User Reviews

The original "Arrest & Trial" was a TV series in the 60s, whose formula (police drama in the first half, court drama in the second) executive producer Dick Wolf stole in 1990 for his mammoth hit series "Law and Order" (which will soon turn 20!) A decade later, he stole its title too. Wolf's "Arrest & Trial" was a docudrama that most closely resembled "Top Cops", which preceded "Law and Order" by just a couple of months. The new "Arrest & Trial" was the first reality-based show to give equal time to both investigation and indictment, just as the original was the first fictional show to do so. There were two flaws in its format, though. First, it recapped the story, not once but twice, in every single episode. Secondly, it usually went to a commercial break just before its last minute or two, which consisted of the second recap and then the verdict. That was a stupid error, especially because the verdict was a foregone conclusion. The only reason to bother sticking around for it was to find out how much time the defendant did.

I suspect that's what sank "Arrest & Trial", more than anything else: its predictability. After a dozen episodes or so, it was clear there weren't going to be any acquittals on this show, because it didn't believe in innocent defendants. There were a few hung juries, but the defendant was invariably retried and convicted. To be fair, a handful of defendants were acquitted of the main charge, but with only one exception, they were all convicted on other charges. The one defendant who did get off scot-free was only one of four tried in the same case, and as one of the jurors remarked, the state clearly never had a case against her. Perhaps the prosecutor was overzealous.

But except in that one case, the strength of the evidence had nothing to do with it. There was no sense of proportion, of what kind of evidence is and isn't significant. There was one kid who murdered his entire immediate family for a $5,000 inheritance, to treat his girlfriend. One of the prosecutors said something like, "He took a case that was initially weak, and made it a whole lot stronger with the things he said." What were they? Among other things, he asked his grandfather to "take the fall for this"! Yes, he must have had a lot of audacity to make such a request, but I, for one, was much more convinced by the fact that they matched some of the wounds to a tire iron with the suspect's name on it! I'd say it would be closer to the truth to say that he took a case that was initially very strong, and made it a little bit stronger with the things he said.

More disturbingly, "Arrest & Trial", like "America's Most Wanted", didn't seem to have any understanding of culpability, or diminished capacity. It didn't distinguish between true criminals and people who were schizophrenic (like David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam) or were brainwashed (like Patty Hearst) or who simply lost control for a moment, like the lady who killed her boyfriend in a lovers' quarrel. It's hard to remember details after seven years, but she had a history of emotional problems, which the cops took advantage of during questioning: They cornered her at the edge of a cliff! Her lawyer used the insanity defense, but the jury didn't buy it. She was clearly remorseful and missed her sweetheart. That didn't cut any ice with the victim's mother, who complained that the girlfriend was paroled while she was still young enough to have kids of her own. This show's creators place her in the same league as the woman who murdered her own niece, after taking her for a ride and knocking her out with chloroform, apparently as an act of revenge against her sister. The two murderesses are equally guilty as far as "Arrest & Trial" is concerned.

That's not to say that I didn't enjoy it. Brian Dennehy was a personable host, and most of the witnesses were good interviewees. Some of the cases profiled were just as interesting as any ever cooked up by the writers of the "Law and Order" and "CSI" franchises. In addition to the stories I've mentioned so far, I enjoyed hearing about the two losers who kidnapped an engaged blonde they saw in a grocery store, to make a porn film (that case really sends chills up the spine); the gangbanger who put a hit on a Tennessee sheriff, supposedly just for shoving him during an arrest (though I suspect the cop used just a little more force than that); and the zookeeper whose neglect resulted in the death of a gorilla (so he hired a man to sit in the cage in a gorilla suit!) These are cases interesting enough to be written about in true crime novels, but few people read those. When they're filmed, they're almost always so fictionalized that not much of the real case remains. And of course, the movie is usually a lot more interested in the crime than the trial or the investigation. So there's definitely a place on TV for a show like this. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing it revived. I just think it's irresponsible to suggest that justice is always done.