Technical/legal question about plea bargaining in California/Federal court?

[jmpowell7]

Hey froonly, most likely any spark of life left in your idea has been crushed by the cruel heels of technical jargon. But don't be discouraged. A few weeks ago I watched for the umpteenth time one of my favorites, a legal drama that could not possibly occur as written. The trial scenes were full of major legal problems, the judge did things he could not have done and the whole premise was off-kilter. No, I won't go into the particulars. The Verdict. Keep on writing.

[froonly]

JoeBanks, sbbn, many thanks for the replies. I appreciate you guys giving me the straight answer I was looking for (although, while I humbly bow to your expertise, I'm not yet 100% convinced I'm wrong about this loophole )

jmpowell7: not discouraged. Far from it. Abandoning that scene has forced me to come up with a better teaser. Which is good, right? (and you're right: The Verdict is an awesome movie.)

[Manchester]

froonly, I agree with what sbbn told you: "I appreciate that you are trying to be accurate. I ABSOLUTELY appreciate that, because there is no shortage of lazy writers who don't bother doing any research."

And I love researching the crap out of stuff. It inspires me. But then I have to give it up.

Consider the HBO show, Homeland. It seems to me that those guys don't even try to get certain things right. And since I used to work in that world, some of the liberties that show takes drive me up a wall. I mean, they coulda made a lot of that story stuff work within the way things really work but, as I said, it seems that they don't even try.

OK, so I care a lot about real life/real rules/real laws versus the way that show depicts them. But - It seems pretty clear that no one else cares. No one else cares that Carrie works with Top Secret stuff at her home. No one else cares how wiretap court orders really get issued. No one else cares about the lines between the CIA, NSA, and FBI. And this isn't MI or Bond or Bourne. This is a show that's pimped as being "real". But the audience and the Emmy voters just don't care. ****, even lots of people in the Intel Community don't care; lot's of 'em like the show.

You found the relevant criminal law/rule, you get the concept, you have your story idea. Plus, it's something an audience will accept. The fact that it is/isn't 100% spot on the state or fed rules does not matter. Which is what I tried to suggest to you at the top of this thread. And now others have said it to you with much greater detail and authority/experience.

[froonly]

Manchester,

I already moved on after sbbn's reply.

But I'd make one point: the audience will only disregard details if what's on screen *feels* true. It's not clear to me that I'm capable of making that minor plot line feel "real" without the background behind it.

[JoeBanks]

as i tell my writers' group members when they are speccing legal dramas (and myself, when i am writing my pilot), there is "real law" and then there is "TV/movie law."

if you are practicing real law, in the real court with a real judge, yes, you have to get the details 100% right. if you don't, it's called malpractice.

if you are writing for TV/film, you only have to get it as right as makes plausible sense for the story you are trying to tell. subordinating your story to the law-as-it-is, at the expense of making it a compelling drama, is unwise.

[sbbn]

Manchester and JoeBanks make some excellent points about the difference between reality and tv/movie reality. And I think it's a fine line between the two because you want to be plausible, you want to be believable (and research is necessary for that) but at the same time you don't want to bore the hell out of an audience. And what froonly said ("But I'd make one point: the audience will only disregard details if what's on screen *feels* true. It's not clear to me that I'm capable of making that minor plot line feel "real" without the background behind it.") I have to agree with 100%. Even if it isn't accurate, it has to feel accurate.

I love being in a courtroom and I think it's a blast but I wouldn't write it as it happens because it would be boring as all sin if it were portrayed exactly as it happened down to minute detail.

I think The Shield is an amazing example of where they researched what they were writing to no end, knew their subject matter inside and out and then wrote a story that was compelling and dramatic rather than just "this is what it's like in the day of the life of a police officer." I remember watching The Shield and thinking "this is crazy, this is actually what conversations sound like at the crime scenes I've been out to..."

It's a hard thing for a writer to master, knowing what to take liberty with and knowing what needs to be factually correct. There are no shortage of shows that irritate me because it doesn't even seem like they try to be even remotely accurate. But I don't want to watch a documentary either.