Character mistake: McCoy asks his witness, an expert geneticist, what the odds are that a DNA sample presented in evidence does not match that of the defendant. He answers "About one in two hundred." That is idiotic. If the DNA samples are identical the chances that the the sample presented in evidence does not come from the defendant is about one in two billion, not one in two hundred! A bright high school senior would know that, never mind an expert geneticist.
Bishop73
21st Mar 2023
Law & Order (1990)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: If the odds are 1 in 200, that means the accuracy of the DNA is 99.5%. If the odds are 1 in 2 billion, that means the accuracy of the DNA is 99.9999999995%, which simply isn't true.
In fact as any geneticist (i.e, anyone like me) will tell you the chances of two identical DNA "fingerprints" coming from two different and unrelated individuals are around one in two thousand million. Two billion. In fact the odds are much higher than that but we scientists don't like to make claims that sound unlikely or fantastic. The accuracy of DNA fingerprinting is, as you point out, 99.9999999995%. You correction is wrong and the posting is correct.
Except that's not what happened in the scene or what happens in real life. You simply don't understand what you're arguing. You're not a geneticist.
31st Dec 2021
Law & Order (1990)
Executioner - S18-E9
Factual error: Yost attacks and kills an innocent man, believing him to be Dr. Horace Garrison, a physician who administered a faulty lethal injection to a condemned prisoner, reducing him to a vegetative state rather than killing him. The problem is, medical doctors never, ever participate in an execution except to certify death, a legal requirement. They do not, ever, take an active role in killing the condemned person.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but medical doctors are involved in lethal injections more than just certifying death. This is why so many groups were actively trying to stop the practice of medical profession involvement. In 2007, 17 states required physician involvement, which included doctors at times having to administer the injection.
The botched execution took place in South Carolina, which absolutely forbids medical practitioners to take an active role in killing a condemned prisoner. In fact, they are considering switching executing prisoners by firing squad instead of lethal injection, at least partly to distance medical professionals from the actual procedure leading to a person's death.
31st Aug 2021
Law & Order (1990)
Corrected entry: When Levi March's wife makes it clear that she will testify against him his lawyer protests that she cannot so do under spousal privilege. He should know better. Spousal privilege protects a wife from being compelled to give evidence against her husband (and vice versa). It does not prevent her from volunteering to do so, which is the case here.
Correction: That is incorrect. In New York, the martial communications privilege is codified at CPLR ยง4502 (b), which states: "A husband or wife shall not be required, or, without consent of the other if living, allowed, to disclose a confidential communication made by one to the other during marriage."
There's almost always exceptions to the rules, and the statute applies to "confidential communication." You would have to know the nature of her testimony to ascertain if the privilege will or will not protect him. (I'm not familiar with this episode, so do not know what the case is about - maybe someone could add some details about the case and nature of her testimony?).
While there are exceptions, the episode didn't spend time on her testimony since Levi takes a plea. But the correction is valid because the lawyer's objection is valid, so there is no mistake. Yes, counsel would have to discuss the situation and have the judge make a decision, but the mistake is saying a lawyer would never say the wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is wrong.
I might not be understanding something and/or don't have enough information to ascertain if the privilege is relevant. A spouse cannot be COMPELLED to testify about confidential communication and the husband can exert the privilege even if the wife wants to volunteer information. Beyond these basic rules, more information is needed.
Actually, if we presume the lawyer was correct when he said spousal privilege applied, there is NO "factual error." The "factual error", as written, is using EXCEPTIONS to support its assertion, but there is no reason to believe exceptions are applicable. (I think I get it!). I think your wording is "off": "the mistake is saying a lawyer would never say the wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is wrong." A lawyer would say a wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is correct. (?).
You're overthinking it. You were correct when you said a wife cannot be compelled to testify... Which is why the mistake is wrong.
Maybe... but the last part " which is the case here" leads me to question if the person posting the error knows there was an exception because the testimony wasn't going to be about confidential information (private between spouses).
Since the person posting the "factual error" did not specify what the actual case is, there is enough doubt among others to dispute the "factual error" (as presented).
16th Oct 2020
Law & Order (1990)
Corrected entry: Jack McCoy asks his witness, an expert geneticist, what the odds are that a DNA sample presented in evidence matches that of the defendant. He answers "About one in two hundred." He just stated that the chances of a match are half of one percent! This is a huge, serious error on the part of an expert witness, and if he later tried to correct his mistake it would seriously undermine his credibility. The defence attorney repeats the mistake just a few seconds later while questioning him, but she doesn't see the mistake he has made, either. The odds he gave are the odds that the DNA sample DOESN'T match the defendant.
Correction: McCoy asks "what are the odds the semen came from someone other than Mr. Munoz" (the defendant). So he does state the odds correctly.
9th Jul 2020
Law & Order (1990)
Plot hole: They speak of sending a high school shooter to state prison. But if he's under 18 surely he'd have to be held in a juvenile facility until he's old enough.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is incorrect for the time period. Until recently, 16 and 17 year olds who were charged as adults could get sent to State prison with adults. 2015 is when New York State decides to house 16 and 17 years olds in State prison in separate facilities.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.