A recent Grey's Anatomy episode, "Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word" (season 10, episode 9), made it clear that the show should stick to medicine and stay out of the courtroom.  Or at least hire a legal consultant when a storyline turns legal.

In the episode, Calley went to trial in a medical malpractice case.  The mistakes throughout the episode were many and cringeworthy. 

To start with, a period of four months supposedly passed between the time of the act of malpractice (a hip replacement surgery that ended with both legs amputated from an Olympic snowboarded) to the time of trial.  Four months!  Anyone who has had even the slightest interaction with America's court systems knows that nothing moves that quickly.  Least of all a civil lawsuit involving detailed medical information that goes to a jury trial.  Four years would be slightly more realistic.

But, I understand there are more important time needs in the story, so I'll move on.  An even more flagrant problem, and one that had no requirement in teh story, was the confusion between a civil lawsuit, which this was, and a criminal prosecution, which this wasn't.  The writers do not seem to understand something very basic that most Americans should know about their legal system.

There are two completely separate and different legal systems in our country.  Civil cases are where people (or corporations or governments) sue other people (or corporations or governments) for some wrong.  If the person suing (plaintiff) wins, they are usually awarded money.

Criminal cases are where the government (and only the government), whether state, city, or federal, charges someone with a crime.  If the government wins, the defendant might be fined, and/or be sent to jail or prison, or in some cases even be put to death.

The terms used in each of these two systems are often different.  And this is where Grey's Anatomy got so embarrassingly off-track.  After the plaintiff's attorney finished questioning a witness, he exclaimed, "The prosecution rests."  Since this was a civil lawsuit, there was no "prosecution."  There was only a plaintiff. 

SPOILER ALERT  At the end, when the verdict was read, the jury foreperson announced, "Not guilty."  Again, since this was a civil suit, no one could be found guilty or not guilty.  Those terms are only used when someone has been charged with a crime.

There were several more minor errors throughout the show.  Most of these problems could have been easily corrected by having a legal consultant read through the script and/or be present for filming. 

The result of so many basic and easily-fixable errors was that the show looked poorly researched and inauthentic.  If their medical errors are as bad as their legal ones, I have to seriously question this show's credibility.  Not that a medical or legal show has to bee 100% accurate, but such basic mistakes can seriously undermine the show.

To avoid similar mistakes, get your free writer's guide revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.

When someone is in police custody, and the police want to question that person, the suspect must first be read their Miranda rights.  The suspect must then waive those rights before police may question him or her.

The Miranda rights are based on a United States Supreme Court case called Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).  That case basically held that a suspect or criminal defendant must be informed that they have certain rights, and must give up those rights before the police may question them.  This was done to counter police abuse and misconduct, which was often done to get someone to confess.

In movies and on TV, the Miranda rights are usually read as soon as someone is arrested.  This is unnecessary unless the person is going to be immediately questioned.  The rights need not be read to someone until he or she is going to be interrogated by law enforcement.

So, what exactly do the police need to say?  Here is a safe way for police to read someone their Miranda rights and get a valid waiver, so that whatever the person says can later be used against him in court:

1.  You have the right to remain silent.  Do you understand?

2.  Anything you say may be used against you in court.  Do you understand?

3.  You have the right to the presence of an attorney before and during any questioning.  Do you understand?

4.  If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you free of charge before any questioning if you want.  Do you understand?

5.  Do you wish to waive these rights?

The police should try to get a "Yes" answer to each question to ensure the person understood and voluntarily waived each of his rights. 

Sign up here to get a free printable and portable Miranda Card that has this information in a convenient and easy to use format:

The Miranda Card lists the rights as statements that a police officer would say them to a suspect.  The card is small enough to cut out and carry in your pocket.  Many police officers carry a card like this and use it to ensure they properly advise a suspect of his or her Miranda rights, and get a valid waiver. 

Also, sign up to receive a free eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mytery and Legal Drama.

This is an almost daily scene in television and movies:  An undercover police officer begins discussing an illegal transaction with a known criminal.  The criminal asks, "Are you a cop?"  Of course, the police officer says he is not.  The criminal is satisfied, and they conduct their illegal transaction.

In real life, if an undercover police officer is asked whether he or she is a cop, do they have to tell the truth?  The short answer is no. 

Police officers are allowed to lie to suspected criminals.  The police officer who lies and says he is not a cop will not get in trouble, and any evidence he collects as part of the undercover operation can be used in court.

I have sometimes been asked, isn't it entrapment when a police officer lies and says he is not a cop?  Again, the answer is no. 

Entrapment generally occurs when a police officer (or other government agent) induces the defendant to commit a crime he would not have otherwise committed.  Simply providing someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment.  Certainly telling someone that he or she is not a cop would not induce someone to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed.

So, why do television shows and movies always do this?  I don't have a good answer for that.  Maybe it's an easy way to show the criminal is suspicious of the undercover cop.  Maybe it's laziness or ignorance on the part of the writers.  One thing is for sure:  it is overused and suggests an incorrect legal standard.

For more information like this, check out a free ebook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writer of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.

Sorry this is a bit off topic, but I'm going to Hawaii this week, and I've got it on the brain.  Here are my favorite movies set in Hawaii (in no particular order) - I could stretch to find tie-ins to crime and law in each of these, but I wouldn't consider any to be truly legal drama or crime movies.  Just some good movies set on a beautiful island.

(Click the pictures to check out the movie.)

The Descendants
(George Clooney)

Forgetting Sarah Marshall
(Jason Segal, Russell Brand, Kristen Bell, Mila Kunis, Jonah Hill, Paul Rudd)

And, of course, no list of Hawaiian movies would be complete without Elvis...
Blue Hawaii
(Elvis Presley)

And because it's the only decent crime show set in Hawaii, honorable mention goes to:
Hawaii Five-O

Okay, that's it, one of you needs to write a good legal drama set in Hawaii!  Who's in??

**Get your free eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.

I am developing recommendation lists of the best all-time legal movies (drama and comedy), best crime movies, best legal and crime TV, best legal and crime novels, and best true crime books. 

This is a work in progress, but I wanted to post the movies I have listed so far.  Check it out:  Best Legal and Crime Movies

Feel free to let me know your thoughts on my lists, and let me know what your favorites are!

Also, get your free eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.

When it comes to investigating and prosecuting crime, federal and state agencies are parts of separate governments.  Each state is also separate from all the other states.  These are called jurisdictions. 

The federal government is limited in what crimes it is allowed to investigate and prosecute.  There must be federal jurisdiction before the federal government can get involved.  Most street crimes, like murder, do not involve federal jurisdiction. 

The federal government may have jurisdiction if an otherwise state crime occurs on federal property, or involves federal officials, or crosses state lines.

The states and federal government also have separate law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies.  At the federal level, the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office are primarily involved in investigating and prosecuting federal crimes. 

Each state has state law enforcement officers, as well as local city police departments and county sheriff's departments.  Most states also have state attorneys general, district attorneys, and city attorneys who prosecute state crimes.

Often in movies and TV shows, the local police department will get offended when the FBI comes into their jurisdiction.  The show "Criminal Minds" handles this issue regularly.

Criminal Minds follows a team of FBI profilers who help track and catch serial killers.  Most episodes have the team called in by a local police department that needs the team's expertise on recent crimes. 

The agent in charge of the Criminal Minds profiling team often stresses the importance of being invited by the local police department and working cooperatively with them once there.  This is because the FBI generally has no jurisdiction to investigate local murders, even multiple murders.  The FBI, as a federal agency, has limited jurisdiction to investigate federal crimes. 

The specialized profiling team on Criminal Minds, therefore, would generally analyze evidence from their unique perspective and help educate the local police department about the person they are looking for.

One episode of Criminal Minds (Season 2, ep. 22 “Legacy”), helps show this concept and demonstrates the difference between state and federal jurisdictions.   

Detective McGee from the Kansas City Police Department contacts the Criminal Minds team for help when he believes at least 63 homeless people have disappeared.  Because these people have not turned up dead and no one has reported them missing, however, there are no open files and no active local investigation into the matter. 

The following conversation takes place about the FBI team's ability to work on the case:

Upon unofficially reviewing some of the evidence and recognizing a potentially serious threat, Agent Prentiss expresses frustration at the team’s hands being tied because of jurisdictional concerns.  Agent Morgan reminds her, “If we don’t follow the city’s jurisdiction, no one’s ever going to ask us for help.”

These scenes demonstrate how delicate the balance of power between different law enforcement agencies can be.  It also exemplifies the limited role of the federal government when it comes to investigating and prosecuting crime.  Unless there is some federal aspect of the case that gives the feds jurisdiction, they have no authority.

Later in the episode, when Agent Hotchner meets with the detective’s commander, the commander declines the FBI’s help, claiming there is no case to investigate.  He does not consider the unexplained and unreported disappearance of several homeless people a crime. 

It is then discovered that a taunting letter from the potential suspect was mailed to Detective McGee from Kansas City, Missouri, whereas the people went missing from Kansas City, Kansas.  This interstate communication gave the FBI jurisdiction to investigate the crimes on their own without invitation from the local authorities.

In this scenario, both the federal government and the local authorities had jurisdiction to investigate the same crimes.  This is called concurrent jurisdiction. 

Bank robbery and drug sales are common areas of concurrent jurisdiction, where both the federal and state governments have jurisdiction.  And since the federal and state governments are separate governments, each could potentially prosecute the suspect once he was caught.  Typically, however, someone is only prosecuted by either the state or the federal government, even where both have jurisdiction. 

As a side note, the U.S. Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause does not forbid both the federal and state governments from prosecuting the same person for the same crime because they are separate sovereigns.

(click picture to check out Criminal Minds on DVD)

Click here to receive a free eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.