Like any red-blooded American, I have spent an inordinate number of hours watching Law & Order. I never actually plan to watch it, but if I'm flipping around and land on it, I inevitably end up watching the whole episode. But lately, one aspect of the show has been bothering me.
When the lawyers are arguing for some motion in front of the judge, either in the courtroom or in chambers, it is completely unrealistic. On the show, the attorneys trade pithy remarks within an easy back-and-forth banter that sounds, well, rehearsed. They rarely cite authority, and the judge always seems genuinely impressed by some obvious legal precedent.
Jack McCoy: Your honor the gun should be admitted into evidence despite the illegal search because his roommate would have given it to us anyways. It's called the inevitable discovery doctrine.
Judge: The inevitable discovery doctrine? Hmmm, interesting.
Jack McCoy (Thinking): 'Interesting? You should have learned this during Criminal Procedure, not 30 years into your career as a criminal judge.'
Judge: Counsel, please go over all the reasons for this doctrine with me one more time as though there were an audience of laymen watching us.
Jack McCoy: I'd be glad to.
Last summer I clerked for a trial judge, and sat in on countless meetings in the chambers, and they never resembled anything close to what you see on Law & Order. Usually those meetings are long, boring, and the lawyers never have that back-and-forth banter. 90% of the issues that were discussed were procedural. In Camera discussion is about as interesting and frustrating as a Vegan and a person who's Kosher discussing what restaurant they're going to go to.
