An article in today's Washington Post about how it is becoming more and more difficult for D.A.'s to get guilty verdicts for homicide prosecutions includes this observation:
...interviews with jurors, prosecutors and defense attorneys suggest that the verdicts, in many instances, show how television crime shows such as NBC's "Law & Order" have raised the expectation of jurors, even as they are becoming increasingly doubtful of dodgy witnesses, often criminals themselves.
It's a Law & Order world order! However, as the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, it is a part of our criminal justice system that the prosecutors' duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent is guilty - whose fault is it that juries are smarter? Or think they are more savvy? Maybe prosecutors need to play the Law & Order card more. Law & Order producer Dick Wolf mentioned how one defense lawyer, during his remarks, told the jury, "You all watch Law & Order - you know the first suspect is never the one who did the crime."
Gothamist wonders what would happen if someone went on and on about Law & Order or wore a Law & Order hat at jury selection. As in, would the person be rejected or accepted and why? (Trial lawyers, speak up!) Because more times that not, the defendent is found guilty.
[Via reader Scott - thanks]