turned off the security system, to meet another friend
of his, his drug dealer.

Now, we see the gunshot wounds, which sure looked like they were fired
from a distance of at least a few feet, penetrating the chest
perpendiclar to the body. This plot point will be dropped during trial.

Interviewing the parents, I recognize an older Ivana Milicevic (who
trained to do all that stunt fighting in Banshee and did some nice
seminude scenes) as the mother.

Part of the argument between father and son turns out to be about the
real estate scam the father is pulling on the taxpayers. The very
expensive highrise got a massive housing subsidy because he promised to
provide 8 units of affordable housing, but he found a loophole that
meant no one could apply. The son learned about it from a housing
activist in the midst of vandalising the building.

There's a weird interrogation scene of the father later on in which it
appears that he's without an attorney, but we see the attorney later. He
points the police back at the security guard who had assault his son but
the son felt sorry for him and wouldn't fire him nor press charges.

Then the STOOPID begins. The security guard is a hard-luck guy, so the
script piles it on and tries to force the audience to sympathize. I
mean, it's only murder of a rich asshole's entitled drug-addicted son.
As we learned from Maroun several episodes back, we should not prosecute
a murderer to the fullest extent of the law if he can be a witness for
the prosecution for a worse crime like rape.

Well, the guard is a widower. (We learn later that his wife died of
ovarian cancer and he was left in massive medical debt.) Also he has an
adorable daughter who is deaf and attending private school.

Lt. Dixon can read and sign! Her adult son is deaf and teaches at that
school!

Getting to the castle doctrine bit now.

Searching the building, police find clothing with the victim's blood.
His defense attorney excludes the evidence for lack of a search warrant
because she argues that he was living in that unit in the empty
building and, in his own state of mind, believed it was his home.

Price argues that case law about privacy in a homeless person's "home"
and personal effects is about sleeping rough in a public space OUTDOORS,
not trespassing INDOORS.

With no precedent, the evidence is excluded.

This really doesn't work 'cuz the perpetrator had lived in multiple
vacant units hoping not to get caught by the victim. In fact, in the
unit in which the crime had been committed, his fingerprints were all
over the place so it's clear that that was one of the units.

The defense outsmarts Price (low bar) by suggesting that the victim is
dead due to drug dealers. In cross examination of the father, a
prosecution witness used to tell the jury what a great guy the victim
was (even though the father was extremely disappointed in him and
bailing him out), she asks him to establish that the son went to the
building to buy drugs. The father has no direct knowledge of this.

This is a theory that the defense might explore in putting on her own
evidence.

Maroun gets a few lines back at the office. Like Dixon, she's being used
to provide this week's woke message. She doesn't like prosecuting this
guy. She's going through financials -- and it gets massively STOOPID --
find some VENMO transactions. One is monies to the perpetrator shortly
after the crime. They figure out it was the sale of the murder weapon!
They get it back from the guy it was sold to and put him on the stand to
introduce it into evidence.

It doesn't occur to Maroun to look at the other transactions, 'cuz it
sure seems like the perpetrator was buying a gun.

The defense puts the client on the stand.

The defendant claims that the gun sold belonged to the victim.

Now, he tells the story of living in the unit the crime occurred in, a
"victimless" crime (uh, I wouldn't say that) and due to massive medical
debt and the rent increase on his old apartment, and the deaf kid's
tuition, etc. We hear violins.

The victim (who has every right to be there as he's supposedly managing
construction and the father is telling celebrities that he's going to
live there) came into the "vacant" apartment. The perpetrator couldn't
see who it was. The victim had a gun and pointed it at the daughter who
had come into the room! Then the two men wrestled for the gun and it
went off, killing the victim!

As I said, this evidence contradicts what we were shown of the corpse.

All Price has to do is recall the doctor who performed the autopsy to
rebut this testimony, but we don't go there. Instead, the deaf girl
gives testimony backing her father's story. Price wisely decides not to
bully the girl in cross.

In Baxter's office, Lt. Dixon puts on a super-sympathetic act, arguing
that castle doctrine might have applied and the perpetrator could have
argued self defense, if only he, you know, hadn't been committing the
crime of trespass. She's found an old picture of the victim on social
media with a gun! Without any way to tell, Dixon tries to get Baxter to
believe it's the same gun! The perpetrator might have told the truth!

And it WASN'T self defense under castle doctrine as only the VICTIM gets
that one. But it could have been under other circumstances! And it's so
terrible that the little girl will be in foster care rather than being
raised by her murderous father.

Dixon urges that a plea be offered with little prison and a lot of
probation. Price is ordered to offer the plea.

But then, Dixon goes with her son to see the daughter, briefly being
cared for by another parent at her school. Dixon sees the discussion
between the daughter and her son. Her own son lies about understanding
the implications of what the daughter just told him but Dixon gets the
daughter to confess that she lied in her direct testimony. Her father
had bought the gun for protection as they were homeless.

Dixon is torn by her, well, ethical responsibility to not hide evidence.
That would be a felony. She tells Riley. Riley, being an enormous moron,
doesn't urge her to immediately present the evidence to Price. He tells
her he'll conspire with her to hide it if she so chooses. Dear ghod.

What will Dixon do? She waits till the very last moment, just before
Price enters the conference room at his own office to offer the plea
bargain to the defense. Price tells the defense he won't offer the plea
after all. Price puts Dixon on the stand to rebut the girl's testimony.

Dixon feels just terrible and doesn't think it matters that the
murderous father of the year had his daughter give false testimony.
Think of the children!

Conviction