Big problem with tonight's episode

[pantags]

Ok, it might not be a big problem, but its really boring me that the writers could screw this up.
Im a criminal trial the prosecution always goes first, hence innocent until proven guilty, but as we saw Jack testified for Kate before the prosecution brought their witnesses. I know this is kinda but it was really bothering me. I mean the writers are usually very good with details. Kate's mom should have testified before she ever heard Jack's testimony. This key fact determined the entire outcome of the trial, if her mom never hears Jack she doesn't change her mind suddenly get more sick, and the writers flat out got it wrong. It really bothers me how they can screw up a detail such as that when they are so on with everything else.

[TSOL1]

Doesn't bother me. lol

[XmasDVD]

I have watched lots of perry Mason and know that to be true. but didn't bother me - had to be that way for Kate to get off.

[dano81818]

yeah i caught that too, they could have done it right, but i guess in the whole wacky scheme o' things is doesnt really matter

[lostlindy]

Hey, Kate's free!! Ya Hooo!! who cares how they did it!! and I'm glad she handled her mother the way she did. it's her fault Kate went through all that she did :D:D:D

[missjulie]

I noticed that too! Or was there another witness we didn't see? Can't imagine who tho.

Meh.

[mahalo_dude]

Well, the scene could have picked up in the middle of the trial on a particular day....unless I'm forgetting dialog that implies that the case was opened at the start of the scene.

[Deputy196]

hey i beleive that was a federal trial. In some cases it really does not matter who goes first. I am not sure why but it does not matter. I have been involved in many federal cases and it is different from a state trial

[Dzbabykel]

hey i beleive that was a federal trial. In some cases it really does not matter who goes first. I am not sure why but it does not matter. I have been involved in many federal cases and it is different from a state trial

I agree, I work for a criminal defense attorney and I was going to say the same thing.

[ecw0930]

If the defense calls the witness can't they question first?

[Deputy196]

well too bad you dont live in Kentucky DZ we could get COFFEE and talk about criminology

[Deputy196]

Yes ecw that is true but what I think etags is saying is that in trials the prosecution calls all there witnesses first then they rest then the defense calls theres last and then rests but in this cas the defense called there witness first ( Jack) then the prosecution was going to call theres ( Kates mom). Hope that helped

[pantags]

Federal or state doesnt matter the prosecution always has the burden therefore they must prove their case first and rest before the defense calls any witnesses

[Archangel-Player]

Ok, it might not be a big problem, but its really boring me that the writers could screw this up.
Im a criminal trial the prosecution always goes first, hence innocent until proven guilty, but as we saw Jack testified for Kate before the prosecution brought their witnesses. I know this is kinda but it was really bothering me. I mean the writers are usually very good with details. Kate's mom should have testified before she ever heard Jack's testimony. This key fact determined the entire outcome of the trial, if her mom never hears Jack she doesn't change her mind suddenly get more sick, and the writers flat out got it wrong. It really bothers me how they can screw up a detail such as that when they are so on with everything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not only that Kate appears to be on trial in a California state court for a variety of state/federal crimes committed in Iowa and other jurisdictions

Why isn't she trialed in thoese states?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the rules.

1)In a criminal case, the prosecution has the burden of proving the truth of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. For this reason the prosecution is allowed to present their side of the case first. The prosecution gets to make its opening statement to the jury first. Then the defense can choose to make an opening statement at that time or save it for later in the case.


2)A criminal case, in common law jurisdictions, begins when a person suspected of a crime is indicted by a grand jury or otherwise charged with the offense by a government official called a prosecutor or district attorney.

[az-phil]

Well maybe they aren't really in the real world anymore. This is some anti-world and everything happens backwards there :)

[Deputy196]

Trust me it is different in Federal court

[Deputy196]

That was a federal court house she was in they were trying for all the charges involved it said nothing about STATE.

[gilligan]

dont know nothin about the criminology, but my question is, Why, if Aaron was, like 4, would it have taken so long for the trial? Didnt i hear something in the episode about it being 4 years? Yeah, didnt Kate's mom say she thought kate was dead for 4 years?

[BomberDawg95]

Ok, it might not be a big problem, but its really boring me that the writers could screw this up.
Im a criminal trial the prosecution always goes first, hence innocent until proven guilty, but as we saw Jack testified for Kate before the prosecution brought their witnesses. I know this is kinda but it was really bothering me. I mean the writers are usually very good with details. Kate's mom should have testified before she ever heard Jack's testimony. This key fact determined the entire outcome of the trial, if her mom never hears Jack she doesn't change her mind suddenly get more sick, and the writers flat out got it wrong. It really bothers me how they can screw up a detail such as that when they are so on with everything else.

Its possible she was being called as a rebuttal witness on behalf of the prosecution, specifically to refute testimony given by any (or all) of the defense's witnesses. In which case, the prosecution had already presented its case and we moved directly to the defense's part of the trial. This might also explain Kate's lawyer when he updates her saying: "We got killed in the opening. Please don't fire me."*

*: Note, I have no professional legal experience. I am currently studying to become a lawyer, but by no means am one yet. I have been interested in the profession for many years, and that is the source of my knowledge & comment. So it may, or may not, be intelligent.

[bunnydixon]

dont know nothin about the criminology, but my question is, Why, if Aaron was, like 4, would it have taken so long for the trial? Didnt i hear something in the episode about it being 4 years? Yeah, didnt Kate's mom say she thought kate was dead for 4 years?

some cases can take years to get to court. we still dont know what year they got off the island either.

[Junkhead]

I'm gonna go with Phil...that seems like a sound theory. :)

[LostandFound]

Well, the scene could have picked up in the middle of the trial on a particular day....unless I'm forgetting dialog that implies that the case was opened at the start of the scene.
Yeah, it didn't seem like we saw the whole trial unfold. For someone who was charged with so many offences, I can't imagine the prosecution only had Kate's mother as a witness. She was probably they're last, because her testimony would have been so damning. But who knows....I'm not a lawyer, so that's just my guess :)

[Archangel-Player]

Ok, it might not be a big problem, but its really boring me that the writers could screw this up.
Im a criminal trial the prosecution always goes first, hence innocent until proven guilty, but as we saw Jack testified for Kate before the prosecution brought their witnesses. I know this is kinda but it was really bothering me. I mean the writers are usually very good with details. Kate's mom should have testified before she ever heard Jack's testimony. This key fact determined the entire outcome of the trial, if her mom never hears Jack she doesn't change her mind suddenly get more sick, and the writers flat out got it wrong. It really bothers me how they can screw up a detail such as that when they are so on with everything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everything did go as the rules aplied to a court sesson.

The judge calls out the case first.

The cliant is read their rights. Then a pleade is asked.

Then the Proscution opened with their statment then the defeanced counterd.

Then they argued and the request of the proscution was granted and Kate was cuffed.

So. So far the case whent as it supose to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok I see where the confussion came about. Ok . Here is what happend. You missed the part of that FLash Fwd where the Lawer whispers to Kate. "Alright don't fire me. We got killed in the opening. I had to bring him in." For some reason they skiped that part where the Proscustion speaks first. Why? I have no clue. But it was skiped and bumped to where the defeance now speaks. So apparantly someone else on the behalf of the proscution was brought in before the star witness. Hince the "We got killed in the opening" Why they skiped that? Again I have no clue. But then we later learn that the proscution couldn't get the star witness to testfie. So that was the reason this other person was brought in.

I wish i had a transcript this would be a whole lot easer to explain. I searched and searched. Every site that I go to comes up with a This episode's transcipt is not avilable at this time. Kind of saying.

[BomberDawg95]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everything did go as the rules aplied to a court sesson.

The judge calls out the case first.

The cliant is read their rights. Then a pleade is asked.

Then the Proscution opened with their statment then the defeanced counterd.

Then they argued and the request of the proscution was granted and Kate was cuffed.

So. So far the case whent as it supose to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok I see where the confussion came about. Ok . Here is what happend. You missed the part of that FLash Fwd where the Lawer whispers to Kate. "Alright don't fire me. We got killed in the opening. I had to bring him in." For some reason they skiped that part where the Proscustion speaks first. Why? I have no clue. But it was skiped and bumped to where the defeance now speaks. So apparantly someone else on the behalf of the proscution was brought in before the star witness. Hince the "We got killed in the opening" Why they skiped that? Again I have no clue. But then we later learn that the proscution couldn't get the star witness to testfie. So that was the reason this other person was brought in.

I wish i had a transcript this would be a whole lot easer to explain. I searched and searched. Every site that I go to comes up with a This episode's transcipt is not avilable at this time. Kind of saying.

I was surprised to see Kate give her plea. Often, in a case like this, the plea is supposed to come from the lawyer on behalf of the defendant...

[thelawgiver]

Folks, I raised on lot of this on my Thread: "Bad Marks for the Writers", and I copied my points below. They did a very poor job. You are all generally right about the presentation of evidence, that is, prosecution first, defense second. However, trials can proceed at the whim of witness availability and witnesses can get called out of order. For example, Kate's mom (the D.A.'s last witness) may not have been available until, let's say, Thursday, due to traveling, and rather than have a dark day (no trial) the judge will take defense witnesses (like Jack) out of order to keep the trial moving.
So there you have it.

Original observations:

After basking in the afterglow of another new LOST episode, it occurred to me that the Writer's did a very poor job of being anywhere near accurate about the legal issues and Kate. First, she would have had a team of lawyers, not just one guy who never even has a pad of paper at trial. Two, Kate would be up on charges in various states and counties, and for felony-murder for the deaths caused while she was on the run. Where did Kate burn her step-daddy? It sure was not in L.A., which would not have jurisdiction. In fact, I do not believe that any of her crimes were committed in Los Angeles, California. They mentioned federal court, but Kate was being tried in California state court, by a D.A. Her federal charges would be brought by a prosecutor in the justice department. Also, many judges would have barred Jack's testimony.

In sum, Kate committed many crimes in multiple jurisdictions (not to mention what she did in Australia). She would not get off at one trial, or even so easily. So shame on you writers for taking the easy road on this one or just not having any clue about the criminal process!

[thelawgiver]

The defendant can give their own plea. Remember that O.J. pled "100% not guilty".

[BomberDawg95]

Oh, I know they can. I was just suprised a lawyer would allow his client to do so. Especially in a case that was as covered by the media as this one was.