What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

HBO Series "The Night Of" (1 Viewer)

SaintsInDome2006 said:
I really have to rewatch episide 1.
Click to expand...
It helped a lot. 

The second guy who was with the guy making fun of Nas for being a Muslim.....certainly looked at both of them strangely but was quiet the whole time. They really dwelled on his face for a good second or two. I think it's him or the stepdad. 

 
What are there 3 episodes left? How are they wrapping this up in three episodes with the pace of this show?

 
shuke said:
Could be just to help develop his character, show how bad he has it.

Could be some type of metaphor for who he is.  Like he should be embarrassed for the type of lawyer he is.

My thought last night though was that he is going to have some revelation about a clue in the case due to some treatment for it.  Wrapping it in Saran wrap?  Who knows.
Click to expand...
I can't help but think the various types of doctors and treatments he's received is some sort of metaphor.

The more traditional ointments. Then the non-traditional, more kooky saran wrap/crisco combo. Then the cortisone steroid and UV lamp stuff, more serious business treatment.

 
Love the show but I could do without the prison scenes. I'm more interested in the case and investigation. I don't really care that much about Naz' life in prison but I have faith that it will all come together in the end and that it's not just filler.

 
On The Rocks said:
I'm thinking he gets wrongfully convicted with one episode left and the final episode will get him out.

I sort of think somewhere along the way the real killer will be put in Rikers for some other crime and give a jailhouse confession that "Omar" will learn about and put Naz in a position he has to pay for the information to get him off.

It seems like the cat and the deer head will somehow be part of the resolution. 

It appeared that while the court room scene was going on and he was giving his supposed confession statement, Naz was having moments of clarity from "the night of" - and those memories will become more clear as the series goes on. 
Click to expand...
I don't mean to bash your theory on the ending, but I hope you're wrong. I say this because, if there is a conviction, undoing a wrongful conviction, even if there is newly discovered exculpatory evidence, is generally a long and tedious process. Way longer than the actual trial process. So in a show that's trying to be realistic, this ending would be pretty disappointing to just sort of wrap up an issue like that that quickly.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jamny said:
Love the show but I could do without the prison scenes. I'm more interested in the case and investigation. I don't really care that much about Naz' life in prison but I have faith that it will all come together in the end and that it's not just filler.
Click to expand...
Ultimately, I think the show is about the entire process - we often see shows that cover the investigation and trial, but lose sight of the defendant and some of the things he has to go through while waiting for trial.

I realize time is limited, but Naz seems to have adjusted to prison life much faster than I would have thought - given his somewhat naive background.

I expect that the price he has to pay for protection will be significant - I am assuming his Mom will be forced to smuggle drugs into the jail to make up for the lost officer mule.  I wonder if the "twist", if any, will be that Naz goes free, while Mom gets busted...Dad loses his cab, brother gets kicked out of school, mom goes to jail - all from a bad arrest...

ETA - "bad arrest" is probably the wrong term - given the evidence, it was a good arrest, but clearly a lot of events conspired against Naz to put him in that situation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm enjoying the show so far.  Watching Nas' plea agreement and confession scene last night I was thinking what would I do if I were in his situation.  I'd like to think I'd be strong enough to plead not guilty knowing I didn't do it but with all that evidence it'd be hard to pass a chance to avoid life.  

What was Crowe's motivation to take the case pro bono?  Was it purely for publicity?  Was her plan the whole time to get it reduced from a murder charge to manslaughter?  If so how does that benefit her?  

 
sjslacker said:
I'm enjoying the show so far.  Watching Nas' plea agreement and confession scene last night I was thinking what would I do if I were in his situation.  I'd like to think I'd be strong enough to plead not guilty knowing I didn't do it but with all that evidence it'd be hard to pass a chance to avoid life.  

What was Crowe's motivation to take the case pro bono?  Was it purely for publicity?  Was her plan the whole time to get it reduced from a murder charge to manslaughter?  If so how does that benefit her?  
Click to expand...
I think this is a potential "flaw" in our system - in a risk/reward scenario, it might be best to take a deal like this, knowing you are innocent.  But, that means you have to acknowledge that you committed a crime, even though you did not.  I know there are some pleas that allow a defendant to plead no contest, or acknowledge that the prosecution has enough evidence to convict, without admitting guilt - seems like maybe those should be the norm, rather than a plea deal with a guilty plea - particularly if the punishment aspect remains, so that in this case, Naz pleas no-contest, in exchange for 15 years.

 
sjslacker said:
I'm enjoying the show so far.  Watching Nas' plea agreement and confession scene last night I was thinking what would I do if I were in his situation.  I'd like to think I'd be strong enough to plead not guilty knowing I didn't do it but with all that evidence it'd be hard to pass a chance to avoid life.  

What was Crowe's motivation to take the case pro bono?  Was it purely for publicity?  Was her plan the whole time to get it reduced from a murder charge to manslaughter?  If so how does that benefit her?  
Click to expand...
I think we were clued in when we first met her at the impromptu press conference on the courtroom steps for her civil client - she seems to be all about publicity.  Taking on a high profile case pro bono would pay dividends down the road, by keeping her in the news.  Losing a case though would not have helped - hence the "gift from god" plea deal.

 
sjslacker said:
I'm enjoying the show so far.  Watching Nas' plea agreement and confession scene last night I was thinking what would I do if I were in his situation.  I'd like to think I'd be strong enough to plead not guilty knowing I didn't do it but with all that evidence it'd be hard to pass a chance to avoid life.  

What was Crowe's motivation to take the case pro bono?  Was it purely for publicity?  Was her plan the whole time to get it reduced from a murder charge to manslaughter?  If so how does that benefit her?  
Click to expand...
My read was she was taking it for the publicity with a strong hunch the sensitive nature and strong media interest would result in all the politicians wanting a quick plea which could ultimately be spun as her getting a slam dunk life sentence down to 15. Also explains how pissed she was he didn't take the plea and quick she was to quit.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I think this is a potential "flaw" in our system - in a risk/reward scenario, it might be best to take a deal like this, knowing you are innocent.  But, that means you have to acknowledge that you committed a crime, even though you did not.  I know there are some pleas that allow a defendant to plead no contest, or acknowledge that the prosecution has enough evidence to convict, without admitting guilt - seems like maybe those should be the norm, rather than a plea deal with a guilty plea - particularly if the punishment aspect remains, so that in this case, Naz pleas no-contest, in exchange for 15 years.
Click to expand...
Alford plea

 
sjslacker said:
I'm enjoying the show so far.  Watching Nas' plea agreement and confession scene last night I was thinking what would I do if I were in his situation.  I'd like to think I'd be strong enough to plead not guilty knowing I didn't do it but with all that evidence it'd be hard to pass a chance to avoid life.  

What was Crowe's motivation to take the case pro bono?  Was it purely for publicity?  Was her plan the whole time to get it reduced from a murder charge to manslaughter?  If so how does that benefit her?  
Click to expand...
I tend to be pessimistic when it comes to speculating on my own future so I probably would have taken the deal. If I was on the fence up to the day of the plea and Stone urged me to take it minutes before I had to do it, that probably would have been enough to convince me.

 
Naz is a very smart kid.  Not a huge surprise he is making it in jail.  Not to mention, he was being protected even though he didn't know it.  

 
I'm still batting around what Calvin's (? - baby-oil napalm dude) motivation was. Did Freddy have control of him to push Naz his (Freddy's) way? Was he acting alone just to set Naz up for napalming? Did he like him at first?

 
Uruk-Hai said:
I'm still batting around what Calvin's (? - baby-oil napalm dude) motivation was. Did Freddy have control of him to push Naz his (Freddy's) way? Was he acting alone just to set Naz up for napalming? Did he like him at first?
Click to expand...


Calvin made it a point to tell Naz why he was in prison, even though Naz says he was told "never to ask" about that.  His niece was murdered by her bf (ex?) in a gruesome fashion, similar to what happen to Andrea (from episode 1).  Calvin even mentions his niece was about the same age as Andrea was, overtly calling out the similarities in their murder.  Seems like Calvin wanted revenge because he saw Naz in the same way as the guy who killed his niece.  Naz kept on trying to proclaim his innocence but Calvin didn't believe him or care.

 
Main takeaways for me from this episode are :

  • You really can't trust a mother####ing soul in a situation like this.  No one.
  • Crowe was slagging off Stone something ferocious (and publicly no less) and she really had no frigging idea how to advise Naz either.  Don't look at the judge, no - look at him now.  Don't say a word.  Wait, no - say "not guilty."
 
Evilgrin 72 said:
Main takeaways for me from this episode are :

  • You really can't trust a mother####ing soul in a situation like this.  No one.
  • Crowe was slagging off Stone something ferocious (and publicly no less) and she really had no frigging idea how to advise Naz either.  Don't look at the judge, no - look at him now.  Don't say a word.  Wait, no - say "not guilty."
Click to expand...
I find it fascinating that Naz's instincts regarding people seem to be good, at least at this point in the series.  When his parents tell Naz they're hiring Crowe, Naz says he likes Stone, but his parents don't get a good feeling about Stone (rightly so).  Turns out Stone seems to care much more than Crowe, who was only interested in using Naz as a puppet, I noticed the examples EG pointed out above and found that telling about how she viewed things. 

  • Stone:  I think i trust him.  He could have walked away once Crowe was hired.  He was literally laughed at in court, maybe he wanted to prove he coulda handled the case, following up on leads when he had no reason to.  Maybe he wants to just hustle and get info to sell back to Crowe (rehab file).  I'm leaning towards him wanting to prove himself.
  • Chandra ("token" Indian lawyer):  I trust her.  She seems genuine, the scene where she saw Crowe and all the other lawyers discussing the case from the outside looking in, it reaffirmed what Stone alluded to, she's just there for show.  Also when she was sent by Crowe to convince Naz to take the plea deal she broke rank and told him what she really felt.  
  • Freddy:  I don't fully trust him yet, I get he wants an intellectual to discuss things with but it's too early for me to tell if that's his full motivation.
  • Don Taylor (step dad):  I don't trust him at all.  But this might be too obvious.  When he first saw the pics he said it wasn't her, then they were going to take him to the body so he tells them the truth.  Why?  Did he not want to see the body cause he killed her and didn't want to see it?  Why was he arguing with that guy at the funeral?  
Can't wait for the next episode.

 
sjslacker said:
I find it fascinating that Naz's instincts regarding people seem to be good, at least at this point in the series.  When his parents tell Naz they're hiring Crowe, Naz says he likes Stone, but his parents don't get a good feeling about Stone (rightly so).  Turns out Stone seems to care much more than Crowe, who was only interested in using Naz as a puppet, I noticed the examples EG pointed out above and found that telling about how she viewed things. 

  • Stone:  I think i trust him.  He could have walked away once Crowe was hired.  He was literally laughed at in court, maybe he wanted to prove he coulda handled the case, following up on leads when he had no reason to.  Maybe he wants to just hustle and get info to sell back to Crowe (rehab file).  I'm leaning towards him wanting to prove himself.
  • Chandra ("token" Indian lawyer):  I trust her.  She seems genuine, the scene where she saw Crowe and all the other lawyers discussing the case from the outside looking in, it reaffirmed what Stone alluded to, she's just there for show.  Also when she was sent by Crowe to convince Naz to take the plea deal she broke rank and told him what she really felt.  
  • Freddy:  I don't fully trust him yet, I get he wants an intellectual to discuss things with but it's too early for me to tell if that's his full motivation.
  • Don Taylor (step dad):  I don't trust him at all.  But this might be too obvious.  When he first saw the pics he said it wasn't her, then they were going to take him to the body so he tells them the truth.  Why?  Did he not want to see the body cause he killed her and didn't want to see it?  Why was he arguing with that guy at the funeral?  
Can't wait for the next episode.
Click to expand...
If there is anything we have learned from Freddy, its that he does not do anything out of the goodness of his heart.  Everything has a quid-pro-quo.  The first time we met Freddy was when he was ####### the guard who told him she could not smuggle things into jail anymore.  My guess is he is looking for a replacement - and Naz' parents, probably mom, look like potential replacements - how much will they do to protect their son when he tells them he needs protecting?

Freddy is smart - he is playing whatever angle works to get what he wants.  With Naz, its to appeal to his "smart" side, before dropping the hammer on the real cost, and I really doubt it is conversation.  It might not involve Naz' parents, but I don't really see anything else Naz has to offer a con in prison.  I think with the "sparring" session, we saw that Freddy is nice - right up to the point where he needs to send a message.

 
Sinn Fein said:
If there is anything we have learned from Freddy, its that he does not do anything out of the goodness of his heart.  Everything has a quid-pro-quo.  The first time we met Freddy was when he was ####### the guard who told him she could not smuggle things into jail anymore.  My guess is he is looking for a replacement - and Naz' parents, probably mom, look like potential replacements - how much will they do to protect their son when he tells them he needs protecting?

Freddy is smart - he is playing whatever angle works to get what he wants.  With Naz, its to appeal to his "smart" side, before dropping the hammer on the real cost, and I really doubt it is conversation.  It might not involve Naz' parents, but I don't really see anything else Naz has to offer a con in prison.  I think with the "sparring" session, we saw that Freddy is nice - right up to the point where he needs to send a message.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with you, it's interesting they specifically show how Naz's mom was getting searched before going to visit him, but didn't show that happening to the dad.  

 
Apple Jack said:
Alford plea
Click to expand...
Nice lingo. :thumbup:

So far I'm enjoying this show and, while I'm about to criticize it, I do appreciate the film-making and the attempts to be somewhat "realistic." Additionally, there really aren't any grossly errant scenes like many of the courtroom scenes in, say, Law and Order: SVU.  However, I'd make the following clarifications and observations: 

1. I don't hold myself out to be an "expert" on jails/corrections, but I have taught a college course on them and have probably been around 20 (some federal and in other states but mostly around AZ - including all of Sheriff Joe's) of them to the extent that we see Stone milling about and I've had enough clients charged with serious enough crimes and similar issues to Naz that I think I can speak pretty accurately on them.  I will admit that different jails have different polices and the open-floor cots, while I don't see them very often in my well-funded corrections state, concede that there are probably pods with them in other jails -- especially big ones like Rikers. Speaking of Rikers, technically Rikers is not a "prison" - it's a "jail".  The difference is that prison house convicted felons sentence to the departments of corrections for periods of time usually longer than one year.  So, my first gripe is that the guy "in" for trying to kill his niece's killer (and instead killing an innocent person because he missed - but the punishment is the same because of "transferred intent") would very very likely not be housed in Rikers because he's been convicted of a felony.  Second, while Naz's main charge is homicide and he's got no violent priors, no gang affiliation, or past history of assaults on guards/officers (usually the three main factors in classification), I find it doubtful that he wouldn't be housed in a much more secured area and would probably be on lockdown.  After all, his crime is incredibly violent, is sexual in nature, and he's Muslim.  I just don't see a correctional facility housing him in a general population type pod.  I have no doubt that in my jurisdiction he'd either be housed in the pod with others with sex crimes or that he'd be housed in the most highly secured area.  Of course, this wouldn't be nearly as interesting.  Third, I do find it pretty realistic that he'd be assaulted while in, but, generally, those assaults are most likely to occur during transportation to and from court - because, logically, most of the defendants charged with Naz's types of crimes are housed separately.  

2. Both Crowe and Stone both likely committed ethical violations by improperly soliciting Naz.  Generally, a lawyer cannot directly solicit - even if he's offering free services.  Now, in Stone's case, all that could entail is Naz saying something like, "hey, are you a lawyer?" as Stone trundles through the holding area and then a conversation ensues. But Stone likely committed an ethical violation by just simply inserting himself as Naz's defense attorney.  Similarly, Crowe just simply cannot contact the family of a person - especially one already represented - even if she just wants to offer her services pro bono.  

3. Similarly, the characterizations of both defense attorneys are pretty hyperbolic and, especially with Crowe, pretty annoying.  Starting with the latter, Crowe's unnecessary jab at Stone (attorneys have a duty of professionalism and there's probably no way some attorney would just blast another attorney like that), her willingness to take this case pro bono (seriously, TV, stop making it seem like high profile attorneys take high dollar cases pro bono all the ####### time), and just general overall ####tiness (she'd have met with Naz much more prior to that change of plea to go over the allocution) just isn't realistic.  With Stone, he's made out to be sympathetic and always wandering the courts and jail but the guy has a good stable client base and ads and connections everywhere - suggesting a few things, 1) he'd be in his office waaaaaay more preparing pleadings and would easily need a staff; 2) he makes good enough money that there's no way he takes payment after the case is over where the incentive to pay by the client is nearly zilch (even if you win, which is ####### depressing to have to state), and, 3) given how well known he is, I strongly doubt that he's considered to be so "bad" by his colleagues.  

4.  I really liked the allocution scene for a few reasons.  My gripes with it are that Crowe didn't go over the procedure of the case with Naz ahead of time since she had to have known he would need to allocute and no judge would have found a possible homicide change of plea to be a "waste of time" like the TV judge.  But, I really enjoyed that scene because that scenario does happen often (where a guy wants to take a plea, but struggles to admit actual guilt) and there's not too many situations more frustrating to a defense attorney because you know that the client wants the plea to go through, but you can't exactly force him to admit to something he doesn't want to.  Frankly, this is why I prefer jurisdictions where an attorney provides the factual basis and a defendant just has to agree that those would be the facts presented at court by the state (kind of like a hybrid guilty plea with Alford/no contest) because, really, no defendant really likes to describe what they did and, usually, a defendant will contest some element of the crime being admitted to. Nonetheless, some judges and prosecutors want to hear the defendant admit guilt for policy reasons, which is why a client should really be prepared and aware of the allocution.  Or, in the event the client doesn't remember committing the offense, that really needs to be stated and addressed with the court.  

5. I also really liked the plea offer issue.  For starters, that sounded like a pretty damn good offer and I'd surmise that many bright defense attorneys would have advised Naz to take it.  After all, since his odds of winning trial appear to be low and he faces life, the 15 years seems like it would be in his best interests and the EV choice.  Of course, therein lies the philosophical conundrum as Naz insists he didn't do it and the rub question of "should you advise an innocent person to take a plea" comes into play.  Well done by the show, in my opinion.    

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow said:
Second, while Naz's main charge is homicide and he's got no violent priors, no gang affiliation, or past history of assaults on guards/officers (usually the three main factors in classification), I find it doubtful that he wouldn't be housed in a much more secured area and would probably be on lockdown.  After all, his crime is incredibly violent, is sexual in nature, and he's Muslim.  I just don't see a correctional facility housing him in a general population type pod.  I have no doubt that in my jurisdiction he'd either be housed in the pod with others with sex crimes or that he'd be housed in the most highly secured area.  Of course, this wouldn't be nearly as interesting. 
Click to expand...
I thought this too, but was willing to look past it.  No way this guy isn't in PC. 

The advice he's getting is pretty realistic.  Have a dead stare, look at people without looking at them, don't gamble, don't let anyone get over on you (because it'll happen everyday after).

 
Ep2, was better than the opening. This is getting very engaging. And I'm loving them showing the tedious nature of being an attorney sometimes with Turturro. It's more realistic than not.

 
There aren't too many times where I legitimately get emotionally tied into a show, but man I got nervous a few times for Naz in ep4.  Outstanding stuff!

 
Apple Jack said:
Heh. Just remember it from the West Memphis case. I don't know the first thing about law.
Click to expand...
I think the percentage of people who know what an Alford plea is would break down as follows :

25% attorneys

74.9% people who watched the WM3 documentaries

0.1% people with way too much free time

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just came in here to say...watched the first 3 episodes last night in a row....hooked like a giant snook.

Awesome mini series.

 
Evilgrin 72 said:
I think the percentage of people who know what an Alford plea is would break down as follows :

25% attorneys

74.9% people who watched the WM3 documentaries

0.1% people with way too much free time
Click to expand...
Crap, I'm in that 0.1% now :(

 
Out in 12 years for this kind of crime is a godsend. Anybody would take that, even if they were innocent. But hey this is TV, there's a great chance he'll be vindicated at the end. 

Really enjoying the show. 

 
Gachi said:
Out in 12 years for this kind of crime is a godsend. Anybody would take that, even if they were innocent. But hey this is TV, there's a great chance he'll be vindicated at the end. 

Really enjoying the show. 
Click to expand...
I wouldn't, if I was innocent.  No way in hell.  I'd fight it until I died.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wingnut
Stephen Kings "The Outsider", a 10 episode HBO series coming January. Trailer just released
3 4 5
Replies
237
Views
11K
Tiger Fan
T
Pip's Invitation
The THIRD 100 from 1971. #1: Echoes
5 6 7
Replies
310
Views
19K
BobbyLayne
BobbyLayne
C
The History of Comedy on CNN
Replies
25
Views
1K
cockroach
C

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top