Close to home - Giustizia ad ogni costo

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.

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"

Well... first when i heard of this show, i thought that this will be a mixture of CSI and Law and Order. When i heard that Jennifer Finnigan will be playing the lead in the series i thought that she will bring the "soap opera" acting in this show. But when i saw the show i was proved wrong. Jennifer Finnigan plays a brilliant lawyer and a mother of a child. When i saw her acting i realized that she has forgotten all about the soap acting and created a new taste in her acting. In the start of the show, she is taking care of her new baby and her career as a lawyer and struggling to maintain both jobs at a good position. Her husband is played by the former Angel's villain Christian Kane. He is a loving husband and is helping his wife to maintain her job and take care of their baby. CBS has done a great job of picking up this show and taking actors who are best for this show. This show should continue for many seasons and all of my friends loved it. I recommend it to everyone to watch it.

After watching the pilot of this TV show, I'm convinced that CBS have a winner on their hands. The lead character, Annabeth Chase, played by the talented Jennifer Finnigan, is portrayed as a realistic working mum. On her first day back at work, she has to deal with a difficult case and also her emotions regarding her baby whom she misses. She's also unyielding in her resolve to bring the perpetrator of a heinous crime to justice and Finnigan plays Annabeth with a wealth of fiery passion that is lacking in most other shows on air at the moment.

Though it feels at times that it might be bordering on melodrama, it never crosses the line. The writing for this pilot was top-notch and though there is always room for improvement, it was a delight and a breath of fresh air. I hope this series will be picked up for a full season by CBS because it would be a waste should it be cancelled.