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
Credit: CBS
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
© 2025 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 All![From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/texaslawyer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/401/2022/11/maslanka-michael-p-19-767x633.jpg)
From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering
6 minute read![It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/texaslawyer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/401/2023/07/John-Browning-767x633.jpg)
![Nondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech Nondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/texaslawyer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/403/2023/12/Reiter-Pollack-Siegel_2-767x633.jpg)
Nondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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