There's a lot about "Doubt" that I like, but some of it is just not done as well as it ought to be, as though who produce and write the show are either lazy and not committed to something that feels authentic, or they simply don't know any better. For one thing, I saw on the front of the courthouse where the state court cases are tried with district attorneys conducting the prosecution "United States Court House". Really? The last time I looked, only federal cases -- involving matters of federal law, with criminal trials being prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys -- were conducted in United States Court Houses. Each borough of New York City is regarded as a county for some purposes by the State of New York, and each borough has at least one state courthouse -- and New York calls that local court system "the Supreme Court of New York" (which, I admit, is a little confusing) -- the highest state court in New York state is the High Court of Appeals in Albany (which most states would call the Supreme Court of each state). But whatever you call the state court operating in and for any given county, they don't have their trials in a federal court house. So, right there, you know "Doubt" is fairly sloppy. I do like some of the actors -- I am a Katherine Heigl fan, and I think very highly of Dulé Hill. I'm impressed that Elliott Gould is in it. I also highly approve of the character "Cameron Wirth" an attorney who is openly presented as a woman who used to be man, and who is convincingly played by Laverne Cox, who is herself a transgendered actress. Where things get a bit silly for me is, for example, is that the liberal firm Roth & Associates supposedly has a policy that they will never allow their clients to present state's evidence to convict a criminal in exchange for immunity and enrollment in the witness protection program. A big deal was made out of the firm's policy and when Cameron Wirth recommended her client do just that, she was in fear of being fired. The head of the firm, Isaiah Roth, supposedly has that policy in place to prevent the firm from acquiring a reputation that it helps out the prosecution or some such bunk. So a client is expected to go to prison instead of turning state's evidence to convict someone who actually did commit a murder? I'm not buying that. I suppose my problem is I've been watching various iterations of "Law & Order" for too many years and I expect something closer to the way things are in real life, such as conducting criminal trials prosecuted by the D.A. in the state courthouse. Still, I plan on watch "Doubt" every week unless something better comes along in that same timeslot -- with the help of my DVR, I also watch "Chicago P.D." which is on at the same time. But, honestly, they could come closer to something believable and, I think, the scripts could be more convincing, too. I should mention that there are two characters I'd like to slap because they're so annoying. One is an associate attorney in the firm who is from Iowa -- she is totally neurotic and always pitching a fit about being from Iowa and all the problems that engenders. There is also a completely annoying secretary or "assistant" to Sadie Ellis (Katherine Heigl), and the assistant is so completely annoying so much of the time, no one could stand it. Sadie Ellis supposedly keeps her on because she's useful and good and comes up with great ideas that contribute to the defense strategies, but, honestly, no one that annoying could possibly justify her presence in that job.
Review of Doubt
