Matlock

(The new one, with Kathy Bates at Matlock, an entirely different Matlock than the Andy Griffith character)

I just caught the pilot, and .... Okay, I'm not a lawyer. The show isn't your grandpappy's Matlock, but like that one, it's more of a detective show with legal trappings than a legal drama.

So you have to ask the question: given that every show with a legal aspect is going to be unrealistic to some extent, how much variation from the way things are actually run in real courtrooms can you take? And it's not as if every episode of every show fails that test. The pilot of The Good Wife, for example, got points with YouTube's Legal Eagle for hewing reasonably closely to reality. 

But the pilot for Matlock is kind of ridiculous in ways that jump out at you. The client in the wrongful conviction case that Maddie Matlock is assigned to, we find, will not be taking the stand, because his lawyer doesn't want his prior convictions to come up.

You will sit for the rest of the episode, wondering if there's some arcane aspect of civil case law that would allow plaintiff's attorneys to keep the defense from calling the plaintiff to the stand, given that the absolute right to avoid self-incrimination that exists in criminal proceedings doesn't really apply when you're filing suit. He would have been deposed already, and the judge would have made a ruling as to the admissibility of his prior criminal record, and the tactics used would be moot.

Oh, and the case goes to trial because the police union manages to plant a story in the newspaper the day before it is due to start and it can't get settled. That story argues that police corruption was a lot less widespread back then that was normally believed. This, the defense believes, is such a brutal weapon that they bring the settlement amount down from an already low $2 million to about $250 thousand. Because, you see, if the jury catches wind of that newspaper story, well, they will be much, much less likely to believe that the plaintiff was improperly convicted as a result of police malfeasance. And therefore will be much, much less likely to find for the plaintiff.

Well, that just forces the plaintiff's attorney's hand, and they have to go to court, because that dollar value is just too insultingly low to accept.

It's a twist that's just dumb. It's unlikely to affect the jury, because (it would seem to me, but again, I hasten to point out that I am not a lawyer) the judge would likely provide an instruction to the jury to disregard the story if they have read it, because the extent of corruption in that city's police department is not at issue when you're considering a particular case. And also because this isn't 30 years ago, when people might be likely to read a story in their newspaper.

The review at The Old Country was effusive about this show, based on the first couple of episodes. Me, I'm dubious that the formula is going to start working all that well.