Law & Order “Legacy” was a fast moving case that felt familiar somehow…Haven’t we done this once before where a parent was charged for something his/her child did? I had this feeling of déjà vu while watching it, but still enjoyed it.
At some point in time I think the racial tensions between Bernard and Cosgrove will come to a head. In this episode, Cosgrove and Bernard don’t see eye to eye on critical race theory; Cosgrove thinks it’s the parent’s job to teach this, but Bernard thinks white kids need to understand what it’s like growing up in America. Cosgrove also brings up the use of the “n” word and Bernard counters “There is never a good reason for white person to use that word – EVER.” Both detectives are seeing these issues through their own eyes, but I think Bernard is doing his best to try to widen Cosgrove’s view.
Cosgrove has taken to whistling when he wants to get Bernard’s attention. Bernard doesn’t seem bothered by it so maybe this is just a simple idiosyncrasy on the part of Cosgrove, or is it a demeaning way to “summon” Bernard?
Price doesn’t think that school shootings will stop until they send a message to those who are enabling the shootings. I don’t disagree, but it seems like they really didn’t have too much evidence on the father to get that guilty verdict. All it took was showing that the father gave the son the gun at some earlier time and then recently told him to stand up for himself. That seems thin to me. Maybe I missed something, but I didn’t see where the father actually told him to use the gun against that bully. I would have thought they’d need more that what the son had inferred, and that testimony eventually got thrown out!
Here is the recap:
While they discuss the school’s censorship of books, two teachers stumble on the body of Henry Gleason, head of the school, who has been shot. Bernard and Cosgrove investigate. Security cameras have been wiped of video. Computer analysts has traced an electronic footprint to a 14 year old at the school, Dylan West. They get a warrant and visit the home, getting the kid’s computer and also find some of Henry’s belongings in his room.
In interrogation, Dylan explains he took the things as part of a dare and wiped the video so he could not be seen. He did not shoot Henry. His father vouches for his alibi. They hear from Dylan’s father that half the parents disliked Henry.
While they go to question one of the parents, the detectives debate critical race theory. They then question Mrs. Whalen who they heard was very upset with Gleason. She says she was just upset about an "extra time" scam that kids are using to fake learning disabilities to get extra time for exams. She denies killing him and has an alibi as she was in Washington DC. She gives them a name of another angry parent.
Back in the school they speak with a woman about a parent, George Pratt, whose son was recently expelled for violating the school’s anti-racism policy by being part of a group singing a racist song. Pratt is fighting to get Ethan reinstated.
In interrogation with his lawyer, the detectives speak with Pratt, who has a carry permit and owns several guns. He thinks Gleason was the problem and denies killing him. He was talking with another parent.
Later, they find Pratt’s story checks out. Dani finds video footage from across the school and they see one person who looks like they have blood on their jacket who is fleeing the scene. Later, Cooper Young is in interrogation with his mother and she discourages him from talking but he clearly wants to say something.
Dixon wants a little more before they charge him and Cooper seems to want to talk. They decide to hold him, have tech look at his electronics, and find a motive.
They go back to the school and hear Cooper punched another student so he was suspended from the soccer team. They look at his locker and find a drawing in it from another student showing a kid holding a gun, asking Cooper to meet him in homeroom after the play. They now believe someone else was there when Gleason was killed.
They discuss this with Cooper, in interrogation with his mom and lawyer. Cooper explains that Bennett Richardson put that drawing in his locker, a punk who thinks he owns the world. They got into a fight on the soccer field and thinks he wanted a rematch. He didn’t think he’d have a gun, he thought he was just flexing. He explains that Bennett pulled out the gun and said he was going to kill him. Cooper tackled him and tried to grab the gun and Gleason came in and saw the gun and the gun went off. Bennett shot him in the chest. Then Bennett turned to him and he thought he was going to kill him, but Bennett took off. He tried to help Gleason but he was hurt real bad, that is how he got the blood on his jacket.
With a search warrant in hand, Bernard and Cosgrove search Bennett’s home and find two rounds of live ammo, 9mm, and see violent drawings. They arrest him for Gleason’s murder to the protests of his parents.
Later, in Jack McCoy’s office, Price and Maroun discuss the case. The pistol belonged to Bennett’s grandfather. They discuss the evidence and whether to charge Bennett as an adult and McCoy and Price agree to go that route.
At Supreme Court Trial Part 12 on Monday, April 11, the issue with charging Bennett as an adult is argued by Price and Bennett’s lawyer, Quinn. It is decided to charge him as an adult. Quinn asks for bail and the parents assure they will pay for any costs to be sure Bennett makes trial. Bail is set at $4 million.
Later. Maroun tells Price Bennett admits he shot Gleason but they filed a notice for an affirmative defense – justification. He claims Bennett brought it on the school as Cooper was bullying him and was in fear for his life. Price thinks this was revenge. He says the gun going off was an accident. Price thinks he may not have intended to shoot Gleason but the intent transfers to him just the same. Price says they must shore up their theory this was premeditated, Maroun adding his artwork was filled with rage.
Maroun speaks with an Art teacher at Davenport Academy and sees the dark, violent drawings. He was told the school would deal with it. Bennett confronted the teacher and cut him with a box cutter, and he thinks it was intentional. Bennett’s father said he would get Bennett help, and gave the teacher $100,000 to keep it quiet. While there, Maroun gets a phone call and quickly exits.
At Downing hospital on Monday, April 11, Price and Maroun hear that Bennett has attempted suicide but it was more like a cry for help. His parents arrive and confront Price and Maroun. Quinn talks with Price and Maroun and says Bennett will have a competency test and thinks he is not fit to stand trial.
Later, at the precinct, Bennett speaks with a psychiatrist while Price and Maroun watch. He says he didn’t mean to kill anyone. He said his father told him to fight back, grow up, be a man. It’s what he thought he wanted him to do. Price thinks his father demanded he do it. It was his grandfather’s gun, w ho have it to his dad and his dad gave it to him on his 17th birthday.
Back at the DA’s office, Jack and Price discuss that Bennett was found competent. Price says the father urged Bennett to see retribution and wants to go after Bennett’s father as an accomplice. There is no precedent, however. They can’t do it without Bennett’s testimony and Jack tells Price to talk to Bennett’s lawyer and see if they can work something out.
Price and Maroun discuss this with Quinn and Bennett and eventually talk him into testifying against his father, but only if he gets immunity.
They later discuss this with McCoy and Maroun thinks the case against Bennett is stronger and his father’s weaker. Price thinks locking up kids is not a deterrent to school shootings and they need to send a message and hold more people accountable. Jack says his job is to follow the law and get justice for the victims. Price think he can win the case and Jack gives him the go ahead.
Price and Maroun deliver the immunity papers to Quinn and Bennett. Bennett is still reluctant and Price explains what happens if he doesn’t testify or if he lies on the stand. They ask him a few questions so he can see how it will go. They discuss the drawings and says his father saw them and just hired him a boxing coach and taught him how to shoot guns.
In Supreme Court Trial Part 34 on Tuesday, April 26, Bennett testifies about his father telling him to stand up for himself, fight back, and regain his power. He thinks his father meant that he shouldn’t let anyone push him around. His father knew he had the gun – he gave it to him – and when asked about getting the bullets from his dad, he balks and won’t answer. He says he doesn’t care. He’s taken off the stand. Richardson’s attorney says that all of Bennett’s testimony should be stricken from the record and the judge agrees. He instructs the jury to disregard everything Bennett said and they can’t consider it in deliberations. Price is stymied but looks over to Bennett’s mom.
Later, Price and Maroun speak with Bennett’s mom and asks her to testify, and make the choice between her son in prison or her husband. But she does choose, agreeing to get on the stand.
In the judge’s chambers, the defense and prosecution argue spousal privilege and Price argues the father abused Bennett by urging him to use a gun. The judge denies the defenses motion to quash and Mrs. Richardson can testify.
With Mrs. Richardson on the stand, they mention the box cutter incident and settlement. They knew Bennett was troubled but thought it was a phase. John does not believe in therapy and tried to get Bennett into sports. Guns were the one thing Bennett enjoyed. She may not have agreed with John’s decisions but knew he was a good father and loved Bennett. Price says John gave his emotionally unstable son a handgun and when his son got into a dispute with another boy, his father urged him to be a man and stand his ground and as a result, he took the gun to school and killed Henry Gleason. She agrees. Under cross, the defense brings out that John never told him to kill anyone and John was not anywhere near the school when Gleason was shot.
The jury returns a verdict of guilty and John is taken away in cuffs. Price stops where Bennett and his mom are sitting and she tells Price to go to hell. He walks off. As Bennett is consoled by his mother, we fade to black.
11 comments:
"Haven’t we done this once before where a parent was charged for something his/her child did? I had this feeling of déjà vu while watching it, but still enjoyed it."
Oh yeah, this felt like mashing up two episodes, Season 5's "Wannabe" (the part about the kid on financial aid being a suspect for a bit) and Season 10's "Loco Parentis" (and the rest of the episode where Price goes after the father).
There also seemed to be a bit of the show referencing itself when the mother of Cooper Young said something along the lines of, "We've seen this before. The parents of the rich kids close ranks and blame the underprivileged" or whatever that line was specifically. Perhaps inadvertent but that felt like half of what Jack dealt with when he was EADA.
The writers also need to do research on their own show it seems. When Jack asked Price if there was precedent about going after the father. Well, Jack, you did exactly that in "Loco Parentis."
That said, I'm enjoying the interactions between Bernard and Cosgrove. Price... I have no idea what the writers are doing with him. If this show is renewed next season and if Hugh Dancy sticks around, I hope the writers can figure out just where he's going. As a former defense attorney (and he comes off as a high-priced one), I feel like he should better anticipate the possible defense strategies and plan accordingly. But if he doesn't, I'd love to see Linus Roache return as I always liked Cutter. OR the show could do something completely different and have a female EADA and male second chair. My my friend with whom I watch the show and I have talked about how cool it would be if they get could Carey Lowell back as a regular and make her EADA and if Jeremy Sisto left FBI, he could come back as recently graduated from law school Cyrus Lupo.
Also, did anyone catch the board this week? Guess they did pull the board from the previous week out of storage and someone noticed they had Cutter and Rubirosa. Now the Chief ADA reads as... Jamie Ross. Executive Assistant DA is still not Nolan Price but it's not Cutter either and I really couldn't make it out, but it looks like Michelle something. Anyways, it's too long to be Price. So, there goes my headcanon that Mike got promoted and Connie is back somewhere in the office. But DOES explain Jamie's presence back in the DA's office but not necessarily being a trial prosecutor.
I feel like this episode was a truncated version of SVU's Season 20's "Man Up" and "Man Down" where they tried to rip Ethan Crumbley and his parents from the headlines. It would have been better if they spent more time showing the toxic relationship between the son and his father that led the former to bring a gun to school and kill the principal instead of just telling us about it. The family felt a bit to much like cardboard stand-ins to talk about gun violence, which is an important subject but the episode and its message could have been more strongly conveyed if the characters it was focused around were more fleshed out.
Also, wouldn't agreeing to give the kid who actually shot someone full immunity lead to backlash from the community? Couldn't they have offered to send him to a mental hospital instead of jail as a plea deal instead (though possibly the defense lawyer wouldn't have gone for it)? I feel like they made a case for him to have mental problems but I feel like he still has some culpability for his actions. Plus what if he goes untreated and does something similar into the future. Though I guess it's all moot now as he backed out of the deal.
For me, the one that came to mind was SVU's Manic. I thought they said that so long as the mother testified, Bennett would not be charged.
This one was predictable and it could be because as you said it felt like the story has been done before. The need to bring the racial thing to a head with Bernard and Cosgrove and then move on. It's starting to feel forced.
I like Hugh Dancy in this role. The problem for me is that they are getting guilty verdicts on what seem like very weak cases.
The one thing that bugs me about this show is that again the male has to be the main lead, but yet the woman who is often the voice of reason , is only the sidekick. Grrr.
@A - you're correct! I removed my question on my review!
@Valens Hawke - they actually had both boards there - the same one from last week (behind Jack on the right) and one to the left. My guess is that they don't think anyone would notice (wink)!
@Chris Zimmer Thank you for pointing it out! While, yeah, it probably still is the old board from the last season, I can still keep hope with some headcanon that Mike is still in the office somewhere...
I agree with Laura F that the prosecution is winning too much. In the old L&O they were (almost) always right, but always had a credible chance of losing, adding some tension and believability. Hard to tell if Wolf trust his audience less now or if the network is insisting on happy endings.
On the plus side I liked the glimpse we got of the current forensic psychologist. Early to tell yet if she can step into the Olivet/Skoda niche, but I'd like to find out.
Tried commenting before but I might have missed the CAPTCHA.
Anyway, I agree with Laurie F that the prosecution is winning too much. In the old show the prosecution were (almost) always right about who was guilty, but it could still go either way. Now it seems like either Wolf or the network don't trust the audience to handle a not-so-happy ending.
I do like the forensic psychologist introduced in this episode. Not sure if she can step into the Olivet/Skoda role, but I'd like to find out.
The Dad never told the son the shoot anyone. How would the Dad have known the son would go to school and threaten another boy with the gun and accidentally kill the principal. The Father would win on appeal.
Post a Comment