I'm only up to episode 3 of season two, so I'm right in the middle of the trial, but I am just baffled at the legal process in this show, so I'm curious as to whether or not this is how it works? I find it incredible that the defense can make up accusations and infer things and pass them off as fact but whenever a juror tries to speak up or infer something they're told to only relate "the facts." Seems really messed up to me.
shareI had the exact same question! I sincerely hope someone from England chimes in on this. I've seen a lot of people say season 2 is annoying, and I wonder if these are Americans. To me, the courtroom drama was annoying because it was so over the top (I'm American). Can you really yell accusations like that? I kept thinking the prosecutor needed to speak up and demand the other barrister stop leading the witnesses. So much of what the defense attorney said was based on wild accusations. It just seemed like a stones throw away from a farce. Is that a genuine reflection of trials in England? After awhile I would cringe at her scenes, and then eventually fast forwarded them. They did not work for me at all. Nothing against the actress - she herself wasn't annoying. Just the lines. Way too over the top and soap opera-ish.
shareI'm also on ep 3, season 2, and I have the same question. I kept expecting Jocelyn to stand up and say "Objection. Leading the witness"!
(To be honest, I don't know if that's what they really do in American courts either. That's just what I've always seen on American TV)
It doesn't seem fair that Sharon can ask those leading questions.
I wouldn't even call them leading questions. She was just making stuff up wholesale.
shareI'm currently watching episode 2.2 and I had to pause it to check on here.
I guess spoilers.
Now I'm not a lawyer but I observe court almost every day for my job, and in the American court system almost every question of the defense would be objected to for relevance. Continuing on, the judge goes ahead and deems the confession inadmissible because they claim there's no way of knowing if he was beaten before the confession. Ok, maybe a judge might do this,but to make the evidence inadmissible, they must prove this happened. There is no evidence supporting the defense's claim.
This is just confusing to me.
Also on a side note, witness testimony can take hours. Do they really make them stand the whole time?
As someone who has been called for jury service and participated as a juror in two cases - this is a very dramatised but true portrayal of reality.
In both trials I participated in, without giving away any details of them, the defence barrister had to put doubt in the mind of the jury, and did this any way possible.
One witness we heard from, again without any specifics, was an acquaintance who the claimant had spoken to around school drop-off times. The barrister 'suggested' that she was nothing more than a school gates gossiper with nothing better to do.
There is a seat for the witnesses to take if they feel more comfortable after swearing/affirming to be truthful. There is also a seat for the defendant to take in the box room you can see them in.
The courtroom scenes were very similar to what I experienced as a juror, although much more dramatic and intense.
I hope this sheds some light somewhat for you all.