Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
* ExtremelyShortTimespan: This and the following episode imply that Kenny Damon was arraigned, tried and acquitted within only a few days of being arrested, which would be fairly implausible in real life.
Changed line(s) 14 (click to see context) from:
* VeryLooselyBasedOnATrueStory: The trial of Edgar's killer was loosely inspired by the trial of the man who blinded Officer Gene Cassidy (the {{Expy}} of Chris Thormann), specifically the fact the jury had asked the judge for a clarification of the difference between first-degree murder and second-degree murder (as with Cassidy's trial, Jake's colleagues think this means the jury wants to vote guilty), and the fact one juror kept holding out for not guilty, while two insisted on guilty, and the rest of the jurors didn't care. The difference is, in the Cassidy trial, they did find the culprit guilty, while Kenny Damon is found not guilty.
to:
* VeryLooselyBasedOnATrueStory: The trial of Edgar's killer was loosely inspired by the trial of the man who blinded Officer Gene Cassidy (the {{Expy}} of Chris Thormann), specifically the fact the jury had asked the judge for a clarification of the difference between first-degree murder and second-degree murder (as with Cassidy's trial, Jake's colleagues think this means the jury wants to vote guilty), and the fact one juror kept holding out for not guilty, while two insisted on guilty, and the rest of the jurors didn't care. The difference is, in the Cassidy trial, they did find the culprit guilty, while Kenny Damon is found not guilty.guilty.
* WrittenInAbsence: Kellerman is supposedly away attending a relative's wedding in Wisconsin. This becomes a plot point in the following episode, when his absence during the investigation of Edgar Rodzinski's murder means that he is considered an unbiased party to investigate the possibility that Jake killed Damon.
* WrittenInAbsence: Kellerman is supposedly away attending a relative's wedding in Wisconsin. This becomes a plot point in the following episode, when his absence during the investigation of Edgar Rodzinski's murder means that he is considered an unbiased party to investigate the possibility that Jake killed Damon.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:
* HoistByHisOwnPetard: Jake's partner and other former members of the vice squad offer a reward for any information leading to catching Edgar's killer. Darin Russom, the lawyer defending the killer, is able to use this against the gravedigger when he gives evidence, suggesting he only provided the evidence [[OnlyInItForTheMoney for the reward money]].
to:
* HoistByHisOwnPetard: Jake's partner and other former members of the vice squad offer a reward for any information leading to catching Edgar's killer. Darin Russom, the lawyer defending Kenny Damon (Wendell Jordan), the suspected killer, is able to use this against the gravedigger when he gives evidence, suggesting he only provided the evidence [[OnlyInItForTheMoney for the reward money]].
Changed line(s) 13 (click to see context) from:
* VeryLooselyBasedOnATrueStory: The trial of Edgar's killer was loosely inspired by the trial of the man who blinded Officer Gene Cassidy (the {{Expy}} of Chris Thormann), specifically the fact the jury had asked the judge for a clarification of the difference between first-degree murder and second-degree murder (as with Cassidy's trial, Jake's colleagues think this means the jury wants to vote guilty), and the fact one juror kept holding out for not guilty, while two insisted on guilty, and the rest of the jurors didn't care. The difference is, in the Cassidy trial, they did find the culprit guilty, while Edgar's killer is found not guilty.
to:
* VeryLooselyBasedOnATrueStory: The trial of Edgar's killer was loosely inspired by the trial of the man who blinded Officer Gene Cassidy (the {{Expy}} of Chris Thormann), specifically the fact the jury had asked the judge for a clarification of the difference between first-degree murder and second-degree murder (as with Cassidy's trial, Jake's colleagues think this means the jury wants to vote guilty), and the fact one juror kept holding out for not guilty, while two insisted on guilty, and the rest of the jurors didn't care. The difference is, in the Cassidy trial, they did find the culprit guilty, while Edgar's killer Kenny Damon is found not guilty.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* CanineCompanion: The dog found with Edgar turned out to be his, and ends up barking at everything and everyone, with only Jake able to calm him down.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:
* VeryLooselyBasedOnATrueStory: The trial of Edgar's killer was loosely inspired by the trial of the man who blinded Officer Gene Cassidy (the {{Expy}} of Chris Thormann), specifically the fact
to:
* VeryLooselyBasedOnATrueStory: The trial of Edgar's killer was loosely inspired by the trial of the man who blinded Officer Gene Cassidy (the {{Expy}} of Chris Thormann), specifically the factfact the jury had asked the judge for a clarification of the difference between first-degree murder and second-degree murder (as with Cassidy's trial, Jake's colleagues think this means the jury wants to vote guilty), and the fact one juror kept holding out for not guilty, while two insisted on guilty, and the rest of the jurors didn't care. The difference is, in the Cassidy trial, they did find the culprit guilty, while Edgar's killer is found not guilty.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
!Justice: Part 1
->Directed By: Creator/MichaelRadford
->Story By: Creator/HenryBromell and Creator/TomFontana
->Teleplay By: David Rupel.
Edgar Rodzinski, a 30-year member of the vice squad, is found dead at a cemetery. He's also the father of Jake Rodzinski (Creator/BruceCampbell), a detective in the fraud unit, who is naturally upset about this, and starts interfering in Munch and Russert's investigation of his father's murder.
!!This episode contains examples of:
* HoistByHisOwnPetard: Jake's partner and other former members of the vice squad offer a reward for any information leading to catching Edgar's killer. Darin Russom, the lawyer defending the killer, is able to use this against the gravedigger when he gives evidence, suggesting he only provided the evidence [[OnlyInItForTheMoney for the reward money]].
* ItsPersonal: Obviously, Jake Rodzinski takes very seriously the fact his father was killed.
* OnlyInItForTheMoney: The gravedigger whom Munch and Russert had interviewed three times earlier only presented his new evidence when a reward was offered.
* VeryLooselyBasedOnATrueStory: The trial of Edgar's killer was loosely inspired by the trial of the man who blinded Officer Gene Cassidy (the {{Expy}} of Chris Thormann), specifically the fact
->Directed By: Creator/MichaelRadford
->Story By: Creator/HenryBromell and Creator/TomFontana
->Teleplay By: David Rupel.
Edgar Rodzinski, a 30-year member of the vice squad, is found dead at a cemetery. He's also the father of Jake Rodzinski (Creator/BruceCampbell), a detective in the fraud unit, who is naturally upset about this, and starts interfering in Munch and Russert's investigation of his father's murder.
!!This episode contains examples of:
* HoistByHisOwnPetard: Jake's partner and other former members of the vice squad offer a reward for any information leading to catching Edgar's killer. Darin Russom, the lawyer defending the killer, is able to use this against the gravedigger when he gives evidence, suggesting he only provided the evidence [[OnlyInItForTheMoney for the reward money]].
* ItsPersonal: Obviously, Jake Rodzinski takes very seriously the fact his father was killed.
* OnlyInItForTheMoney: The gravedigger whom Munch and Russert had interviewed three times earlier only presented his new evidence when a reward was offered.
* VeryLooselyBasedOnATrueStory: The trial of Edgar's killer was loosely inspired by the trial of the man who blinded Officer Gene Cassidy (the {{Expy}} of Chris Thormann), specifically the fact
