.
Recap: The episode opens with a family scene so happy, cheerful, and functional, that any seasoned SVU connoisseur knows something dark and rancid is hidden in the depths of that plush beige carpeting. Mom, Dad, and 14-year-old daughter Emmy are watching a basketball game in a bright family room while awaiting a delivery of Chinese food. When the doorbell rings, Mom doesn’t find the Kung Pao she expected, but a masked man who holds a gun to her nose and pulls the trigger. Yikes. After the commercial break, we learn that Dad has also been shot dead, and Emmy is in critical condition, with a bullet lodged in her frontal lobe.
.
The investigation takes Olivia, Nick, Amanda and Finn through a typically twisty path. At first, we think this was a hate crime, because Mom worked for a gay-rights organization and had an affair with her female boss, and the killer spray-painted “Queer” on all the walls. Then we suspect the murders are tied to Murphy, a shady bookie with a sexy Scottish accent, with whom Dad routinely gambled seven-figure sums. Then we think it’s the buxom housekeeper who was beefing with Dad about where Mom’s diamond earrings went – or maybe it was the housekeeper’s brother, an dashing ex-con-turned-preacher. Finally, we wonder if it was Emmy’s squeaky young boyfriend and his overprotective father. Squeaky expected Emmy to hang with him that night, but his father put the kabosh on those plans. The mention of Emmy’s “chastity vow” to Squeaky and their mutually-assured virginity got my crime-drama bells ringing.
.
Emmy soon recovers from the shot to her head, and the entire flock of SVU detectives fly into the hospital to interview her. She’s doing miraculously well. Except for the Mommy-Dearest cone of gauze wrapped around her skull, Emmy seems more like a diabetic who’s eaten too many fun-size Snickers than a girl who’s taken a bullet to the brain.
But she claims not to remember anything. Nick notices that Emmy’s on antiviral medication and asks the doctor why. “She has herpes,” answer the doctor, thereby violating HIPAA and a dozen other rules she should have learned in her medical ethics class.
.
Armed with that unhappy information, the detectives have Dad’s corpse tested. He had the same strain of herpes as his daughter.
.
Meanwhile, in loosely-related plot that our good writers must have struggled to tie to this case, Murphy beats up Amanda outside a gas station. Can you believe it? Our newest female detective has a gambling problem and owes $20,000 to the very same bookie that Emmy’s Dad patronized. What a coincidence! Still, I have to hand it to Amanda – she can take a punch to the gut. (There used to be a convention that female characters didn’t get beat up on TV shows – they were too delicate. Kudos to SVU for renouncing that kind of sexism. Um… I think.)
.
Captain Cragen once again displayed his managerial chops, correctly referring Amanda to IAB while giving her a second chance in SVU, signing her up for Gamblers Anonymous, and telling her he understands how the job can wear down a cop. In fact, he admits, he used to drink too much. In under two minutes, Cragen was strict but kind, understanding but a tad intimidating, vulnerable but a solid leader. What a great boss. I’m a sucker for Cragen’s backstory, or maybe I have a closet crush on Dann Florek – this is the second time this season he’s brought me to tears (the first was when the widower reminisced about his late wife, while falling in love with that Russian prostitute he later had to arrest. Okay, I’m definitely a sucker).
Anyway…
.
Olivia goes back to the hospital and interviews Emmy. Using her patented empathetic head nod and firm-but-gentle prodding, Olivia gets Emmy to admit that Dad molested her.
.
And, it turns out, the family’s buxom housekeeper knew about the incestuous assaults. It was eating her up. She tried to tell Mom, but Mom wouldn’t listen. Our detectives haul in the housekeeper’s ex-con-turned-preacher brother. Nick lies to the ex-con and says Emmy died from the bullet. Then Nick delivers a suave “If you’re a man of God, confess your sins” speech, and the ex-con sobbingly admits he shot Emmy’s parents. (The “Queer” graffiti was just to throw off the cops.) But, he cries, Emmy wasn’t supposed to be home.
.
Wait! How did he know that?
.
Turns out, Emmy asked the housekeeper/brother duo to kill her parents. They complied because they loved her and wanted to protect her. They didn’t think she’d be there – she’d told them she’d be at Squeaky’s house. When the ex-con shot Dad, the bullet went right through Dad’s head and hit Emmy, who’d been hidden standing behind Dad.
.
Aha. It all makes sense now.
.
Because if there’s anything we’ve learned from watching thirteen season of SVU, it’s this: If a fourteen-year-old girl appears in the show, she must have been the ultimate perpetrator of the crime in question. Even if the crime in question was her own attempted murder.
.
Verdict: B
.
What they got right:
.
There were references to some classic law-school cases tonight. One-L’s take note!
.
Police can lie to extract a confession, just like Nick told the ex-con that Emmy was dead. In Frazier v. Cupp, a 20-year-old marine went drinking with his cousin. They met a guy in a bar, got in a fight, and Frazier killed the guy. When the police questioned Frazier, they falsely told him that his cousin had already confessed. Then Frazier admitted to the murder. The Supreme Court said that was fine. Since then, police have used all kinds of deception to elicit confessions. Opponents argue that this tactic increases the chances of false confessions. The Supreme Court has set some limits. For example, in a case where the police told a woman she’d lose her children and her government benefits unless she confessed, the Court threw out the confession.
.
The pious way Nick appealed to the ex-con reminded me of the famous “decent Christian burial” case of Brewer v. Williams. Williams was a religious mental-hospital escapee who was seen walking out of a YMCA carrying a bundle with two little legs sticking out of it. A 10-year-old girl went missing at the Y that day, and Williams was soon arrested. His lawyer instructed him not to answer any questions while the police transported him from Des Moines to the jail in Davenport, 160 miles away.
.
During the long drive, a police officer got Williams to show them where the little girl’s body was buried by giving him this speech:
.
“I want to give you something to think about while we’re traveling down the road. . . They are predicting several inches of snow for tonight, and I feel that you yourself are the only person that knows where this little girl’s body is, that you yourself have only been there once, and if you get a snow on top of it you yourself may be unable to find it… the parents of this little girl should be entitled to a Christian burial for the little girl who was snatched away from them on Christmas Eve and murdered.”
.
The Supreme Court overturned the conviction based on the suspect’s right to have a lawyer present during custodial interrogation and to avoid self-incrimination.
.
Nick’s speech tonight, however, was fine. He took all the best elements of the Christian-burial speech but didn’t make the mistake of messing with the suspect’s constitutional rights. Well done.
.
What they got wrong:
.
The scenes in the hospital needed some critical care – stat. On walking into Emmy’s hospital room, Nick just happened to notice that she was on antiviral medications. He must be telepathic, because medical records are not available to the police without a subpoena. There are strict medical-privacy rules, including federal and state law, preventing hospitals from turning over medical records. In every case I tried, I had to get authorization to see any patient’s medical records. Usually, that came from the patient herself signing a medical release form. If she wouldn’t or couldn’t do so, I could petition the court the allow me to see them. That can be a long and arduous process. Even with a release, it can takes weeks for a hospital to get all the records together and turn them over.
.
Similarly, the doctor would never tell the police the Emmy had herpes without a subpoena. She could lose her job. And when Emmy is charged with double homicide, the girl will not be grateful about the unauthorized disclosure of her STD, which led to her arrest. That doctor better have some good insurance.
.
Finally, I laughed at the scene where Nick somberly pushes some paperwork toward the ex-con and says, “The DNA results came back.” As if he expected the ex-con to be able to read and interpret what’s on the report. In reality, a DNA report contains charts full of numbers and symbols which are indecipherable until you’ve taken a DNA training course. This ex-con won’t be able to look at that paper and say, “Oh, I see the bullet went through both Dad and Emmy’s brains! You got me!” He might try to play Sudoku on it.
TokoBali says
16 February, 2012 at 1:37 pmFun episode, but not the best. Rollins’ nervous body language at her first meeting was spot on. What ruined it a bit for me was the unrealistic main plot. There were so many ways to get Emmy out of the situation. Stash her with a good family that goes to the shooter’s church, convince her to report it, or in the worst case “kidnap” her. Plenty of options besides a double homicide. And a 14 year-old planning that homicide, on her own parents no less? Yeah…
On the good side: Sergeant Jay Landsman and Senator Clay Davis in the episode? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu_RRBh_EKU
P.S.: LOL @ “her patented empathetic head nod”.
Allison Leotta says
17 February, 2012 at 3:22 pmHey TokoBali, love that clip! Hilarious. Thanks for sharing it.
There did see to be a lot of ways out that didn’t include murder. But maybe not that many that would involve such good TV ratings…
Carla says
10 November, 2013 at 1:05 amActually in real life in Canada a girl made her boyfriend kill her parents and little brother so that they “could be together” so it’s actually not as far fetched as you might think.
Nate says
16 February, 2012 at 4:31 pmAccording to HHS, PHI may be disclosed:
“To respond to an administrative request, such as an administrative subpoena or investigative demand or other written request from a law enforcement official. Because an administrative request may be made without judicial involvement, the Rule requires all administrative requests to include or be accompanied by a written statement that the information requested is relevant and material, specific and limited in scope, and de-identified information cannot be used (45 CFR 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(C)).”
It also allows for limited disclosures directly to law enforcement personnel attempting to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness or missing person. So maybe it would have been more realistic if the request was in writing?
Allison Leotta says
17 February, 2012 at 3:25 pmHi Nate,
The National District Attorney’s Association interprets that HIPAA language as requiring a subpoena. See http://www.ndaa.org/ncpca_update_v16_no4.html. There are also state laws and hospital rules that bind the doctors. In my experience, doctors are quite nervous about violating privacy rules, and will only hand over medical records after receiving a subpoena or court order.
Nate says
17 February, 2012 at 4:09 pmI wonder the extent to which that varies by state. In my state (Vermont), it’s quite a bit easier to get certain records. It’s a matter of routine, for instance, for pharmacies to provide prescription histories to uniformed LEOs on request. Often these requests are related to misuse or fraudulent receipt of prescription drugs, so perhaps it falls under the exception of “evidence of crimes on the premises of the entity”… but since the information is typically furnished by medical providers and not legal personnel, I doubt they get that deep into it.
Allison Leotta says
17 February, 2012 at 4:23 pmThat’s interesting, Nate. I’ll be sure not to commit prescription fraud in Vermont!
Andrew MacKie-Mason says
20 February, 2012 at 3:15 amSounds like a very troubling invasion of privacy to me.
Katie says
17 February, 2012 at 11:10 amReally? You’re crushing on Dan Florek when Danny Pino is in the same room?
Allison Leotta says
17 February, 2012 at 3:26 pmActually, my main crush is on Mariska Hargitay. 🙂
Alenna says
17 February, 2012 at 12:25 pmI’m beginning to wonder if the SVU writers were bullied by teenage girls when they were growing up? The dumb-sweet-innocent-angelic 14-year-old girl – who turns out to be a homicidal sociopath seems to be a re-current theme on SVU. That and the all the bad-mother episodes. Do the writers realize that the vast majority of sex crime victims are female, and the majority of the perpetrators are male?
In this episode the girl’s excuse was that her father molested her – and that her (bad) mother ignored the situation. My first thought was that if the mother is really gay, why is she married to a guy in the first place? Maybe, if she decided she was gay after she was already married, why not put in for a divorce? The year 2012 is not like the 1950s where homosexuality was still “in the closet”, and she might be shamed in public and lose custody of her daughter.
There were so many other ways to resolve this without the double homicide – why didn’t Emmy just run away from home? How about an “anonymous” tip about the abuse from the housekeeper to the police or to social services? If Emmy really had to hurt dad, how about just drugging his Chow Mein? OK, so she’s not like “Veronica Mars” smart, but I’m sure she’s smart enough (especially living in New York City) to have come up with some other options.
Nate says
17 February, 2012 at 1:05 pmAren’t the vast majority of crime victims in SVU female, and the majority of the perpetrators male? I haven’t seen a statistical analysis to see if SVU misrepresents the real-life distribution…
In any case, you’re taking the plot too seriously. It’s a fictional TV show, not a true life documentary. The episodes and the overall arc of the story are exaggerated intentionally to be interesting to viewers, get better ratings, make more money from advertisers, etc. etc.
Allison Leotta says
17 February, 2012 at 3:33 pmAlenna, I love the bullied by 14-year-old-girls hypothesis, drugging the Chow Mein, and the mystery behind why Mom didn’t leave Dad long, long ago. Nate, check out the comments after “Theatre Tricks” episode: https://allisonleotta.com/2012/01/svu-episode-13-11-theatre-tricks/#comments where we got into the statistics. In reality, women commit 2% of sex crimes, but on SVU, by my count, women or girls are behind roughly 1/3 of the cases. Maybe more, if we counted the last few episodes.
Alenna says
19 February, 2012 at 11:39 amHi Nate,
Yes, I know this show is only fictional entertainment. However they are portraying real-life legal and medical services – do they have any responsibility at all to be accurate? I mean, what happens when a real-life 14-year girl with real-life herpes (or a worse STD) watches this episode – will she becomes afraid to go to a doctor because she thinks the doctor will tell the police, and the police will come talk to her parents? Unfortunately a lot of people get their information about the legal and medical systems from TV shows. That can be both a good and bad thing.
James Pollock says
17 February, 2012 at 1:12 pmI’m going to suggest that 1L’s NOT pay heed to the suspect’s “Sixth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.” Instead, they should worry about the suspect’s sixth amendment right to have a lawyer present during custodial interrogation, and fifth amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.
Allison Leotta says
17 February, 2012 at 3:17 pmGood point. Fixed.
James Pollock says
17 February, 2012 at 3:48 pmTo be fair,, it’s been longer since you took Crim Pro I (and I didn’t take it until I was a 3L.)
Allison Leotta says
17 February, 2012 at 4:00 pmHey, are you calling me old? 🙂
James Pollock says
17 February, 2012 at 7:18 pmActually, I took Crim Pro I in 2010, so I think it’s a fair assumption that you didn’t have time to take it AFTER me and still work as a prosecutor, since most programs make Crim Pro I a 1L class.
There is, however, some possibility that I AM older than you are.
Alenna says
17 February, 2012 at 5:37 pmSome legal questions – If an underage minor loses both her parents or legal guardians (like in this story) and has to go to the hospital for emergency treatment, who becomes legally responsible for her? Does she become an emancipated minor? Who pays the bills and makes the decisions? Wouldn’t the hospital call Social Services, and if they took custody over her would they have the right to give the police her medical records? Wouldn’t a Social Services worker be present and request a lawyer if the girl was being questioned?
Allison Leotta says
17 February, 2012 at 9:41 pmIt depends. If the parents had assigned a guardian before they died, the guardian would act in the role of the parents. If not, Child Protective Services would step in, and when the hospital released the girl, CPS would find a foster home for her. In the CPS scenario, a Guardian ad Litem would be assigned to make the legal decisions for the girl. Often, GALs do not consent to having wards questioned by the police, even when the children are pure victims, not suspects — on the theory that it is traumatic. Often, a prosecutor’s job is to convince the GAL that any questioning will be sensitive and humane enough that the child will be okay with it.
Alenna says
18 February, 2012 at 10:44 pmThank you for the answer. I thought there was something a little off about Olivia and Nick questioning Emmy several times in the hospital without a legal guardian present. Especially that last “interrogation”, where she confessed to being part of the murder plot. The only other person there was her boyfriend – I guess they could use him to testify about her confession in court. But really, shouldn’t her whole part in the murder should be thrown out?
Allison Leotta says
23 February, 2012 at 11:38 amYep, her defense lawyer will have a decent argument that her confession wasn’t voluntary, as it was made while she was recovering from a gunshot in the hospital, when she wasn’t in any position to leave the interrogation, she wasn’t read her rights, and she wasn’t in the presence of any adult guardian.
Mike says
22 February, 2012 at 8:53 pmThese comments are very interesting, and I’m impressed by the legal insights. But I also wanted to say I thought your blog was very funny!
Tracey says
22 February, 2012 at 9:43 pmI think this blog is so funny and entertaining- not to mention full of legal facts that I love learning about- thanks for the good read every week!
Allison Leotta says
23 February, 2012 at 11:39 amMike, Tracey – – thanks so much! It makes me very happy to hear that you like my blog!
Frankie says
9 March, 2012 at 8:54 pmNice blog.
Accent identification, not so great. That would be an Irish accent Tommy Flanagan is using.
Allison Leotta says
10 March, 2012 at 2:09 pmHey Frankie, thanks for checking out the blog! According to wikipedia and other sources, Tommy Flanagan is from Scotland. We can all agree that his accent is sexy, though, right? 🙂
Frankie says
10 March, 2012 at 9:27 pmHe is indeed from Scotland, and often speaks with a Scottish accent on TV, just not on this occasion. Trust me on this.
But here’s one thing we can agree on: Dann Florek. He is so consistently good, even when surrounded by some of the quite barmy storylines of the last few years. I think it’s the way he plays Cragan’s response to increasingly crazy events; eyebrows raised a little, sometimes disappointed, sometimes resigned, but never actually surprised by what people are capable of. He makes lines that ought to sound pretty ridiculous, credible. And when he gets to do a decent scene, like in this episode, he can be so good he makes me feel awkward and I have to look away. Sometimes.
I’m glad they’ve given Cragan a few good character moments this season, but is does highlight how little time has been given to his character development over the last twelve years. Apart from rapidly losing his habit of perching on desks and eating candy (seriously, in the first season, perching and handing round candy, that’s all he does), he is unchanged. What we knew of him at the start (he’s a widower, a recovered alcoholic, he goes to bat for his squad), is the same as what we know of him now. No change, no reveal. It’s a bit of a shame. The same goes for Munch – wise cracks and references to the (pre-series backstory) ex-wives, but no change. Now clearly Benson and Stabler as central characters got to change and develop, and this was where the writers were invested, but I can’t help thinking that over 13 seasons they could do a little better by some of the members of the ensemble.
Which brings me to a question slightly more related to the subject of this blog but not to this episode, I was wondering what your take was on the characterisation of the ADAs and how important they are to the show. In seasons 2-9, Alex and then Casey, were developed main cast characters, who had traits that were established and then revisited over numerous episodes. The court/law half of the equation got a lot more attention and the character of the ADA was integral to carrying the audience into that part of the show and keeping them there. After season 9, between the short stints and the guest appearances the role of the ADA has been a lot less. As a result, to me, even when Alex and Casey re-occur, it feels as those they are simply filling the function of being ‘The ADA’, rather than being one character or the other.
So, what do you feel about the changed law/order balance post season 9? Is it fresher not to see the same faces each week? Or does the ADA lose that status of (tragic) hero which develops from seeing one character fighting the same fight over and over and not giving up- a staus afforded to the detectives and taken to another level by Olivia? How much does the ‘character’ of the lawyer matter anyway? OK, so Casey and Alex have different personalities that anyone can identify, but do they go about their case law differently? Do you think if one of the writers was writing a court scene for Alex and then found out that there had been a change of plan and the scenes would be for Casey instead that they would change anything about the screenplay? Would they, should they, have different arguments, different strategies, or would they, should they, function the same because characterisation has to serve the plot?
Do you think they made the character of the ADA less central because viewing figures were falling and they wanted to give more time to Elliot and Olivia and more craziness (because let’s face it, its’ a lot easier to jump a shark if you’re not in a courtroom)? Or do you think that reducing the role of the ADA (removing an established character) and decreasing the legal procedural element (on balance the more realistic element?) lost more viewers for the show? At its best SVU was sensitive, thought-provoking, affecting. Has the writing changed, or is it harder to achieve those effects if the arena of the court is given less weight.
Do you think that the representation/exploration of the legal aspect suffers when more significance is placed on the pre-trial investigation? With many episodes not featuring the trial element at all, I guess I’m wondering whether this gives the impression of justice being served by the process of the police investigation in and of itself? The crime has been investigated, the suspect has been apprehended, no need to show the trial because it will merely confirm guilt as established by the enquiry of the police not by a jury, or indeed, to even greater effect, the trial is pre-empted entirely by the police investigation concluding in bloody revenge/summary justice/gross injustice metered out by the parties involved.
And you thought I was here to talk about accents.
Allison Leotta says
12 March, 2012 at 3:59 pmWow! I think you win the award for most thorough comment ever on the Prime Time Crime Review.
I will take your word on the accents, Frankie. I see from your email that you are from the UK, so you are probably much better at the accents than my American ears can ever aspire to.
About the Law versus Order, you make a good point. The franchise started with the police and lawyer stuff being pretty evenly split on every show. The SVU splinter seems to have gone far to the police procedures side of the spectrum. It has served them well, sustaining 13 years of high ratings. As a prosecutor, of course, I do wish there was more Law. But that’s just me. There’s an audience that voraciously consumes the Order.
I think you’re right — it doesn’t matter which DA they use. I’m guessing the matter of Casey v. Alex is probably more an issue of which actress’s agent had a better week than any plot or character related point.
That said, I think this season has returned to the Law roots to some extent. Last season, I complained that most episodes ended with the rapist being shot, stabbed or bludgeoned to death by one of his victims. While such endings provide a clean, viscerally satisfying ending, they don’t portray how the system actually works, or the real and difficult work that authorities have to go to in order to make sure justice is served. This season is definitely ending with more courtroom justice than the vigilante kind — and I think it has made for much stronger episodes.
wendy bannerman says
1 December, 2023 at 1:44 amA living testimony..
Got cured from Hsv..
(The best herbal remedy)
Everyone infected person need this. .
Use his Love spell to win Ex back
☆★☆━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━☆★☆R.buck ler1 1 ‘ ‘@g ma i l…… c o m…