Law & Order SVU “Part 33” was an excellent "day-in-the-life" type episode, done in a format that is out-of-the-box for the series. Written by SVU showrunner Michael Chernuchin, it was a compelling look into the minds of SVU detectives and their lieutenant as they wait for their turn in the witness box in a controversial case. Peter Stone is prosecuting a woman who killed her cop husband – and who has admitted to this – but we discover the team members aren't all on the same page regarding what they will say when testifying. The issues in contention: what is considered abuse; how much can they color or embellish the truth and still be truthful; is this a situation where a lie would still serve justice?
The tension is already evident as each detective and Benson arrive at the courthouse waiting room. It’s bad enough that the team is festering strong feelings about the case, but this is amplified by putting them into a lower-level room which is steaming hot, and where the coffee is so hot it can burn hands. And to heighten the viewer impatience, the time clock is running down to the seconds, and the opening credits don’t start to run until 10 minutes in. Everyone is being asked to wait, and it’s only a matter of time before tempers in the room reach the boiling point.
Viewers have seen the team disagree in the past, but this was an entire episode where everyone is at odds. Rollins arrives and finds the coffee is too hot to the touch. Fin starts by arriving with donuts to share but limiting the choice. Fin pours himself a cup of coffee and then drops it when he finds it too hot. The room is too hot. As their discomfort grows, their anger flares. Rollins clearly wants to tell the truth and be done with it. Carisi knew the murder victim and seems all too willing to color the truth to help the defendant, Annabeth Pearl. Fin looks at this situation as just a job. Carisi worries that for $80 grand a year, they have a lot of power, questioning “who the hell are we?”
When Benson arrives, things get even hotter, and soon, Benson and Rollins are in each other’s faces. Rollins has experience with domestic abuse with her parents, and Benson has, unfortunately, experienced the terror of both mental and physical abuse at the hands of William Lewis. She understands all too well about taking matters in to one’s own hands. This has colored both their opinions. The difficult part of this case is that there was no obvious physical abuse, it was presented as psychological abuse. The defendant describes being forced to have sex with her husband when she didn’t want to – for years – and Peter Stone says this is not rape as the defendant never refused him. I admit I was shocked at Stone’s attitude here, but he must have information that we weren’t shown to make him take that stance.
Benson is the last to testify, but before she does so, Fin comes close to asking Benson to lie. He even uses flawed logic, relaying a fish story to say that anything that’s willing to fight that hard to stay alive deserves to live. Benson, who seems close to tanking the case for Stone, decides to grudgingly answer Stone’s question truthfully. We don’t see how the trial ends, but we are left to assume that her truthful answer was devastating to the defendant's case.
If I was sitting on the jury and heard the testimony presented, I could only deliver a guilty verdict. We never saw any evidence – such as a medical expert – to indicate there was any mental abuse. I’m of the opinion that mental abuse is questionable justification for murder. Mental abuse is hard to quantify, especially if you’re the one being abused. How much mental abuse warrants killing the abuser? That said, had I heard expert medical testimony that the defendant does show signs of being severely mentally abused, I could be swayed to show leniency.
I thought this episode was one of the best SVU episodes in its long history. I also think that this case was one of the most poorly handled and that the detectives behaved badly. Here’s why:
1. The conflict between the detectives should have been flushed out in Stone’s pre-trial prep. He thought he had a slam dunk case, but clearly not everyone was on the same page. How did he get so blindsided? I can understand that the cases the SVU work can invoke deep emotions. But when it comes down to it, their job in testifying is to state the facts, or only answer the question that have been asked. If Stone would have been aware of the inner conflict with the team, he could have better prepared by asking pointed or yes-or-no answer questions. For how often they depend on Stone to bring perps to justice with flimsy evidence, it was lousy the way that they sandbagged him. Stone had every right to be upset and to lash out at Benson about keeping her “bleeding heart” out of the courtroom - although it wasn't all her fault.
2. Along that line, if there was an issue with the defendant being psychologically abused, where was a psychologist testimony in all this? In the past, Dr. Huang or Dr. Olivet would have been called in for an opinion if the SVU felt that, despite a confession, that there was a chance there was mental abuse or other mental issues. If Benson and her team felt so strongly about whether Annabeth was a victim of mental abuse, why didn’t they ask for a medical opinion? It’s clear the defense was making this an issue, so the SVU and Stone should have gotten their own medical opinion so they could better prepare for the case. If anything, if there was even a hint of marital rape, a psychologist should have been consulted. Benson told Rollins that somebody has to stand up for Annabeth and tell her she survived and she is going to be okay. That somebody doesn’t need to be anyone with SVU, it could have been a doctor or a social worker, and it should have happened before the trial.
3. I’ve mentioned this many times before and it’s only been done maybe once or twice on SVU, but why don’t they record their interrogations? It’s a lot easier to stick to the truth when there is a video or audio recording of the questioning. Is this not done in new York City, if so, why not?
As I watched the detective argue between themselves, it sounded very much like commentary from fans that I read after an episode airs. It was like watching SVU fans argue, played out as an episode. I suspect that this episode will only bring out more discussion, and that’s a good thing.
A+ !
A side note: this episode was originally named “The Flying Dutchman and EP Julie Martin had tweeted that this episode was nicknamed “The Box.”
Update February 15, 2019 - a deleted scene with Kelli Giddish has been added after the recap.
Here is the recap:
Annabeth Pearl walks into a bar and patrons stare at her with a stunned look, She sits down and the patrons quickly exit the bar. Annabeth is in her nightie and spattered with blood, and she places a gun on the table and takes off her wedding ring.
Later at SVU, Rollins questions Annabeth, who is now covered in a jacket, asking if there is anything else she wants to tell her. Annabeth nods but says nothing. Rollins says they are done here. Fin leads Annabeth into interrogation and Benson enters.
In Supreme Court Part 33 on Thursday, February 7 at 9:13:09am, Stone speaks to the jury: “This is a very simple case. The defendant, Annabeth Pearl, hosted a dinner party with her husband Thomas at their apartment on West 26th Street. Three people ate a New York strip, baked potatoes, and creamed spinach. Three hours later, when the guests had left, and the dishes were loaded into the dishwasher, Annabeth put on her nightie, walked into the den, picked up the gun that was sitting on the coffee table and shot her husband Thomas three times while he was watching TV.” As Rollins is outside, racing to the courthouse, Stone continues: “The detectives assigned to this case will tell you how they arrested Annabeth an hour later at a local eatery – with the murder weapon still in her possession.” Rollins is now walking quickly inside the courthouse main hall, and Stone continues: “They’ll tell you how, without provocation, she confessed to the murder. Now, the defense will play on your emotions. They’ll tell you about a bad marriage, an abused wife, but what they can’t tell you is that Thomas ever hit Annabeth, or that she was ever in imminent fear of physical harm. This is a very simple case. Annabeth Pearl is guilty of murder, in the second degree.”
Rollins continues into the courthouse building, and enters a room at the lower level where Detective Frank Bucci from the 2-8 is waiting, and he cautions her against drinking the coffee, unless her tongue is made of asbestos. She comments he should have told her before she burned her fingers. She explains she is there for a “husband and wife thing” and he explains he is there for a bodega robbery. She hates the waiting but he does not. The court officer calls Bucci to Part 21 and Bucci quickly exits.
Fin walks in, carrying a box of donuts, and says:
Fin: You alone?
Rollins: Yep. Whatcha got?
Fin, opening the box of donuts, offers it to Rollins and says: Alright, anything but the jellies
Rollins: Ooo, thank you
Fin: No sign of Liv?
Rollins: No, I was hoping you heard something.
Fin: (Sighing) Scruples are a hard thing to live with.
Rollins: What if she doesn’t show?
Fin: Then she doesn’t show. (He pours himself a cup of coffee)
Rollins: Her testimony will be the nails in Annabeth’s coffin. Without it, Stone…
Fin (reacting to touching the hot coffee, drops the cup on the floor): …will be hot as that cup of coffee.
