After the quality of writing already exhibited in this series, all of a sudden, the viewer is supposed to just ignore how many gaps there are in basic common sense in the writing of this episode? Hank's lawyer is supposed to be so good, but doesn't bother to properly cross examine Mia for one -- have her tell the court that Hank refused to have sex with her again once he found out how old she was -- doesn't bring in an expert witness to reinforce that him bring drunk when he first met Mia would indeed mean that he wouldn't remember meeting her, etc. In fact a really good lawyer would have wondered at the very beginning how/why Mia even targeted Hank specifically to begin with and anticipated that whole line of questioning. The character didn't seem to prepare any real defense, her cross examinations of the opposing council's witnesses were hit and miss, and she didn't object to much of what the prosecution lawyer did or said, I would have demanded my money back and filed an appeal against the decision, and this lawyer -- and most likely won with only some poor overworked public defender presenting my case -- one that this team of writers hadn't tried to write a script for. Sooooo many holes in the fabric of this... thing
Yes, innocent people get convicted all the time, but it's not usually because the script writers were too damned lazy to do their job and find a plausible reason that a number of years must pass before season five starts up and Hank becomes distanced from his family. It's enough to make me stop watching right now, if this is how low the bar is going to be in future episodes.
Yuck!
Yes, innocent people get convicted all the time, but it's not usually because the script writers were too damned lazy to do their job and find a plausible reason that a number of years must pass before season five starts up and Hank becomes distanced from his family. It's enough to make me stop watching right now, if this is how low the bar is going to be in future episodes.
Yuck!
