TiVo Community Forums Archives - The Jury 06/08 (Both Episodes) **SPOILERS**

Warning: include() [function.include]: URL file-access is disabled in the server configuration in /home/avsforum/archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/history/archive_functions.php on line 31

Warning: include(http://archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/history/header.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: no suitable wrapper could be found in /home/avsforum/archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/history/archive_functions.php on line 31

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening 'http://archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/history/header.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/avsforum/archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/history/archive_functions.php on line 31
Pages:1

The Jury 06/08 (Both Episodes) **SPOILERS**
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: appleye1

Not a bad show. I like the format. You've got the typical courtroom testimony but you also get to get in on the jury deliberations.

The crimes aren't all that intriguing though. They could take a page out of the L&O playbook to do better (the one that teaches you what "ripped from the headlines" means. :D) The first trial was really dull. The only thing that saved that episode (and this was the series premiere for chrissakes!) was the drama in the jury room. The second trial was a little better, but even it seemed pretty cut and dried.

The only thing that really bugged me is that they're not doing a very good job at keeping you from figuring out which way the jury would go. I had both the juries pegged early on. They're doing a bit better in keeping you from figuring out whether the defendent was really guilty or not. I missed on both of them. Although in the first case I think it shouldn't matter too much which one pulled the trigger. If you're screwing around like that and someone dies then you should be punished. They should have all been on trial.

I don't know if a TV version of 12 Angry Men has a future, but I'll keep my season pass for now.

Posted by: daperlman

I really, really like this show. The txt messaging viewer vote is really cool also. This is a great idea for a show. Focusing on the one aspect L&O really left out. Tough to cast though.

Thoughts on episode 1 case:

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
I don't agree with trying the kid as an adult, but I did think that aiming (even if it is into the air) pulling the hammer and squeezing the safety (on the trigger on a glock 9mm) to fire off two rounds does show a depraved indifference to life. B/C the safety is on the trigger you really gotta squeeze, so it doesn't go off by accident. I also think the father should be charged with negligence for the kid having access to gun and ammo. And his friends should be charged if they can prove they fired the gun at any time.

...didn't watch the 2nd ep yet

Posted by: dschwab

Wasn't a bad show, based on the first ep alone as I haven't watched the 2nd ep yet, but not up to the Levinson/Fontana level that they established with Homicide and Oz. The cheese factor was starting to get high in a few instances (the 2 young jurors all over each other, for example), but fortunately in this case we get a fresh set of jurors with each episode. However, I don't see how we're going to get much character development if the major players are different each episode.

Posted by: sieglinde

I wasn't too impressed. I think the first episode's crime was just too lame to drag me in. I will watch the second episode later.

Posted by: Wheens

What's the show's concept? Is it a new series?

Posted by: BrettStah

Regarding the first show, I thought the female juror who said she wouldn't be able to sentence the defendant as an adult should have been promptly dismissed from the jury. Also, how come the defense (or the police during the course of the investigation) didn't test the gloves of the other two kids for gunshot residue?

Regarding the second show, how come no mention of testing the guy for gunshot residue either? Also, isn't it a crime in most places to assist someone to commit suicide? They should have charged him with that.

(Since the subject says SPOILERS I'm assuming we don't need to use spoiler tags here, right?)

Posted by: appleye1

quote:
Originally posted by BrettStah
Regarding the first show, I thought the female juror who said she wouldn't be able to sentence the defendant as an adult should have been promptly dismissed from the jury. Also, how come the defense (or the police during the course of the investigation) didn't test the gloves of the other two kids for gunshot residue?

Regarding the second show, how come no mention of testing the guy for gunshot residue either? Also, isn't it a crime in most places to assist someone to commit suicide? They should have charged him with that.

(Since the subject says SPOILERS I'm assuming we don't need to use spoiler tags here, right?)

I didn't intend for tags to be used, but most likely somebody will complain anyway!

I agree with all of your points. The concept of this show is great but they've got to tighten up the writing. I found myself having to consciously ignore gaping plot holes in both episodes.

Or, I guess we can just assume they intended to show that the cops and the DA's are incompetent, and that most of the crooks are going to go free! :rolleyes:

Posted by: DancnDude

quote:
Originally posted by Wheens
What's the show's concept? Is it a new series?

Yep, it's a new series on FOX. It's a courtroom drama where the jury is deliberating, and while they are discussing then scenes from the courtroom are played as flashbacks. There is also a little bit of talk between the lawyers and courtroom workers.

I liked the show good enough to keep watching. It was kinda predictable as to how the jury was going to vote, but that can change as the series goes on. I thought the 2nd episode was much better than the first, probably because of the woman juror who took over much of ep1.

Posted by: daperlman

Now I have watched the second episode, and I actually didn't like this one as much. The only real ? in the 2nd case:
Did she shoot herself or did he shoot her. That is the only legal question, the rest is just conjecture... like was she in love with him? Did he want to harm her... etc. I felt the DA did not meet the burden of proof for 2nd degree murder. However having seen how it happened in the end... if I as a juror knew he was actually helping squeeze the trigger I believe that is at least worthy of a manslaughter charge. Of course the end is really for the TV audience (the jury does have that clear a picture of what happened).

Posted by: Steveknj

I'm not a big fan of cop / lawyer shows so I didn't get the evidence nuances that were mentioned in the thread here (gunshot residue, etc.). Maybe that is why I enjoyed the show more than most of you. I have served on a jury (and for a case that made the local press in Arizona, and the deliberations lasted 4 days), and I felt it captured most of what the experience was like. Of course there were holes, it's only an hour show, so they tried to highlight as much as possible.

The audience voting thing is lame and is a gimic for Fox to get viewers.

My one question for you legal eagles out there. Shouldn't that lawyer who snuck his cell phone and blackberry into the jury room be disqualified? If that is verboten, then I would think if he wasn't, and the defendant was found guilty, they would have a case for a mistrial.

Posted by: DavidBlue

And the award for most promising new show that ended up being really disappointing goes to............

THE JURY

based on the first 2 episodes. Actually I am giving it one more chance as I believe it is on Friday night too.

My main complaints (and I have only been on 2 juries but this experience seemingly gives me more info than the screenwriters for episodes 1 and 2):

- The Jury kept deciding when to eat, whether to order in lunch, when to quit for the night, etc. - this does NOT happen. The judge tells you when to start, when to stop, when your lunch is, whether you can order in, etc.

- They did mention not being allowed to talk about the case unless everyone on the jury is present. HOWEVER, they talked about the case while eating dinner! (can't remember if episode 1 or 2) - that's a NO-NO! You can only discuss the case in the jury room. Otherwise, other people might overhear (and you could see people at another table in the background while they were chatting about the case over their soup).

- I know this would be hard to do on a TV show, but even on a stinkin' $350 drug trial (my first trial on a jury), we were arguing hot and heavy and everyone was trying to talk at once. On this show, even when The Jury didn't get along with each other, they were certainly polite enough to let each other talk in turn. Not realistic.

- I don't want to see what REALLY happened at the end of the show. I think the whole concept of seeing "whether they were right or wrong" is very damaging to the whole concept of jury trials, American justice, etc. It's not "good for business" in other words. The jury finds what is the truth by the nature of their task. Technically speaking, it doesn't matter what REALLY happened. It's whether there is enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt that matters. I guess I'm splitting hairs here, though. I just think that watching a jury "get it wrong" week after week would give people a negative view of jury trials, that's all.

- The acting is terrible. I used to be an actor so I hopefully have some idea of what bad acting is (I am guilty of a lot of it myself). The leads in the show still need to settle into their roles. Billy Burke was great in "24" as a bad guy - not sure I believe him as a lawyer (yet). The Jury is a great concept because it gives 12 actors per week a chance at a guest starring role on a major show (not many other shows feature this many guest actors per show!). But a lot of them were stereotypes and "one-note" characters.

The worst acting of all is Barry Levinson as the judge. Barry is one of my favorite directors too. He should have known enough to watch some of his performance back on tape and cut himself out of the show!

Exception: Case 2 - the black female juror acted everyone else off the screen.

Warning: include() [function.include]: URL file-access is disabled in the server configuration in /home/avsforum/archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/history/archive_functions.php on line 37

Warning: include(http://archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/history/footer.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: no suitable wrapper could be found in /home/avsforum/archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/history/archive_functions.php on line 37

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening 'http://archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/history/footer.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/avsforum/archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/history/archive_functions.php on line 37