Review of "Genius" (Wednesday, April 2, 2003 NBC Episode)
Walt
Should note I was a bit under the weather when I wrote this, so it may not be
perfect. See below for more:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
This episode opened with a group of teens playing touch football who find a
man dead under a taxicab, with the person actually dead from reports before he
hit the ground. Lennie and Ed find the doors to the cab unlocked, with the man
who drove the cab found a considerable distance from where the cab was, at his
home. They go to his home, with his saying he was sick, noting his vehicle had
to be impounded because a body was found under it. It turned out he lent the
cab to someone else while the driver was at an AA meeting. It turns out the
victim was a former KKK member who apparently was "hiding from the Feds", and
in his apartment they find a Rebel flag.
Ed asks Lennie if he saw some books in the victim's room, noting the book he
had was sold to a well-known writer who had stabbed his wife (which they
checked at a bookstore). They then go to that man's home to talk to him. That
man remembered how he had been with a woman at a restaurant, with Lennie and Ed
then asking the writer about the book found with the victim.
Lennie then goes to the bar/restaurant the writer was at the night before with
the bartender noting how they were arguing about how the writer stabbed his
wife, with Lennie noting how she said it was not in the police report while Ed
remained with the writer, drinking scotch and talking about what happened. Ed
then unloads his gun and shows it to the writer, who notes he had that gun in
Vietnam. Lennie then continues with the bartender, who notes how some of the
other people were drinking $200 bottles of liquor, with Lennie asking for the
bottle, which he takes down to a DNA expert while Ed continues with the writer,
talking various stories on Vietnam. The writer then asks Ed about performing
with grace under pressure. Ed then asks to borrow a copy of the book found with
the victim, who then notes how a "chest kill" is the best kill, noting that not
until the blood flows that a man knows he's dead, with Ed saying that the
writer killed the man found in the cab.
We next see Anita with Lennie and Ed, with Anita worried that Ed crossed the
line. In the meantime, Lennie and Ed then go and interview a professor (Clay
Warner) at Hudson University, who talks about how the writer (Nelson Lambert)
helped him get his first book published. He then noted how Nelson got drunk
around 1:00 AM and went home, with the DNA man noting how there were matches to
Clay Warner, whom Lennie and Ed then interview. Clay admitted he was lying
about getting the book from Nelson.
We then see Lennie, Ed and Anita at the Precinct with Lennie reading the book
before Lennie and Ed then went to Sing Sing, where the warden noted that
Lanmbert and two other men went into a laundry and only two came out, with the
other stabbed in the chest. That lead them to Warner, who was arrested.
We then see Clay Warner in Arraignment court, with Warner pleading not guilty.
Bail was set at $300,000.
We then see the attorney with Jack and Serena reading excerpts from the book,
with Serena noting that forensics putting him at the scene. The lawyer then
claims he was in jail for six years on a trumped-up drug charge. The defense
attorney then gives Jack a 155-page report.
Jack and the Defense attorney argue with the Judge over the purchase of a book
that led to Nelson Lambert and Clay Warner. The Judge rules in favor of Jack,
who we then see talk with Arthur on how to handle this case, noting how he
wants some more tricks.
We then see Serena talking with Clay's mother, who notes she had not spoken
with Clay in years. Another professor who went to prison with Clay then talks
with Serena, who didn't get along with Clay at all. Serena asks him if he was
financial trouble, and he notes how there was an envelope, which he finds a
knife and money fall out.
We then see Jack and Serena back at the DA's Office, with the defense attorney
arguing with Jack and Serena about the case, looking to get more excluded when
Clay then says he'll confess to everything, with the shocker of his asking for
the death penalty.
Jack then talks with Arthur about the shocker with Serena noting the defense
council filing a motion that Clay is not competent to assist in his defense,
with Serena arranging for him to talk to Skoda. Clay then notes to Skoda how
his time in prison earlier, saying how he was "forced down" while in prison.
Skoda then says he had hardly scratched the surface on him after eight hours to
Jack and Serena in a restaurant. Skoda then continues the next day, asking if
he was "defiant", with Clay noting how his father slept with many women on the
east side, his noting he killed the man because he wanted to with no remorse.
We then see Jack at a bar when the defense attorney joins him. The defense
attorney then notes how the victims was a KKK member who killed two people and
bought "kiddie porn" in his time. Jack then reverses the situation with the
victim and Clay, with the defense attorney noting he'd defend the KKK man as
well. The defense attorney then notes how Clay was a genius compared to the
victim.
At a motion hearing, we see Nelson Lambert noting how Clay was a genius,
saying how while he should go to jail for killing the victim, he also should
not get the death penalty, saying that would be "society's loss." Nelson then
notes how many respected society members had their flaws overlooked. Clay then
testifies to Jack how he was in a cab going to another bar, with the victim,
who was the KKK man, telling him to stop smoking, noting how he was mad at him
for not smoking and also noting how he stabbed another man in jail simply
because he didn't like the man. The defense attorney tries to stop Clay in
cross-examination.
We see Jack with Arthur talking about the death penalty and how Clay wanted to
die before they go back to court the next day on a motion hearing. The judge
then says that the plea bargain with Clay's request for death would stand,
which ended the episode.
Another excellent episode with a major surprise.
Walt
E-mail me at: Free...@juno.com
Rick
<laword...@aol.com> wrote:
> Another excellent episode with a major surprise.
Everything's relative, I guess. I thought it was the worst episode in
the entire history of the series, all sophomoric preachiness and
preposterous characters. The older writer and the defense lawyer were
cartoons, and there wasn't an ounce of credibility to the entire story.
I swear, if this had been my first exposure to the series, I'd never
watch it again. Everyone involved should hang their head in shame. May
this episode never again see the light of day.
--
Rick
Jeff Gersten
I wondered about a few things. Why did they make the victim a despicable
KKK member? That was really irrelevant, and something that the defendant
did not know.
Most of all I wondered about the plausiblity of the story. Can a
defendant bypass the trial and penalty phase and be executed? I thought
that the Supreme Court had mandated a penalty phase by a jury before any
death sentence.
One other point---I am sure Skoda fans will love this episode. He got
extra time on the show as he needed more time to interview the defendant
to judge his competency. He was able to say that he was legally sane,
but admitted that he did not really fully comprehend him. I also thought
that his conversation with Jack when he asked him how he wanted this one
to come out (i.e. should I find him competent or not) was interesting.
Do law officials become more uncomfortable about the death penalty when
instead of having to fight for it, the defendant asks for it? (See
Norman Mailer's book on Gary Gilmore)
Anyway, lots of philosophical and legal wrangling made this a thought
provoking L&O.
Nelson Lu
Rick <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <20030402230144...@mb-fc.aol.com>, Walt
><laword...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Another excellent episode with a major surprise.
>
>Everything's relative, I guess. I thought it was the worst episode in
>the entire history of the series, all sophomoric preachiness and
>preposterous characters. The older writer and the defense lawyer were
>cartoons, and there wasn't an ounce of credibility to the entire story.
Actually, it's not as preposterous as it seems. Recently, there is a case in
San Francisco of a man who has confessed to killing one person -- and is
willing to confess to more -- but only if the DA would agree to seek the death
penalty.
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/30/MN274531.DTL)
This has put the San Francisco DA, Terrence Hallinan, into a bind, since
Hallinan is against the death penalty *and* ran on a campaign promise to never
ask for the death penalty.
The reason, in that case, as the article indicated, is likely that the guy is
old enough that he'd never get executed anyway while appeal is pending. If he
gets the death penalty, he gets to stay out of the general population, where
his crimes would not make him very welcome. That reason is not really
mentioned in the L&O episode, however.
Nelson Lu
Jeff Gersten <JeffG...@webtv.net> wrote:
>Most of all I wondered about the plausiblity of the story. Can a
>defendant bypass the trial and penalty phase and be executed? I thought
>that the Supreme Court had mandated a penalty phase by a jury before any
>death sentence.
If I remember correctly (and I must say that on this issue, I am not quite
sure), a penalty phase is not mandated by the federal constitution. (I don't
believe Timothy McVeigh got a penalty phase, for example.) However, each
state will have its own procedures for imposing the death penalty. In
California, a guilt phase can be waived (via a plea of guilty), but not a
penalty phase; however, the penalty phase can be tried by a judge, if the
defendant and the prosecution both waive a jury.
Gerry Zaninovich
about jury, judge and death penalty, I don't remember exactly (maybe
someone does) but I think it was something like only the jury can
request the death penalty, and the judge may impose it or not.
Gerry
Shirley
P
O
I
L
E
R
I need to re-watch the episode to fully appreciate all the nuances,
but during the first viewing, it reminded me of "Aftershock". Not
sure way, but it had the same kind of emotional-delving attitude,
Briscoe referencing his 'falling off wagon' 6 years ago which would be
near the time frame for "Aftershock", the underlying 'death sentence
issue', and the minimal court room time. Also Sam's uncertainty about
pursuing that sentence seem to harken back to "Aftershock". His final
look that ended the show was priceless.
By the way, how many times has the 'death sentence' been given in
cases since "Aftershock"? Sure one of you knows.
It was a very good and exceptionly well-acted episode. Especially
like the character that played the old writer. Don't know his name.
What other episodes has that defense lawyer been in? Nice to see
Green spotlighted.
Anxious to see how the rest of you felt about the ep.
Peace,
Shirley
PS: Walt, hope you are feeling better.
Liam Devlin
> Nice summary, Walt. I agree with you that this was an excellent episode.
(snip)
> Do law officials become more uncomfortable about the death penalty when
> instead of having to fight for it, the defendant asks for it? (See
> Norman Mailer's book on Gary Gilmore)
Interesting you should mention Norman Mailer, who was instrumental in
getting Jack Henry Abbott released from prison because JHA was a great
writing talent. Not too long after his release, JHA killed someone in
the East Village (NYC), after going to an after-hours club
From: http://www.uturn.org/Prisissue/dobry2.htm
Jack Henry Abbott heard, from his prison cell, that Norman Mailer was
writing a book, Executioner's Song, about executed murderer Gary
Gilmore. Murder was something that Jack Henry Abbott told Mailer he knew
about! Abbott even described to Mailer, in great detail, how it felt to
stab someone to death and to watch him die. If Mailer was going to write
this book on Gilmore, murder and the American judicial system, then he,
Abbott assured Mailer, was his man! The compilation of Abbott's letters
to Mailer became, entirely due to Mailer's valiant effort, the 1981
bestseller, In the Belly of the Beast, and Abbott, a self-proclaimed
murderer, became the darling of the New York City literati.
At the age of thirty-seven, Abbott was paroled from the Marion Federal
Prison in Illinois. Mailer got Abbott out of prison on a work-release
program. His release coincided with the release of In the Belly of the
Beast, which was being heralded, at the time, as a major literary
achievement. Jean Paul Sartre said that an "intellectual" is someone who
"meddles outside their own area of expertise." Abbott, except for a
short-lived escape from prison in 1971, had been incarcerated in one
institution or another since the time he was thirteen years old.
Abbott's "area of expertise" was exactly what he told Mailer it was,
"murder," "crime," and the "American Judicial System".Mailer, the
classic intellectual, was, in dealing with Abbott, "meddling " in an
area "outside his area of expertise"!
In 1952 Sartre wrote:
...
Now, in In the Belly of the Beast, Abbott talks about all the
philosophers he had read in prison, Nietzche, Kant, Marx, etc. Could it
be that when reading Sartre, Abbott read that the "greatest crime" was
not "doing evil" but the "manifesting of evil"? Could Abbott have read
about writing "from prison, abominable books which stand up for crime"
but "fall within the provisions of the law"? Could Abbott have read
about "getting out of prison"?
What Abbott needed was an "intellectual"! Abbott needed someone to
"meddle" outside their own "area of expertise," like Sartre did with
Genet to get Abbott out of prison. It was Abbott who started writing to
Mailer, and it was Mailer, Mailer the intellectual, that was conned by
Abbott. There's a reason they're called "cons" you know. But, there is
also a reason guys like Mailer are called "intellectuals" too! The guy
off the street would've been too hip to fall for Abbott's game, but not
an intellectual! Abbott, in my opinion, knew exactly who he was writing
and for what reason: to get out of prison!
Abbott was released from Marion in 1981. Mailer got him out of prison on
a work-release program.
Mailer: "This guy isn't a murderer, he's an artist!"
Even though Abbott described in chilling detail how it felt to kill a
man, Mailer the intellectual, got Abbott freed from prison. Just six
weeks later Abbott stabbed to death Binibon Café night-manager Richard
Adan, a twenty-two year old kid, on Manhattan's Lower East Side.
Roadrunner
"Shirley" <sdgr...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:eb06e9b1.03040...@posting.google.com...
>
> I need to re-watch the episode to fully appreciate all the nuances,
> but during the first viewing, it reminded me of "Aftershock". Not
> sure way, but it had the same kind of emotional-delving attitude,
I had the same feeling. The pace of the episode (especially the first half)
was a slower than normal. The scenes where Green is drinking/interviewing
the writer and Lennie's scene in the bar were longer and slower than most
episodes.
I thought the second half was a little preachy.
Not sure why the defendant didn't simply fire his atty.
Walt
>> Do law officials become more uncomfortable about the death penalty when
>> instead of having to fight for it, the defendant asks for it? (See
>> Norman Mailer's book on Gary Gilmore)
To which Liam replied:
>Interesting you should mention Norman Mailer, who was instrumental in
>getting Jack Henry Abbott released from prison because JHA was a great
>writing talent. Not too long after his release, JHA killed someone in
>the East Village (NYC), after going to an after-hours club
(rest snipped)
That explains what last night's episode was based on obviously. Not what I
would expect an "L & O" story to be based on.
Speaking of stories, I mentioned a few days ago I did my own story suggestion
based on the Breeders' Cup pick-six at Arlington Park last October that was
tampered with. You can see that story suggestion by going to:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V2AF32704
It's on TNT's "L & O" board, where you can reply there anonomously or as a
guest, or register with the board if you wish. We actually have a number of
story suggestions there, and a number of us think another man who does most of
the story suggestions should be hired as a writer on the show by Dick Wolf,
that's how good he is.
broye54
As I read this post and the thread I am surprised that more people were
not familiar with the actual story that this episode was based on. For
some reason I remember Abbott as being a convict in the same Utah
prison as Gilmore and not in Illinois, but I could be wrong on that.
Abbott as was written here heard about Mailer writing a book on Gilmore
used his jailhouse and criminal bona fides to get into Mailer¹s good
graces.
The one item was not written here is that among ³The Literati² Jerzy
Kozinski, the novelist and essayist was adamant in his concern about
letting Abbot out of prison; he shared in an editorial the
correspondence he had with Abbot that revealed him to be what he was: a
monster, an enemy of society and someone who could not function in
anything other than a controlled environment.
Abbot¹s victim was a young man who was a playwright from Cuba. He was
not nearly as celebrated as Abbott but his play was being produced. He
had to work at a small coffee shop/restaurant to support himself. The
restaurant did not have a bathroom for public use. Abbot insisted on
using it; he killed the young man when he refused.
I am not a producer or have hand in TV, but the idea of, to use a phase
that business people like to use, "repurposing" Law and Order reruns as
90 minutes shows adding on some way the actual events that a given Law
and Order episode was based on and how it end seems like a ideal way to
breathe live in its syndication market.
In article <3E8C710E...@optonline.NOSPAM.net>, Liam Devlin
JD Leewong
>The restaurant did not have a bathroom for public use. Abbot insisted on
>using it; he killed the young man when he refused.
IIRC (nitpicking somewhat), the restroom had to be accessed from an alley and
Abbot killed the young man as he was showing him where it was. Abbott argued
that in his experience when someone wants to get you to a remote location like
that it means they are going to kill you, so he killed the young man in kind of
preemptive self defense.
Laurie