|
|
The Jury
Law shows are, as a
rule, a dime a dozen. If it's a law show about the prosecutors, it is
a tale of valiant crusaders of justice trying to win the impossible case
against the guilty. If it's a show about defense attorneys, it's a tale of
valiant crusaders of justice, trying to win the impossible case to defend
the innocent. One wonders if someone in a network office doesn't simply
say, "We need a new law show," only to have them flip a coin to
see if the lawyers are prosecutors or defendants. It's the same old thing
every season.
 Not this time, however; The
Jury is something new. Much like the title implies, this is a
series showcasing the deliberations of the jury. That's a unique concept,
indeed, because in order to make any law show look realistic, the jury's
deliberations are rarely seen. For the lawyers to have any direct contact
with the jury at all would result in a mistrial, so in the typical show
from a lawyer's perspective, the jury is seen only in the sidelines. In
this series; they are the focus of the entire story.
The pilot episode is a
good example of the story elements at work here. The court case involves
the trial of a man whose mail-order bride was murdered, with him the lead
suspect. The prosecution considers it a slam-dunk case of the husband
finding out his mail-order bride was sleeping around, and therefore had
her killed. The defense insists that all evidence points to a possible
robbery homicide, with two of the victim's fingers missing, probably when
a robber tried to remove her wedding ring. The jury deliberates this back
and forth, along with all the testimony and evidence that was ever
offered, until they reach a final verdict.
I like the
three-dimensionality of the jurors so far. Although it must logically be a
new jury each week, for each case, the writers try hard to make these
jurors more than simple cardboard cutouts. Every comment made by these
jurors is a comment that any one of us would make, in their shoes. In one
scene, one juror insists it was a crime of passion, and therefore, the
husband must have done it. Then someone pipes in that it wasn't a
passionate marriage, so how could he have committed a crime of passion?
Then there is the juror who wants the whole case to be over quickly so he
can go home, while other sets of jurors begin to get on each others'
nerves. In short; this is a jury room just as you'd expect in real life.
These are not fictional caricatures, but real people. Even better; it's a
new jury every week, with fresh faces at every turn.
That's probably the Achilles'
heel of the series, however; the lack of any lead stars truly possible, in
a law show whose focus is the jury. It's illegal to have the same jury for
two consecutive trials, so if the focus of the series is the jury, each
week focuses on a totally different cast! The show's official web site claims that
judges and lawyers are the recurring
characters here, and although a lot of their personal lives are shown --as
"sidebars," as it were-- these moments are not frequent enough
to give the series any sense of common ground. I just don't get any feeling of attachment to these
recurring characters the way I would, say, Lindsay Dole
and Bobby Donnell in The Practice. You get a small taste of the
lawyers' personal feelings of each case, and their motivations, though
with the focus on the jury room, there isn't enough time to make these
recurring characters' lives have any weight.
 Then
again, if you're going to cast recurring stars, these are the ones you'd
cast. For one thing; the judge is played by executive producer Barry Levinson. Recurring defense attorneys
include Shalom Harlow and Anna Friel, with the official web site referring
to Billy Burke and Jeff Hephner as the "fiery prosecutors."
Among the most frequent of recurring cast members, however, is Adam Buesch,
as the court bailiff who escorts the jury to their jury room every week.
Often in tow is legal intern Maugerite, played by Cote de Pablo.
Let's just say that if anyone is to be blamed for this show's possible demise, it
isn't the casting director.
Yet there's no denying
this series has originality. Will it survive with such originality? That's
now up to the harshest jurors of all --the viewing audience-- and things
don't look too good. I can only say that my favorite fellow couch potato
has already written off this show as a only-if-needed affair. As for me;
keep the jury format, sure, though I need to see more of the recurring
characters for this to be any type of "series" to me. This is
still a unique concept to me, and after the barrage of rubber stamped law
shows in the past years, I'm really hoping the show's rough edges are
straitened out. Will they be...? The jury's still out on that one guys.
---Techtite
Opinions? Speak your mind in
Techtite's Letters Page!
| All text, Title
graphics, and pix not of reviewed products, are created by Techtite,
copyright 1999-2004; all rights reserved. Screen captures of program
reviewed are used only for the purpose of review, and by no means represents any affiliation with Techtite
and the distributors of this entertainment product. For further "legalese"
& disclaimers, click here... |
|
Burnout
Near
Miss
Small
Crater
Large
Crater
Deep
Impact
