Close to Home

Aren't there any writers out there who can come up with an original thought. This show is a rehash of so many other legal and cop shows using the same old scenarios. Tonight's was really original. A gang leader was on trial and the gang was threatening one of the witnesses. Gee that was really a first. Then the prosecuting attorney's child is missing from the school ground. Did the gang steal her - You think!? Is the "Bad" defending attorney in on the plot to eliminate witnesses? You think!? How boring. An hour I can never get back (actually 45 minutes - I turned it off) I would give this show a couple of more episodes and then it's off to the world of "My Mother, The Car" Look that one up folks. It was almost as plausible as "Close to Home"

This show is the most poorly produced/directed program to show up on a major network in years! All the hollow actors speak in monotones and appear to be reading their lines. The script is so dumb as to make you question whether this is not a satire from a certain late Saturday night program.

Our group, who watched it for the first time, endured 30 minutes before deciding it was indeed a serious attempt at entertainment but absolutely unwatchable. Click! How has Close to Home survived this long?

How can a program this bad survive this long? The American public may soon discover that reading books is preferable to this garbage.

Jennifer Finnigan is a good actress, but the banal, phony scripts on this show are way beneath her talent.

This is a show in which the characters don't speak dialogue that is true to their characters. The writers put lines into their mouths that they would never say.

The courtroom scenes are absurd. In a day of unbelievable courtroom testimony, this show is at the nadir. Attorneys sit passively and listen (in rapture?) to Annabel (Finnegan) emote.

What is most galling is that this promising show is failed by its trite writers.

Close to Home is Close to Hokum.

I watched an episode of this last night, the only episode I will be watching and from the beginning it didn't flow right. The lead-in to the case was good, but from there it took a swan-dive and did a delightful belly-flop.

I think it extremely unlikely that a prosecutor with a supposedly strong case would throw the entire case away by questioning a suspect after a request for an attorney has been made. Everything from there on became what is referred to as "Fruit from the Poisoned tree". Her whole case was based on this evidence, which when it came to arraignment was thrown out, except for ONE single piece of evidence which they obtained through a "seperate investigation". The last time I looked a single piece of evidence which proves intent, doesn't necessarily go beyond reasonable doubt.

The main character Annabeth, appears to be written as a smartly intuitive prosecutor, who can clearly tell when a suspect wants to confess, but it appeared that once the writers got that far, they didn't know what to do next.

The dialogue in it was wooden, certainly the supervisor in the Prosecutor's office appeared so wooden, he either grew on the spot or was poured from a concrete mould.

It's certainly not the edgy drama with an aggressive lawyer that it was touted as, it's a lightweight trying to punch well-above its weight and it's leading with its chin.

The fatal flaw in this show is that it does not even come close to accurately representing the criminal justice process. "Law & Order" remains the most accurate representation (though not perfect) of the procedural aspects of a criminal investigation and prosecution, albeit abbreviated. The first (and last) episode of "Close to Home" I watched last night (abusive husband who locks family in house) was ridiculously inaccurate.

1. Mom can't refuse to testify; 2. Mom can't prevent kids from testifying; 3. Recalcitrant witness (Mom) would be forced to testify and impeached with her original statements to police and D.A.; 4. Depositions are not taken in criminal proceedings; 5. Witness testimony is not excluded for failure to take deposition (see No. 3 above); 6. Prosecutors do not have perfect records, unless they cherry pick their cases, and even then, not likely; 7. Prosecutors with THAT solid of a case (such as last night's episode) do not plea bargain on threat of appeal by defense attorney; 8. Defense attorneys do not get to decide on whether to accept the plea deal. The defendant is the ONLY party that can accept or reject. Defense attorney is required to relay the offer (whether he/she agrees with it or not) and let the client decide. Last night's episode implied that defendant (husband) was convicted on his attorney's decision.

Yes, I realize it's a television show, but to wholly make up procedures and processes for the sake of drama is not necessary. The story last night was a great idea, and "Law & Order" would have done it justice without all of the fantasy. If this were a fantasy show, then I could accept the premise. However when the premise is "real life," then it falls flat.