A convicted rapist in a high-profile trial from 30 years earlier receives a new trial because of legal technicalities. In addition, prosecutors must try to convict this time without a confes... Read allA convicted rapist in a high-profile trial from 30 years earlier receives a new trial because of legal technicalities. In addition, prosecutors must try to convict this time without a confession.A convicted rapist in a high-profile trial from 30 years earlier receives a new trial because of legal technicalities. In addition, prosecutors must try to convict this time without a confession.
Photos
- Mike Farina
- (as Arthur Nascarella)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThis episode appears to be based on two separate cases/incidents: The 1964 Kitty Genovese case. This was the first widely known example of what came to be known as "the bystander effect." Kitty Genovese was a 28-year-old woman who was stabbed in front of her apartment in the early hours of March 13, 1964. The Times reported erroneously that she was stabbed within sight or earshot of 38 witnesses, none of whom tried to stop her attacker. Lacking a central number numerous calls to police were reported only a dozen had seen or heard part of the attack and none saw it in its entirety. Most believed it to be a domestic quarrel or drunken brawl, not a murder. In 2016 the Times apologized for it's flawed and grossly exaggerated report in 1964. Ten years later the term "bystander effect" was coined after 25-year-old Sandra Zahler was beaten to death on Christmas morning in her apartment overlooking the site of the Kitty Genovese murder. Only one neighbor reported hearing screams and sounds of a struggle at 3:20am but failed to do anything to help, believing the building superintendent would investigate, however the superintendent was not due to visiting family for Christmas Eve. The body was discovered by her boyfriend at 2pm the next day. The Matias Reyes (a.k.a. "The East Side Slasher") case.
- GoofsWhen Brisco and Curtis were questioning Eddie Murrows in a bar Murrows recalled events of 1965 including the time in May 25th 'when Ali took Liston in one' (the fight actually took place in February 25, 1964). He couldn't have possibly remembered the name 'Ali' because at that early point in his career Muhammad Ali was fighting as Cassius Clay. Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali later on.
- Quotes
ADA Claire Kincaid: It won't be pretty. Marks'll have a field day with Costello.
Executive ADA Jack McCoy: Unless we inoculate the jury.
ADA Claire Kincaid: We do it to her before Marks does?
Executive ADA Jack McCoy: Ask the L.A. prosecutors: Don't they wish they'd pulled the pin on the Fuhrman grenade?
Sadly it doesn't completely come together in "Remand". An episode that starts off very well but is undone significantly by one aspect that is too prominent and distracting to ignore sadly. It's the second disappointing 'Law and Order' episode in a row and is marginally worse, despite "Blood Libel" being very patchy in story the topic was a lot bolder and it was tackled with guts and good intentions. It also didn't get bogged down in excessive stupidity later on like "Remand" did.
"Remand" though does have a lot done right. The production values are as professional as usual, and this aspect did come on a lot overtime with a sharper and slicker look growing with each season. The music is haunting while not intrusive or overused. The direction is sympathetic without being too low key. Some of the script provokes thought and has a suitable amount of grit, as well as some welcome levity at times with Briscoe.
It also starts off very promisingly, with a case (based upon that of Kitty Genovese) that really did sound intriguing, with well written and taut police work, and actually was up to a point. Briscoe is on typically good form and has a by now well gelled chemistry with Curtis, who has continued to grow. All the regulars are fine and while Marks really annoyed me as a character Talia Balsam gives it one hundred percent, the problem was the way she was written.
Unfortunately, "Remand" went drastically downhill when the case went to trial. The low point being the insultingly ridiculous defense argument that makes no sense at all, bad enough to be laughed out of court and dismissed. Lets not get started with that alternate theory, truly sloppy and borderline illogical writing in a theory proven already to be false and should have been immediately challenged when raised.
Balsam does what she can as Marks, but the character is really annoying and her excessive stupidity is enough to make anybody think "how on earth did she get into this job?" The judge is very nearly as bad. The ending did feel rushed.
Concluding, starts off very well but goes off the rails in the legal scenes. 6/10
- TheLittleSongbird
- Feb 10, 2021
- Permalink