Same old story- heavys are shallow but there's talent/excitement if you know where to look, and the Mayweather-Pacquiao farce did nothing for the sport. It's telling though that there are more champs from the UK than the US.

I wonder if it's the league or that they are all national. Sam Rosen is a very good play-by-play for the New York Rangers but not great for the NFL.

I don't care about all his flaws as an announcer, I think Brent Musburger is perfect for college football.
Lampley/Kellerman/Jones are good on HBO Boxing, but I will always miss Larry Merchant though more for the post-fight interviews.

Bob Murphy was the best Mets announcer.

Well, in fairness the "destroyed a bathroom" story also appears to be an exaggeration. Liars, liars, everywhere.

That's what I mean by counterintuitive. That's the primary defense, but we're not getting the sense, as Weiss said a couple episodes ago, the real (only?) hope is diminished capacity or incapacity due to drugs as far as evidence before the jury.

I would assume she's undercharged Murder 2 and various counts of manslaughter.

An additional thing to remember, because I think the show is outright counterintuitive on this. This is the only affirmative defense Stone/Chandra have. They do NOT have an alternate suspect defense. (Duane Reade is a close call because they can at least tie him to the scene of the crime but most judges would reject…

Not really. I think she's trying to demonstrate that he's capable of remorseless anti-social behavior. Despite what you see on TV, "temporary insanity" is a pretty difficult affirmative defense. You must have an actual form of insanity for diminished capacity. Blackout rage is not a defense.

Weiss is going for murder 1. That Nas went there with the intention of killing Andrea. If the defense can create reasonable doubt that he killed Andrea in a stupor, they've got Murder 1 off the table, or even better he was in too much of a stupor to kill Andrea. An easy way to do that would be he has limited…

To prove he wasn't drugged by Andrea. A couple episodes ago, they talked about that being Chandra/Stone's defense.

It's relevant if the defense's argument is that Nas is a naïf who would have diminished responsibility if he was given an unknown substance by Andrea.

The prosecution is trying to prove he gave the pills to her. If the defense creates reasonable doubt that it was Andrea who provided the pills to an inexperienced Nas, a jury would look strongly at Man 2, which admittedly only brings it back to where the plea would be, but better than life.

Nineteenth Century bestsellers haven't really stood the test of time. I haven't seen anyone reading The Wide, Wide World on the beach this summer.

I don't know specifics of Wisconsin or New York, but the general rule is that you must have evidence that directly ties them to the crime (i.e. more than motive). Also, rule of thumb is that multiple theories undermines your credibility, and that it's better to stick to one theory of defense.

Tyler Perry writes and directs every episode of The Haves and Have Nots and If Loving You is Wrong….. It's about as good as you'd expect.

I agree with your criticisms and would add that it's awfully telling that Brokeback Mountain disappears from the piece after the first paragraph because it doesn't fit the thesis.
That said, I think it distills the fundamental argument that the audience of shows like Mr. Robot or X movies are most likely to think that…

Mark Harris made a similar argument, though not about TV, without using the admittedly hokey "dudebro" phrase. And even if I disagree, it has some merit.

True, but more shitty is if you're a widow and a lifelong homemaker, and then you're beholden to your children. The law has decided to take that out of people's hands.

The show is taking some license with Estate Law. You cannot disinherit a spouse in New York. (I believe Georgia's the only state you can.) New York follows the UPC and gives a mandatory portion of the estate to a spouse up to 50% regardless of any will.