I must have watched too many US law related drama series. I know that in India (being a Commonwealth country), the law system is more based on the British one than the US one. But really? The way the cases or at least the Vincent murder case is being conducted is really asking to suspend disbelief.
Firstly, I thought that usually the prosecution presents their case first including their witnesses and after they rest, then the defence presents including the defendant and the witnesses for the defence. Here, it seems to be a mish mash. The defence lawyer, Sundaram called for the accused as the first person to the witness stand and then the victim's wife is the second to the stand. Huh? Also in a court scene in a previous episode, the public prosecutor and Sundaram were questioning this group of three thugs. Three people on the stand at the same time? Don't they question witnesses one by one? Even if they are all telling the same story, during cross examination they can easily have differing accounts, right?
And the lady public prosecutor. Really?! Is she shown to be incompetent so that Sundaram can be seen as the much better lawyer? Sundaram is there questioning her prime witness, Vincent's wife and almost badgering her with all this speculative rhetorical questions and the poor woman is quietly sobbing away and the public prosecutor does not object to the manner of questioning? And then at the end, she does this half-assed rebuttal to Sundaram's argument. Really?!
I really want to like this series. I do like the actors and think that they are doing a good job. I am prepared to suspend my disbelief to a certain extent to allow for some creative liberty but this is a bit beyond me. If this does not improve, I will probably tune out soon after.
