TV: HBO's The Night Of

[chicagoskycam]

Really the whole idea of Chandra trying the case seems pretty ridiculous. A giant, respected firm wouldn't let a greenhorn try a high-profile case. The media attention alone isn't good for them, and there's too much potential for her to embarrass the firm. They'd either cut and run completely or let some with a modicum of experience run lead.

Especially since all the press conferences with the other gal.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

If Nas did do it, he stabbed the girl 22 times, and there was blood all over the room yet there wasn't really any on him. Why havent they brought that up?

I've posed that question a few times in the thread.

It really is a massive loophole. It is not reasonable to suggest that Nas did the murder, became completely covered in blood, and was alert enough to shower and completely remove the blood. But then, after making all of those alert and lucid decisions, decided to go to the kitchen and take a nap. If Nas ends up being guilty of the murder, it's not because the show threw us a well created curveball... it would be because the show used poor writing and flawed logic.

 

[Lessavyfav]

I've posed that question a few times in the thread.

It really is a massive loophole. It is not reasonable to suggest that Nas did the murder, became completely covered in blood, and was alert enough to shower and completely remove the blood. But then, after making all of those alert and lucid decisions, decided to go to the kitchen and take a nap. If Nas ends up being guilty of the murder, it's not because the show threw us a well created curveball... it would be because the show used poor writing and flawed logic.

There are other examples of this as well. The defense framed the argument that the knife was in the cabinent in the living room. This means that whoever was the killer didn't go straight up the stairs.

The inhaler didnt have blood on it. If Nas had to use it during or after there would be blood on it. It would be strange for him to wipe it down then place it in a pool of blood.

There are other examples too. This show needed another season

 

[Bubba Thudd]

The inhaler should've been fingerprinted, not handed to Nasir behind bars.

Maybe Box has something to do with it...maybe he has a reason to make it look like Nasir did it.

 

[Ensane]

Really the whole idea of Chandra trying the case seems pretty ridiculous. A giant, respected firm wouldn't let a greenhorn try a high-profile case. The media attention alone isn't good for them, and there's too much potential for her to embarrass the firm. They'd either cut and run completely or let some with a modicum of experience run lead.

Under ethical rules, they wouldn't be able to withdraw once they started doing work on the case, but they could revise the fee arrangement (giving the Khans the ability to fire the firm as counsel). By putting a junior on the case, it limits the overall resource drain.

 

[Sharpshooter]

Relevance

Expert witnesses have a limited scope on what they can opine on. Speculating on the mindset (or worse, what he would have done in X situation) of a deceased victim, is outside that scope.

There were a couple more to, I have to watch again. Not that Chandra has to object or maybe it shows how green she is. I just thought there was an opportunity.

Kats can't speculate on what Andrea would do in that situation.

I don't think/recall the question directed to Katz was, what would Andrea do something, or why did she do something, rather, what would Katz do, in his own opinion. Raising an objection to 'save' Katz or her defensive strategy seemed like a waste, since Katz knows what to say, as this isn't his first rodeo.

Anyways, we're losing sight of the main issue with Weiss vs Katz. His testimony raised the reasonable doubt that Chandra was looking for. Katz handled Weiss effectively, which is why she went after his prior case work, trying to discredit him as someone who flocks to high profile cases to further his celebrity/profile/etc.

Lol we got a lot of real lawyers in this thread wow

So only lawyers should participate in this thread?

If they said that then ask why was there no blood found in the bathroom (even if he used bleach etc highly unlikely he would clean every inch up, there would still be some in the drain etc). I feel like thats one major defence that the show is not using for some reason... If they say he changed clothes, then how come they havent looked for the other clothes etc?

Edit: just saw someone mentioned this above.

Yeah, I just think it was passed over, unfortunately. It would make sense with the blood splatter to see where the rest of it went, and if it went nowhere, then where'd it go? Big story or investigative hole.

If there was blood in the shower it would have come up during the prosecution. Unless the defense is hiding another forensics guy other than Katz, I think the boat sailed on any physical evidence re: the shower during trial.

I'm trying to think if there's any way the chain of custody being broken on Naz's clothes and the knife is brought up, but I think it was just cops there.

I think you're right...but it could be brought up under cross-examination of Nas by Weiss. However, I don't think Weiss would or should bring it up, because I think it'd go further to prove that Nas didn't stab Andrea 22 times, considering there's no blood on him or his hair, or the bathroom sink/shower. I think it could be used by Chandra to show the jury that the prosecutor and lead detective tried to shoe-horn in Nas as the killer without due diligence, or at least show a pattern of not investigating all avenues before charging Nas.

 

[chicagoskycam]

Under ethical rules, they wouldn't be able to withdraw once they started doing work on the case, but they could revise the fee arrangement (giving the Khans the ability to fire the firm as counsel). By putting a junior on the case, it limits the overall resource drain.

But the question would the big firm let their an inexperienced attorney and Stone "the guy she pretty much slandered in court" take on the trial after several press conferences promoting the probono case. Sure it's less of a drain on resources but they should have another person with a bit more experience assisting.

My other question is can you agree to take on a case probono, axe their existing attorney and then flip charges on them when they don't agree to settle. At last resort stick them with the junior attorney.

 

[Ensane]

But the question would the big firm let their an inexperienced attorney and Stone "the guy she pretty much slandered in court" take on the trial after several press conferences promoting the probono case. Sure it's less of a drain on resources but they should have another person with a bit more experience assisting.

I think by putting Chandra on the case, the firm was hoping the Khans would simply fire the firm as attorneys and return to only Stone, who never was fired or withdrew in the first place. So it seemed like a calculated business decision at that point where their options were severely limited. I think part of it was also out of spite too: "you don't want to settle this 'loser' of a case? Fine. Let's stick you with someone from the back bench."

My other question is can you agree to take on a case probono, axe their existing attorney and then flip charges on them when they don't agree to settle. At last resort stick them with the junior attorney.

Sticking them with Chandra would never be an issue under any circumstances. That'd be their prerogative since she's a part of their firm and fully licensed.

It gets murky with the whole implicit understanding that Nas would settle. A lawyer has a ton of leeway to revise its fees throughout the course of a case if circumstances change, so I think technically the firm would be fine, but if the case ever made it in front of a disciplinary body, they'd likely get slapped for it since how the actual situation unfolded was shady as hell.

 

[The Drop]

I don't think Box had anything to do with it.

The lawyer question him about his subconscious I believe really got to him and I believe we're going to see him actually investigate the scene in the last episode.

 

[TheCanasianfrasian]

So only lawyers should participate in this thread?

No of course not, I was making an ironic comment about a posters debating court law procedures. Unless we're all criminal lawyers here, none of us have any idea whats fake/exagerated/accurate/etc in the court scenes we've been viewing in this show.

great show by the way, i'm really enjoying it.

 

[KesselBuiltMyHotrod]

I've spoken to many lawyers and they all assure me I'm right.

 

[Sharpshooter]

I've spoken to many lawyers and they all assure me I'm right.

Objection!

Hearsay

 

[Ensane]

Objection!

Hearsay

Well done!

 

[chicagoskycam]

No of course not, I was making an ironic comment about a posters debating court law procedures. Unless we're all criminal lawyers here, none of us have any idea whats fake/exagerated/accurate/etc in the court scenes we've been viewing in this show.

great show by the way, i'm really enjoying it.

You don't have to be a criminal lawyer to understand how the court system is supposed to work.

 

[Muston Atthews]

Wonder if Box reveals the rest of the broken Chain of Evidence after thinking everything over. Then it turns out Nas actually did it

 

[ap3x]

Still surprised that so many started to doubt on Naz' innocence. He may have become pretty unlikable + we got another view of his character over time,
but still not seeing him as a killer. No matter if under the influence of drugs or not.

Admittedly, me continuing to have a general expectation + understanding of what the series is about may play into my attitude as well.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

Still surprised that so many started to doubt on Naz' innocence. He may have become pretty unlikable + we got another view of his character over time,
but still not seeing him as a killer. No matter if under the influence of drugs or not.

Admittedly, me continuing to have a general expectation + understanding of what the series is about may play into my attitude as well.

You are saying that the way the show was marketed or talked about by critics right? It takes a hard look at the flaws of the criminal justice system, something along those lines? But the critics were only shown 7 episodes. So that narrative is based on what we've seen, not whats to come.

Just saying. I wouldn't rule it out that he did it.

 

[ap3x]

Yeah, I know. But as I've said before, won't have the same impact on me personally. If the series is trying to expose the justice system's flaws by letting a killer (Naz) unjustifiably go, all the build-up won't make any sense. Because we as the viewers got a good image of what he had to go through in prison, and that prison changed him. If Naz were the killer indeed, won't it be much more of a statement to let him go faster than expected, imprisoning + convicting an innocent guy due to some doubtful evidence instead?

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

Yeah, I know. But as I've said before, won't have the same impact on me personally. If the series is trying to expose the justice system's flaws by letting a killer (Naz) unjustifiably go, all the build-up won't make any sense. Because we as the viewers got a good image of what he had to go through in prison, and that prison changed him. If Naz were the killer indeed, won't it be much more of a statement to let him go faster than expected, imprisoning + convicting an innocent guy due to some doubtful evidence instead?

But that's the assumption that critics are making without seeing the whole show. It's possible that if shown the whole series they would come up with a different narrative all together. You are working backwards on a narrative that may or not be an accurate depiction of the show and using that narrative to inform what you think might happen.

It's like reading a game recap of a game through 50 minutes. You read it and you think you have an idea of how the game will turn out based on what's happened so far. But sometimes something happens that makes the writer erase everything they've written and produce a completely different narrative that changes the way you view the 1st 50 minutes of the game. It's probably a bad example, but it's a hockey site, so I tried, lol.

For the record, I'm not saying I think he did it, but I wouldn't be surprised. Mostly, I suspect some sort of ending that leaves you conflicted. He did it but walks on a technicality or he didn't do it, but goes down for something he did in prison, that sort of thing.

 

[ap3x]

I misunderstood part of your post. Got it now. Yeah, we don't know for sure. But to what end would they come up with all the stuff that makes you think it is as assumed? Won't you, personally, build it up in another way if the focus would lay on something else? Guess we'll see in a couple of days, just having problems to think of a total new turn this is taking at the 11th hour.

I'm going with the latest probability you mentioned: Him ****ing up big time in prison and facing the consequences. But no matter how they end it, let's just hope they go out with a bang.

 

[McOilers97]

I don't think Nas committed the murder, and at this point, how could anything possibly confirm that he did do it? It would be a little too convenient for him to suddenly remember everything that happened that night and have the show play a flashback with Nas' full memory, right as the trial is ending.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

I don't think Nas committed the murder, and at this point, how could anything possibly confirm that he did do it? It would be a little too convenient for him to suddenly remember everything that happened that night and have the show play a flashback with Nas' full memory, right as the trial is ending.

They have already started with the flashbacks of that night as Nas has done drugs, so I could definitely see that happening.

 

[chicagoskycam]

I think he did because something set him off. He felt threatened.

 

[silverfish]

What if the ending is him being found not-guilty, then immediately carrying out a hit for Freddy when he gets out?

 

[ap3x]

I think he did because something set him off. He felt threatened.

Him feeling threatened sounds legit. But by her, why? Still doubting on that.