Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Law & Order Fans Rag On The Accuracy Of The Show After Season 22, Episode 6

"Law & Order" is an exceptionally long-running series that started an entire franchise for the legendary creator Dick Wolf. The most recent episode of "Law & Order," titled "Vicious Cycle," picks up after the murder of the fashion designer Perry Wyatt (Terrance Murphy), and it is up to Detectives Frank Cosgrove (Jeffrey Donovan) and Jalen Shaw (Mehcad Brooks) to uncover the perpetrator.

After following several leads involving an organized ring of thieves that are running rampant because of recently changed laws affecting what crimes get bail and which ones don't, Cosgrove and Shaw apprehend Nick Castillo (Eric Santiago), who is essentially a career criminal with well over 100 arrests. However, he has never served time due to the overwhelmed nature of the court system and misdemeanors. When Castillo is finally brought to trial, his lawyer Lara Vega (Liza Colon-Zayas) makes sure that Nick's extensive history of crime cannot be brought up, which hamstrings the prosecution, yet they continue by calling one of his former victims to the stand. This causes Castillo's lawyer to call Assistant Distract Attorney Samantha Maroun (Odelya Halevi) to testify on Nick's behalf, which causes quite a stir. However, it seems like some legal-minded fans have taken issue with how this court drama played out.

Fans think there are several issues with the legal aspect of Episode 6 of Season 22

Taking their thoughts and opinions to everybody's favorite online forum Reddit, several "Law & Order" fans coalesced around the court component of this most recent episode. U/ValensHawke brought up the constant harping on misdemeanor crimes throughout the episode and felt like it was actually attacking a real-life figure but added that isn't immediately obvious. They then brought up how ADA Maroun was called to testify on behalf of the defense, which would never be allowed in real life because of the obvious conflict of interest.

They added, "Honestly, the judge probably should have called a mistrial and held the defense counsel in contempt immediately after the opening statement and started the whole process again. Such a garbage episode and that pains me to say, I really wanted the rebooted OG series to do well."

Others also felt the same way, with u/SherlockianTheorist saying, "Can they please, please get legal consultants on the show? An objection needs a reason. You can't just object. You have to state why you object." This caused u/Pelzebub to reply that they won't actually bring on consultants because it would significantly alter the narrative and story of "Law & Order." In other words, it seems like "Law & Order" is simply just entertainment, and the court drama that played out in this particular episode would never fly in real life in an actual court of law.