|Index||1 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
One of the worst things about JAG is how utterly insulting it is to the audience. In this episode, a Marine is tried for involuntary manslaughter after he struck a man in a big crowd with the butt of his rifle. If you were the defense, or even the prosecutor, what is one of the first pieces of evidence you would review? Obviously, you'd want to establish (if you were the prosecutor) that the trauma to the deceased's head is consistent with the Marine's rifle. Not only was that not done before the trial, the blood on the rifle was not even tested for a match with the deceased. (It ended up being the case that the deceased was killed by a large box hitting his head and the blood on the rifle belonging to someone else.) How can this show pretend to be a legitimate show about lawyers when both the prosecution and the defense should be brought up on charges of incompetence? It's just so incredibly stupid there's no wonder why this was the last season of this show.
|Plot summary||Ratings||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|