Law & Order

Absentia - S13-E13

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."

LorgSkyegon

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?).

KeyZOid

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.

Bishop73

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.

KeyZOid

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. (?).

KeyZOid

You're overthinking it. You were correct when you said a wife cannot be compelled to testify... Which is why the mistake is wrong.

Bishop73

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).

KeyZOid

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).

KeyZOid

Remand - S6-E10

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.

Bishop73

Second Opinion - S5-E1

Factual error: Ryan, the laboratory technician, eats his lunch of burger and fries while discussing a murder case with Assistant D.A. Claire Kincaid. Trouble is, they are in his laboratory. No lab technician ever, ever eats or drinks in a laboratory - it is the most basic lab protocol imaginable. He could contaminate his samples in any one of a hundred ways, he inevitably contaminates his gloves or fingers with residue from his meal and he risks poisoning himself with accidental transfer. This is not a character error - lab security is hammered into science students starting with the first day of first year and number one on the list is never, ever eat or drink in your lab.

More mistakes in Law & Order

Det. Lennie Briscoe: Boy, I'd hate for somebody to trace me by what I read.
Det. Rey Curtis: You read, Lennie?

More quotes from Law & Order
More trivia for Law & Order

Answer: He believed that she had become too empathetic towards the defendant they had been prosecuting, and that her actions were driven by her emotions instead of facts. While empathy is a good quality in general, a certain degree of detachment is required in order for a prosecutor to do one's job effectively.

Cubs Fan

More questions & answers from Law & Order

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.