Bad Marks for the Writers

[thelawgiver]

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!

[islander]

they dropped the ball on the trial scene from a technical/legal point of view. they needed the scene to tell us jack did/does loves kate, there's a cover-up regarding the crash, jack doesn't want to see aaron, and kate's mom is incapable of dying.

[TuesdaySmith]

Come on.. give the guys a break! They create this awesome show that has us all spending loads of time OUTSIDE of actually watching the show on trying to figure out what the hell is going on.. They do someone in a scene that you don't think would happen in real life and you get on their case? Let it go, man.. let it go...

[thelawgiver]

It was just not up to their standards. They could have done it other ways. It would have been more believeable (and correct) if she received a presidential pardon!

[islander]

Come on.. give the guys a break! They create this awesome show that has us all spending loads of time OUTSIDE of actually watching the show on trying to figure out what the hell is going on.. They do someone in a scene that you don't think would happen in real life and you get on their case? Let it go, man.. let it go...

i hear you but it does seem uncharacteristically sloppy for these writers, doesn't it?

[bunnydixon]

well in TV land, trials are very rarely shown correctly. i think we just have to accept that unfortunately.

[thelawgiver]

But this was very poor. They might as well have tried her in Disneyland.

[bunnydixon]

well that would have been much more fun!

[TuesdaySmith]

i hear you but it does seem uncharacteristically sloppy for these writers, doesn't it?

Not at all.

I, like many people, know nothing about and don't really care about, standard law procedure. I would never have noticed anything was weird if you guys didn't post about it.

I think it's only "sloppy" to the few that are actually practicing or training to be in a law field. And even then, I think it's only a few of those few that would actually be bothered by it.

I think it's just more of a pet peeve style thing than the writers being sloppy.

edit: Pet peeve style thing as in if you're really into something, a mistake about that thing on a show would annoy you.

[jacksnurse]

well that would have been much more fun!

yeah it would be huh bunny.....lol......i think that the writers are human and we all know how GENIUS they ALL are....they can't be perfect on everything...yeah the court scene was ridic but who the he## cares...the show was awesome and I still give props to the writers

[beachblinkette]

The courtroom scene was possible but not probable. I agree with the initial threader that this was for expediency and didn't resonate with their best writing. We are, after all, not blockheads.This series has to hold up under a lot of scrutiny. So, writers be warned. We don't want brand X!