Season 1 Episode 5

In Re: Tracy Vidalin

Aired Saturday 8:00 PM Oct 16, 2010 on NBC
out of 10
User Rating
28 votes

By TV.com Users

Episode Summary

When a confession is entered as proof that the girlfriend of a police killer is guilty of the murder, Garza and Al must find out if a Miranda Rights violation occurred. The violation would disregard the confession and protect the girl's right to remain silent. Further complicating the incident is the fact that this defendant is the daughter of Cyrus' nemesis Senator Sidney Vidalin. Eddie and Mereta follow their own investigation when they dig into Lucinda's past and discover something shocking.moreless

Who was the Episode MVP ?

No results found.
No results found.
No results found.
    Timothy Busfield

    Timothy Busfield

    District Attorney Mereta

    Guest Star

    Kate Hodge

    Kate Hodge

    Lois Vidalin

    Guest Star

    Ashley Rickards

    Ashley Rickards

    Tracy Vidalin

    Guest Star

    Richard Portnow

    Richard Portnow

    Senator Sidney Vidalin

    Recurring Role

    Trivia, Notes, Quotes and Allusions


    • TRIVIA (0)

    • QUOTES (0)

    • NOTES (4)

      • Additional Credit: Major League Baseball footage used with permission of Major League Baseball Properties, Inc.

      • When Garza found out that Tracy lied on the witness stand, this presented a real dilemma. Helping a client commit perjury is unethical and could get him disbarred. Tracy didn't expressly say that she lied, but this should be clear to Garza. Still, if Garza bowed out of the case so late into the trial, it may have alerted the court to the perjury, despite lawyer/client confidences. Instead, Garza decided on something unethical. He used Tracy's perjured testimony in his closing argument. This issue was not raised during the episode.

      • The law as presented in this episode is pretty accurate. Most states have a Felony Murder law. If A and B are involved in a felony, and B kills someone, A can be found guilty of murder, even if A only agreed to drive the get-away car.

        The exact issue about the right to remain silent was recently before the U.S. Supreme Court. If police are interrogating someone who invokes the right to remain silent, the police are not supposed to continue the interrogation; if they do continue asking questions, anything said after that point cannot be used against them in court. Often, courts give a narrow reading to this rule. For example, in one case the interrogator continued talking, but asked no questions; statements made by the defendant can be used in court. By speaking, the defendant has given up the right to remain silent.

        In the recent Supreme Court case, the police interrogated someone for a very long time. Although the person said absolutely nothing during that very long interrogation, the police continued their questions, and eventually, they got the person to say something and he was tried for the crime. The defendant argued that someone who has clearly refused to answer questions has not invoked their right to remain silent, no matter how long they stay quiet. The Supreme Court held that to invoke the right to remain silent, you have to speak up and say so.

        Also mentioned was the burden on the prosecution. The prosecution had to prove that she committed the crime, and the statement that was held up as a confession was very ambiguous. It's possible that the judge might have dismissed the case before giving it to the jury.

        At the end of the prosecution's presentation of their "case" Garza, who is supposed to be a knowledgeable lawyer, should have asked the court to dismiss the case. If the judge agreed, Garza would not have to present any evidence, including putting Tracy on the stand. Maybe it happened off camera and the judge didn't dismiss the case. After all, we don't see every moment of the trial.

      • Original International Airdates:
        Canada: October 15, 2010 on Global

    • ALLUSIONS (0)