Stabler and Benson are called to an apartment where a man has been hogtied, stripped and branded "RUINER" on his chest. The last thing businessman Bill Dixon remembers, he was setting up a game for family night. There are no signs of forced entry and no reported suspicious people in the building. At the hospital, the doctor also says she found a game timer and two dice inserted inside him. Fin talks to the super of Bill's building and discovers somebody dropped off a box two hours before Bill's assault. When the super opened the box the next morning, it was empty. Benson believes the attacker hid inside the box, and that's how he got inside the building.
David Krumholtz guest starred in the fifth episode "Wet" with actress Rosemary Harris. Krumholtz played an expert on toxic mushrooms who is involved in the same murder investigation that involved Harris' character. Paula Patton, who was originally cast in the role of ADA, also makes a guest appearance as ADA Mikka Von. In the episode, her character is fired because she sent a defense attorney on vacation in order to give the detectives more time in finding who actually committed the murder. In the sixth episode "Branded", Michael Gladis and Kevin Alejandro played two of a trio of rape victims. "They have been branded and sodomized by someone", revealed Baer, who said the show posed the questions, "is there a connection between these men, and what nut case is on the loose?" David Alan Grier played defense attorney Jeremy Swift. Jason Wiles also joined Gladis, Alejandro, and Grier in the episode. Wiles played Alexander Gammon, who becomes a rapist's target.
When Benson and Stabler investigate a brutal attack on an unassuming, upstanding father, they find he's also been branded on his chest with a wire coat hanger. Before long, another victim turns up who has suffered the same injuries. Once they track down the suspect, some startling memories surface that completely change the course of the case.
"Disbarred attorney's have gotten their license to practice law back before, but whether she would want that we don't know.'As long as Jack McCoy is DA, he will successfully block any attempt to allow Casey back. Even if he loses in the next election, his objection will continue to carry weight with the Bar Association. "Actually it was relevant to the case. Otherwise why ask the three guys how they know her (especially when they lied and said they didn't, earlier)? No ones saying she deserved to not go to jail, I think it's obvious she deserved jail time, the only issue on it is how far to go with it."What happened 14 years earlier was not relevant to the case. The victims are not on trial here. Even if Camille proved the rape happened, it's not a defense to her crimes. If the judge had correctly allowed that all evidence of the rape was inadmissible, ADA Hardwick would not have asked how the victims knew her. She only asked because she knew the defense attorney would be asking if she didn't."Also if I'm correct, the only way to ban the daughter being mentioned in court is if the prosecutor (Hardwick) could appeal it, maybe I'm wrong."I'm afraid you are wrong on this. Both sides have to submit a list of the witnesses they plan on calling before the trial starts. If one side calls a witness who is not on the lists, the other side has the right to object immediately. The side calling the witness then needs to explain to the judge why the witness should be allowed.Here Hannah Milner should not have been permitted as a witness. She had no information about Camille attacking the victims. she did not provide any relevant information on a valid defense. And she had no personal knowledge about who were her birth parents. Her testimony on that subject was all hearsay and not admissible."HOWEVER the minute the prosecution started painting her as a slut in court, it was fair game for the defense to use ANYTHING that could prove their stories wrong."I'm afraid you are wrong on this as well. Ignoring for the moment that none of this should have been brought up at trial, the defense is still limited in how it tries to rebut testimony. the defense would have had to call witnesses to prove Camille wasn't sexually active at that age. Calling the victims rapists does not challenge the testimony that Camille was a slut. But it would be deemed a collateral matter not reverent to the case at hand. The judge should not have allowed the trial to go off course."Another thing, back in the episode Serendipity (Season 5), a judge told Casey and the defense attorney that they couldn't try the defendant on rape, but they could use the expired rape case to establish motive.What this means is that, they couldn't get the three guys on the rape they commited but it could be used as a means to the jury on whether they think Camille should've been tried for her crimes."You are comparing two very different things. In Serendipity, the judge agreed to allowed testimony about one uncharged crime to bolster the case of a similar crime against a defendant who was believed to have committed them both. In New York this is based on People v. Molineux where evidence of uncharged prior crimes can be admitted to establish motive, intent, modus operandi, identification or common plan. That rule doesn't apply to witnesses. It only applies to defendants. If there was evidence that Camille had branded other men where the statute of limitations had expired, that the prosecution could seek to have admitted under Molineux.
"The words "ruiner" & "traitor" weren't reasons to bring up what happened then? Why is her persona at camp okay to bring up, but what happened then isn't?"The words that were branded do not have to be explained by the prosecution as part of their case. The prosecution only has to prove that the defendant committed the acts that constitute the crime with the intent to commit them. Motive is not a required element for assault. And if the ADA didn't bring it up on direct examination, the defense can't bring it up on cross examination. Camille's behavior at the camp was not relevant anymore than what happened there. None of it should have be placed in evidence. If the writer had done his job and researched the law, this mess of a trial would not have happened. "Well OBVIOUSLY, Hardwick didn't object, DID SHE?"She didn't but a competent ADA would have. Not knowing the law is a big problem with the current writers for SVU."Well she did, but that's not exactly a plot hole (more like a writers crutch). Judge's have strayed off course with cases MANY times in the Law & Order universe.And maybe it doesn't change Camille's perception, but it adds to what the jury would perceive of the other three. It's possible the judge allowed it because of allowing what she allowed to begin with."Again this is a big with the current writers for SVU. They do not ask what the law actually is before writing the scripts, or they chose to ignore reality and rewrite the law so they don't have to rewrite the script. Now they can take some creative license for the sake of time compression. But that does mean they should be making up the law as the writers want it to be. That is a real disservice to the real criminal justice system.
"It would have been shameful for the ADA to have used it to prevent the victims from pressing charges or testifying. "The ADA is required to turn over all evidence to the defense prior to trial, isn't he/she? "Discovery" or something? Even if she wanted to try Camille for the branding? I'd assume that it would be the accusers who'd decide on their own it wasn't in their best interests to go forward."It was unethical for Hardwick to turn over illegally obtained evidence to the defense the way she did."I'd think it'd be illegal not to."Neither Dixon or Ramos gave permission for the blood that was taken by the hospital to be used for a DNA test. The DNA results and anything based on them is not admissible in court as the product of an illegal search."How many times have cops offered suspects a Coke so as to be able to get fingerprints or DNA? Sometimes it's as effective to let people know that evidence exists as to use it in court - kind of like the stage of "displaying the instruments" used by the Inquisition. Many times there was never any need to actually employ them.In any case, the two branded rapists have the right to take Camille to civil court, right? It's not as though they have no recourse.
"The ADA is required to turn over all evidence to the defense prior to trial, isn't he/she? "Discovery" or something? Even if she wanted to try Camille for the branding? I'd assume that it would be the accusers who'd decide on their own it wasn't in their best interests to go forward."Discovery is the correct term. But the ADA is not required to turn over ALL the evidence in a case. The evidence that must be turned over is the potentially exculpatory evidence. (Brady v. Maryland. Furthermore, the evidence would have to have been persuasive and produced reasonable doubt of guilt (US v. Agnus) For example, when the police get fingerprints from a crime scene, the report on those prints has to be turned over to the defense because it may show someone else was present. With that the defense can argue that unidentified person committed the crime. Here the identification of the daughter and the DNA results is not exculpatory evidence. There is nothing in the folder that can help the defense. It is a completely collateral matter that is not relevant to the case at hand. It is not up to the victims to decide whether to go forward with the case. A crime is committed against the state and it is the state's decision whether to proceed against the perpetrator. As a practical matter, the state is unlikely to proceed if the victim is not going to cooperate. It depends on the crime and all the evidence.'I'd think it'd be illegal not to."The purpose of suppressing evidence based on an illegal search is discourage the police from conducting them in the first place. That purpose would not be serves if the police or prosecutors could get the evidence in by giving it to someone else. But I am still looking for case law on point."How many times have cops offered suspects a Coke so as to be able to get fingerprints or DNA? Sometimes it's as effective to let people know that evidence exists as to use it in court - kind of like the stage of "displaying the instruments" used by the Inquisition. Many times there was never any need to actually employ them."This is a different situation. Discarded Coke cans are fine as sources of evidence. But police seizure of blood samples given for medical treatment is not the same thing. It not only violates the reasonable expectation of privacy but it violates doctor-patient privilege. And SVU dealt with a similar question back in "Lust" when the police were not allowed to test for DNA when the suspect had donated blood.Whether the Inquisition used instruments of torture or just just threatened to use them, any statements made would be coerced. That's not a road I want our police to go down. "In any case, the two branded rapists have the right to take Camille to civil court, right? It's not as though they have no recourse."So you are suggesting that any rape victim who has not led a completely innocent life should not go to the police to report the attack and have the assailant charged and tried because there is recourse to damages in civil court? 041b061a72