Judge Wright always been a dick?
MrSteelo01
every show I've seen with him, he always throws out the jury's decision.
Dave82881
>every show I've seen with him, he always throws out the jury's decision.
He dislikes McCoy with a passion. For that reason, he is unlikely to cut McCoy
any slack when he goes the extra mile to nail a defendant. Surprisingly, they
had no run-ins in the episode "Harm," when McCoy did not act as the lead
prosecutor, but still successfully argued a motion before Wright.
Dave
Sophie
In what other cases did this judge sit on the bench?
Sophie
Dave82881
>In what other cases did this judge sit on the bench?
"Damaged" -- where McCoy prosecutes three boys for gang-raping a retarded girl
and Wright lets them off because she enjoyed the sex.
"Harm" -- where the cops discover that two doctors operated on a patient with a
new piece of equipment worked by a saleswoman. Carmichael prosecutes this
case, but McCoy successfully argues a motion before Judge Wright, who displays
no bias against McCoy here.
"Gunshow" -- where the cops catch a man who sprayed the contents of an
automatic weapon in Central Park at young women. When the gun manufacturer
does not cooperate with McCoy, he prosecutes them for culpability in the
shooting, for making a gun that could be easily converted into an automatic
weapon. Wright dismisses a jury verdict here as well, and McCoy loses his
temper.
"Dissonance" -- A symphony conductor is prosecuted for the murder of his star
violinist and mistress (She was about to leave him and the symphony). This
time, Lewin takes a preemptive measure with Wright, speaking with him about
McCoy and warning him not to let his personal feelings affect his handling of
the case. Wright doesn't react well to a DA telling him how to judge a case,
but they handle him with kid gloves throughout the matter and there are no more
fireworks between McCoy and Wright this time.
I like it when they use the same actors to play the same judges. My favorites
are Shawn Elliott, who has played an assortment of Hispanic judges throughout
the series and David Lipman, who plays an arraignment judge named Morris
Torledsky many times. I don't like Donna Hanover, the separated wife of Rudy
Giuliani who plays Deborah Burke in a few episodes, and Doris Belack who has
played Margaret Barry on L&O and SVU.
Dave
Sophie
[Spoilers snipped]
>
>I like it when they use the same actors to play the same judges. My favorites
>are Shawn Elliott, who has played an assortment of Hispanic judges throughout
>the series and David Lipman, who plays an arraignment judge named Morris
>Torledsky many times. I don't like Donna Hanover, the separated wife of Rudy
>Giuliani who plays Deborah Burke in a few episodes, and Doris Belack who has
>played Margaret Barry on L&O and SVU.
>
>
>
>Dave
>
Thank you Dave for that nice overview of the judge Wright/McCoy saga;
I remember all those episodes but never caught on that it was the same
judge.
I, too, like it when they use the same actors to play judges; I'll be
on the lookout now to see if they are playing the same character from
one time to the next.
Sophie
Howard Pearson
"Dave82881" <dave...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010816114341...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
> Spoilers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In what other cases did this judge sit on the bench?
>
> "Damaged" -- where McCoy prosecutes three boys for gang-raping a retarded
girl
> and Wright lets them off because she enjoyed the sex.
This episode makes me so furious, it's very difficult for me to watch it. I
just want to grab that judge and and toss him out the nearest window.
<snip>
> I don't like Donna Hanover, the separated wife of Rudy
> Giuliani who plays Deborah Burke in a few episodes, and Doris Belack who
has
> played Margaret Barry on L&O and SVU.
>
>
>
> Dave
I love Doris Belack. I have enjoyed her ever since I saw her in "Tootsie".
I think she would have made a great replacement for Steven Hill, had Dianne
Wiest not taken the job.
--
"Speak softly, and carry a big subpoena."
Nora Lewin (Dianne Wiest), Law & Order
>
KaraTerre
>I think she would have made a great replacement for Steven Hill, had Dianne
>Wiest not taken the job.
Doris Belack was also a charter cast member of the ABC soap "One Life To Live."
I remember her from my high school years on the show.
Kara
------------------------------------------------------------------
Exploration of the North Pole
has repeatedly revealed one thing:
there is no one sitting on top of the world.
Paul
girl
> and Wright lets them off because she enjoyed the sex.
I've never understood that about judges, why they are allowed to overturn a
jury's verdict. If the case is that cut and dried, why send them off for
deliberation in the first place? Or why don't thery just add that to the jury
instruction? "And lastly, ladies and gentleman of the Jury, be sure to return
a verdict of "Not guilty," because if you don't, I'm going to direct it
anyway."
SteveR
>why they are allowed to overturn a
>jury's verdict.
An interesting question for misc.legal.moderated. I suspect it has to
do with providing a safety valve in cases where the jury simply
arrives at an obviously wrong decision based on the evidence
presented.
SteveR
ANIM8Rfsk
jury's verdict. >>
And can they do it in either direction; can the judge say 'what, are you people
OUT OF YOUR MINDS, this guy is GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY and I sentence you to death
for stealing cable!!!' or can they just set somebody free?
David Wilton
First, a judge cannot overturn an acquittal or direct a guilty
verdict. They can only overturn a perverse guilty verdict.
If it is clear from the evidence that there is reasonable doubt, then
the judge can direct an acquittal either before or after the jury
deliberates. Overturned verdicts (should) only occur when the jury
clearly ignores valid evidence that provides reasonable doubt. Such
directed verdicts are very, very rare.
The reason for waiting until after the jury deliberates is that if the
jury acquits, the proceeding is over. If the judge intervenes
beforehand, the prosecution has grounds for appeal (the prosecution
can't appeal a jury's verdict, but it can appeal a judge's decision).
If the judge preempts the jury decision, then it is possible (even
probable) that that an appeals court will declare a mistrial and make
them do it over again.
--Dave Wilton
da...@wilton.net
http://www.wordorigins.org
William December Starr
da...@wilton.net said:
> The reason for waiting until after the jury deliberates is that if
> the jury acquits, the proceeding is over. If the judge intervenes
> beforehand, the prosecution has grounds for appeal (the prosecution
> can't appeal a jury's verdict, but it can appeal a judge's
> decision). If the judge preempts the jury decision, then it is
> possible (even probable) that that an appeals court will declare a
> mistrial and make them do it over again.
Additionally -- and I heard this from a real judge -- many judges will
give the jury the first chance to return the correct (not guilty)
verdict because they realize that every time a judge _does_ override a
jury verdict it makes the whole system look bad, or at least confused,
in the public eye.
(In criminal cases, at least. Perhaps because the stakes aren't so
dramatic, people seem to be far less upset or surprised when they hear
about a judge overturning a verdict in a civil case.)
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>