Truth or 'Bull': The Case of the Missing Author
Dear writers and producers of CBS' “Bull”: your show might be a little more realistic if Dr. Jason Bull actually consulted on a trial that ended…
February 14, 2019 at 12:03 PM
6 minute read
Dear writers and producers of CBS' “Bull”: your show might be a little more realistic if Dr. Jason Bull actually consulted on a trial that ended up with a loss every now and then. After watching yet another episode, I am exasperated (yet not altogether shocked) to see that, once again, the show ends with a victory dance for Bull and his trial team. They have yet to feel the agonizing sting of defeat. Lucky bastards.
In the latest episode, “Leave It All Behind,” soon-to-be-defendant Nathan Raynor enters his lake estate only to discover his wife, a world-renowned author, is missing. Three days later, he (finally) notifies the police, who immediately expect foul play. Raynor is ultimately arrested for murder, and in swoops Dr. Bull and his team of sleuths and snoops.
To dissect this episode, let's play another round of Truth or Bull. (Here's your mandatory SPOILER ALERT.)
Truth or Bull: It's standard practice for an attorney and jury consultant to interview a criminal client while forensic investigators are within earshot.
During an early scene, we see Nathan Raynor, Benny — his attorney — and Bull sitting in an open-concept area of his home discussing what he knows and doesn't know about his wife's whereabouts. Normal enough. But in the immediate background, we observe a flurry of crime scene investigators doing their thing.
I'm calling major BULL on this one. Granted, Nathan has yet to be formally arrested but he's certainly under serious scrutiny. I mean, come on: The forensics team is spraying Luminol around the place like it's air freshener. To think that the criminal defense team would partake in any discussion about anything within ear shot of the police, investigators, or district attorney is ludicrous. If you're ever in the unfortunate position of being a suspect in a crime and your trial team wants to pick your brain in front of the very folks who want to put you behind bars, you should strongly consider finding a new trial team. #duh
Truth or Bull: Jurors who are drawn to facts, science, precision and detail may be more receptive to a defense of reasonable doubt.
After spraying gallons of Luminol, the investigators discover a serious blood bath cover-up. Clearly, the killer was not as savvy as Dexter. To nobody's surprise, Mr. Raynor is Prime Suspect No. 1 and arrested for murder. For reasons much too complicated to explain here, Nathan still holds firm that his missing wife is alive and well and this is all a big misunderstanding. Next thing we know, Bull and Benny are picking a jury for his murder trial.
Seating jurors in a gruesome murder case who are willing to acquit based on reasonable doubt is really difficult. [Note to self: fodder for a future blog post.] But, because Bull has a bit of science on his side, he's hoping to sell a “no-body-no-death” narrative. Jurors who expect forensic perfection, scientific certainty and an actual body are generally more comfortable finding reasonable doubt.
I call TRUTH on this one. All other things being equal, if there were only one strike remaining and two scary jurors, use the strike on the drama teacher, not the fraud accountant.
Truth or Bull: Sequestered jurors are happy to have a break from real life.
Let's cut to the chase on this one. This is a ginormous load of BULL.
Because this is Hollywood, after the jurors are selected the state requests that jurors be sequestered during the trial (in the real world, such motions occur before jury selection). Benny — like a reasonable lawyer — objects, and this time, he objects for all the right reasons. It's an extraordinary measure and unwarranted. It's rarely used. It's a huge expense for the taxpayers. And the biggie: it's a horrible burden on jurors.
In many ways, sequestration is not much different than being in jail because jurors lose many of their freedoms and most of their privacy. Jurors are taken away from their families. They are removed from work. They are cut off from television, newspapers and social media (oh the horrors). They eat together, they sit in the courtroom together, travel together and watch (pre-approved) movies together. Doors typically remain unlocked, and phone conversations are often monitored.
Talk about an intrusion.
Even if jurors were put up in the swankiest of hotels, sequestration still sucks. Trust me, jurors would much rather be sitting on their tattered recliners eating Beanie Weenies in front of the television.
Truth or Bull: Discussions with a jury consultant are privileged.
This one is TRUTH (usually). Dr. Jason Bull's clients retain his company for legal services; they receive legal representation and strategic advice from various members of the team. This is typically considered privileged, but there are always exceptions [yet another blog post?].
In 2003, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals took issue with whether the work product of a non-testifying trial consultant is privileged. In an opinion stemming from Cendant Corporation Securities Litigation, the Third Circuit held that trial consultants fall within the scope of the work product doctrine and that “communications [with a trial consultant] merit work product protection.” While the issue of attorney-client privilege was not specifically addressed in this opinion, the concurring opinion held that the “attorney-client privilege was implicated.”
The Cendant opinion has become a critical ruling for trial consultants throughout the country but, like anything in the law, there are always exceptions. Generally speaking, unless your jury consultant rivals that of Gene Hackman in Runaway Jury, you should be just fine as far as protecting privilege. However, it's always best to have a signed engagement agreement to define roles and responsibilities, and to lock that privilege down.
So, what actually happened to the wife? Sadly, her body was discovered mid-trial along with the murder weapon, but the culprit wasn't the husband. Bull and his team of superheroes unravel the mystery mid-trial and receive an acquittal. Again.
Winning in the courtroom always more fun than losing, but it would sure be nice to know that Dr. Bull finds himself on the losing side of the facts every now and then.
Kacy Miller, president of CourtroomLogic Consulting LLC, will provide weekly reviews of new episodes of CBS' “Bull,” about an elite trial consulting firm. Miller began her career as a litigation consultant working alongside Dr. Phil McGraw, the inspiration for “Bull.” She can be reached at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Corporate Counsel's 2024 Award Winners Performed Legal Wizardry, Gave a Hand Up to Others
- 2Goodwin, Polsinelli, Fox Rothschild Find New Phila. Offices
- 3Helping Lawyers Move Away from ‘Grinding’ and Toward a ‘Flow’
- 4How GC-of-Year Sam Khichi Has Helped CVS Barrel Through Challenges
- 5A Website is Not a ‘Place.’ What Took So Long To Get This Right?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250