Welcome to PD TV! A channel dedicated to your favourite Police Dramas! Featuring the most iconic moments from your favourite shows. Follow the professional and personal lives of the law enforcement from the crime scene to the court room.
It is a DAMN good thing that the sergeant sent them back. God only knows what might have happened. Also, why did Burgess only try one of like eight possible light switches?
I know someone going through methadone withdrawal right now after being hooked on heroin at a early age by a older man who just abused her anyone got advice? Its like watching someone get tortured
Wow, this is totally insane. This guy is not in a good place right now. But Dr. reese definitely made a good decision to keep him in for observation. Could be a lot worse than expected
Well thats a depressing end. Still mad that some people think this world is all love and peace and that some even refuse to believe that this happens in real life...
Poor little baby, she sounded so frightened when that crazy woman appeared. Thank goodness she was reunited with her real parents, and the little smile she made when she saw them again, it just melted my heart.
I'll never get tired of seeing perfectly manicured and groomed cops showing up for work everyday I wonder what the budget for hair and makeup is at the police department
This story based on a number of actual phone hoaxes, especially one that happened at a McDonald's restaurant in Mount Washington, Kentucky on April 9, 2004, where a phone caller claiming to be a police officer manipulates the staff of a business to sexually abuse innocent people as "interrogation." -IMDb
In all episodes, the police use a battering ram or kick the door, usually without a court order... I hope the real police in Chicago don't act like that! (gilberto lehrer - a Chicago PD from Brazil)
When you saw the waiver you could read through the first page to see the rest of the form and it's a continuation of the waiver form, not some random piece of fluff because 'nobody's going to see it anyway'. They took care to get the detail right. Saw the entire series, loved every bit of it.
She says she can't lie or refuse to answer because it would be illegal and if she was later found out, she would get in trouble. Harvey can't NOT use the information he has at his disposal because his duty as a lawyer requires him to give his client the best possible defence and and it would would be malpractice not to do his job; if he was later found out, he would get in trouble. She didn't want to betray her client but the waiver gave her no choice. He didn't want to betray his girlfriend but his oath of office gave him no choice. He begged her to do something, ANYTHING, in order to not testify against his client. He couldn't tell her "because if you do, I'll be forced to do my job" because, again, warning the opposing witness about your trial strategy would be malpractice. Ultimately she got a taste of her own medicine. Of course, this episode and the entire series isn't very legally accurate and examples of malpractice are flying left and right, but according to the (not very consistent) in-universe "law", he did to her what she was doing to his client, and she should have understood "being forced to do something you don't want to do" better than anyone. NB: there are two types of testimony: direct examination (by the lawyer that summoned you as a witness) and cross examination (by the other lawyer). No lawyer performing direct examination has the power to compel you to simply answer "yes" or "no". Your testimony under direct examination can take whatever form you want it to so long as you answer the question asked. If the lawyer asks "did he say X", then first of all the other lawyer (Harvey) should object to the call for hearsay, as a witness can't reliably testify to exact verbiage, only physical evidence (notes, recordings) can do that. Second of all the other lawyer (Harvey) should object to leading the witness, because a lawyer performing direct examination is not ALLOWED to suggest answers to the witness. You can't ask "did X happen?", you can only ask "what happened?". Leading the witness is only allowed under cross examination, or when the judge gives you permission during direct examination to treat the witness as hostile. TL;DR - she didn't need to answer Yes or No if she didn't want to, and Harvey should have objected to the question.
Every time I watch this it reminds me of a young lady I ran into years ago. She had overdosed and we wanted to get her seen. She at the time stated it was accidental so we could not really do much but I spoke with her for almost an hour trying to convince her to be seen. A few years later I saw her again and she asked if I remembered her which at the time I did not. She told me she was that girl who overdosed and when she went home she sat and thought about our conversation. She told me she did not have a family that was close so she never had a male figure actually care enough to want to help her but respect her enough to not force her to do anything. She said that it was the first time she ever looked at a man as a father figure and she cried all night because she knew that there was a life for her. I asked her how she was and she introduced me to her kids. She said had I not have shown her that she was worthy of being loved as a human and not for pleasure she may not have been here today and had those kids. The job has it tough times and it’s hard times but knowing you changed just one life makes all the bad worth while to see one good.
