Law & Order – Truth And Consequences

“Truth And Consequences” — LAW & ORDER, Pictured: Michaela Watkins as Judge Madeline Bennett. Photo by: Virginia Sherwood/NBC @ 2024 NBCUniversal Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved

One of the goals of season 24 is to make the characters more likable by exploring their personal stories. The show’s been successful so far focusing episodes on Riley’s brother, Lt. Brady’s sons, and Sam’s sister who was a causality of intimate partner violence. However, this week, a professor gets (golf) clubbed to death in his home. Why? The professor was married to a New York State Supreme Court Judge, Madeline Bennett, who was apparently the intended victim. 

The murderer, Thomas Norton, is a student who is actively involved in the pro-Palestinian campus protest. He was also supposed to clerk for Judge Bennett. Unfortunately, she rescinded his clerkship when she learned about his political views. Enraged because the Judge’s  actions threaten his academic career; he storms off to confront her. Judge Bennett isn’t home, but hubby is, and he ends up dead. 

The investigation begins with the housekeeper. She found the body and witnessed a guy walking away from the house. He was dressed in hooded sweatshirt with a watermelon logo. The logo is a symbol of Palestinian support. However, the housekeeper never saw his face. The CTV cameras never capture his face. Backtracking to campus thirty minutes before the murder, the detectives find video of Norton walking across campus with a Venezuelan student, Rojas. Rojas is forced by the district attorney to testify against her will because the bloody sweatshirt collected as evidence was ruled inadmissible. Rojas’s testimony was needed to corroborate the timeline and that the sweatshirt was Norton’s.

“Truth And Consequences” — LAW & ORDER, Pictured: (l-r) Hugh Dancy as ADA Nolan Price, Odelya Halevi as ADA Samantha Maroun. Photo by: Virginia Sherwood/NBC @ 2024 NBCUniversal Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved

On cross, Norton’s lawyer got Rojas to admit that participating in the student protest was in violation of the student code of conduct which put her student visa in jeopardy. In classic courtroom speak, Norton’s attorney turns to the jury and asks Rojas, “Isn’t it true that you’re only testifying because the district attorney’s office promised to help you with your visa?” Price emotes a strong, “Objection!” The judge overrules Price and Rojas was obliged to answer. Rojas said she hoped the DA could help. On redirect, Prices asked Rojas if she’d been promised anything by his office. Tearfully, Rojas said, “No. In fact, I think you pretty much just screwed me.” 

“Truth And Consequences” — LAW & ORDER, Pictured: (l-r) Stephen Kunken as Sam Bennett, Mehcad Brooks as Det. Jalen Shaw, Reid Scott as Det. Vincent Riley. Photo by: Will Hart/NBC @ 2024 NBCUniversal Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved

During the investigation, Lt. Brady learns Judge Bennett has lied about her location the day of the murder. Because of the lie Brady wants to hold Judge Bennett for 72 hours, which she can do, for obstruction of justice. DA Baxter won’t allow it because she’s a recent widow. However, the police know its really because she’s a judge. Later in the episode, the Mayor compels Baxter to ignore the subpoena he’d personally served to force Bennett to testify. Baxter tells ADA Price “There’s been a change in plans,” and directs him to offer Norton a plea deal. Price is dumbfounded especially since Baxter offers no reasonable explanation for the change. Price emphasizes to Baxter that they had ruined a Venezuelan student’s life. By making her to testify, she can no longer study in America.

“Truth And Consequences” — LAW & ORDER, Pictured: (l-r) Michaela Watkins as Judge Madeline Bennett, Bruce Altman as Mayor Payne. Photo by: Will Hart/NBC @ 2024 NBCUniversal Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved

Without the sweatshirt evidence and with Rojas’s testimony impugned, Price fears he can’t win a murder conviction. Judge Bennett’s testimony is now essential to establish Norton’s motive for being at her home. Bennett, without explanation, refuses to testify. Price rightly points out the weakness of his case because the victim’s spouse refuses to testify. When Baxter confronts Bennett, she doubles down on her refusal to testify without saying why. Baxter asks one of his and the judge’s mutual acquaintances why. She leans in with a pained expression and says, “She had a ski accident…” 

There’s a quick edit to Baxter serving Judge Bennett, a functioning opioid addict, with a subpoena. Hence, the Mayor pressures Baxter to ignore the subpoena in favor of the “greater good.” If Bennett’s addiction got exposed, it would put her previous rulings in question. Baxter reluctantly directs Price to offer a plea deal, which Norton accepts. He’s sentenced to 12 in state prison. The episode ends with Judge Bennett thanking Baxter for helping her. Baxter responded, “I didn’t do it for you.”

I’m not naïve. I know Law & Order stories intentionally feature flawed, even detestable characters to provoke strong reactions or as a critique of certain behavior in society. However, they are usually the criminals, not victims like Judge Bennett. She prioritized her career and reputation over the justice she’s sworn to seek. If the objective was to portray the judge as an unlikable character to highlight unbridled self-interest or to address social issues such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and prompt viewers to reflect critically on these aspects, the attempt fell short.

“Truth And Consequences” — LAW & ORDER, Pictured: (l-r) Tony Goldwyn as DA Nicholas Baxter, Michaela Watkins as Judge Madeline Bennett. Photo by: Virginia Sherwood/NBC) @ 2024 NBCUniversal Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved

The purpose of good storytelling is to evoke an emotional response. “Truth and Consequences” left me cold and disliking the victim’s widow, Judge Bennett, the perpetrator, Michael Norton, and everybody in the DA’s office, save Sam. While I acknowledge that the success of an episode is subjective, my experience suggests the show failed to connect with the intended audience—or at least with me. Although my negative reaction might indicate that the showrunner succeeded in provoking a strong response, what truly matters is whether the story achieved its intended purpose. Unfortunately, I found myself needlessly distracted from the story’s main goal.

What did you think about this week’s Law & Order? 

 Overall Rating: 

 5/10

Lynette Jones