Corrected entry: Detectives Cosgrove and Shaw head to the hospital to interview a doctor which they do in a hallway. At one point the door behind the doctor is a single door then it changes to two doors and then finally when the detectives leave there is no door at all.
Corrected entry: When Levi March's wife makes it clear that she will testify against him his lawyer protests that she cannot so do under spousal privilege. He should know better. Spousal privilege protects a wife from being compelled to give evidence against her husband (and vice versa). It does not prevent her from volunteering to do so, which is the case here.
Correction: That is incorrect. In New York, the martial communications privilege is codified at CPLR ยง4502 (b), which states: "A husband or wife shall not be required, or, without consent of the other if living, allowed, to disclose a confidential communication made by one to the other during marriage."
There's almost always exceptions to the rules, and the statute applies to "confidential communication." You would have to know the nature of her testimony to ascertain if the privilege will or will not protect him. (I'm not familiar with this episode, so do not know what the case is about - maybe someone could add some details about the case and nature of her testimony?).
While there are exceptions, the episode didn't spend time on her testimony since Levi takes a plea. But the correction is valid because the lawyer's objection is valid, so there is no mistake. Yes, counsel would have to discuss the situation and have the judge make a decision, but the mistake is saying a lawyer would never say the wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is wrong.
I might not be understanding something and/or don't have enough information to ascertain if the privilege is relevant. A spouse cannot be COMPELLED to testify about confidential communication and the husband can exert the privilege even if the wife wants to volunteer information. Beyond these basic rules, more information is needed.
Actually, if we presume the lawyer was correct when he said spousal privilege applied, there is NO "factual error." The "factual error", as written, is using EXCEPTIONS to support its assertion, but there is no reason to believe exceptions are applicable. (I think I get it!). I think your wording is "off": "the mistake is saying a lawyer would never say the wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is wrong." A lawyer would say a wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is correct. (?).
You're overthinking it. You were correct when you said a wife cannot be compelled to testify... Which is why the mistake is wrong.
Maybe... but the last part " which is the case here" leads me to question if the person posting the error knows there was an exception because the testimony wasn't going to be about confidential information (private between spouses).
Since the person posting the "factual error" did not specify what the actual case is, there is enough doubt among others to dispute the "factual error" (as presented).
Corrected entry: Jack McCoy asks his witness, an expert geneticist, what the odds are that a DNA sample presented in evidence matches that of the defendant. He answers "About one in two hundred." He just stated that the chances of a match are half of one percent! This is a huge, serious error on the part of an expert witness, and if he later tried to correct his mistake it would seriously undermine his credibility. The defence attorney repeats the mistake just a few seconds later while questioning him, but she doesn't see the mistake he has made, either. The odds he gave are the odds that the DNA sample DOESN'T match the defendant.
Correction: McCoy asks "what are the odds the semen came from someone other than Mr. Munoz" (the defendant). So he does state the odds correctly.
Correction: Dr. Mercer and the detectives stand at a T-intersection of 2 halls (Cosgrove and Shaw at the top arm of the T). In 2 shots facing Mercer head-on, a single door is at the end of the hall directly behind her. In a shot facing Mercer's right side there are double-doors beside her, to her left. The last shot of Mercer is head-on with the single door at the end of the hall. When the detectives leave in the shot from a new angle, we cannot see the hallway (at the right) where Mercer stood, only the opening to the hall (00:18:25).
Super Grover ★