But ...the lines some of the lawyers had? Like the examining attorney at the deposition who asks the defendant/witness if he thinks the examining attorney isn't worth his attention. DUH! What FACT did he hope to elicit from such a dumb question (eliciting facts is, of course, the purpose of depositions). What point was he trying to make, that the defendant was arrogant and hostile (again, not the purpose of a deposition). And what plaintiff's lawyer (in an intellectual property suit, no less) would be stupid enough to ask the defendant that question in the first place? Answer: a screenwriter trying too hard to score dramatic points.
And how about the second-year associate who's ALREADY an 'expert' in jury selection - WTF? More likely she'd be an expert on which take-out is open at 11 pm while she's still plowing through discovery responses, or on which partner is most likely to hunt her down at 4 pm on a Friday afternoon for a research project due on Sunday night. And not at all probable she'd tell a high roller like Mark Zuckerberg (FB founder) - who was probably paying her employer law firm millions for his defense - that he was trying to be an asshole.
AARRGGGHHH!!!!!!!!! I shouldn't make myself so nuts when 'The Good Wife' hasn't even begun its next season next - another mecca for great actors and bogus legal lives and lines... Entertaining? Yes. Reasonably accurate? Well, ummmm...... :
That's show biz.
(Allison Leotta's blog, The Prime-Time Crime Review (linked here: http://allisonleotta.com/blog/) does a great job of rating the accuracy of SVU).