‘Law & Order’: Jesse Metcalfe on Verdict in Luigi Mangione-Inspired Episode
Spoiler Alert
[Warning: The below contains MAJOR spoilers for Law & Order Season 24 Episode 16 “Folk Hero.”]
The latest Law & Order is very much ripped from the headlines (the Luigi Mangione headlines, that is).
The CEO of OptiShield, a health insurance company, is shot in broad daylight, and Riley (Reid Scott), joined by Sergeant Danny DeLuca (Jesse Metcalfe) — Shaw (Mehcad Brooks) is out sick, waiting for a chest scan in the ER — tracks down the shooter. The only problem? He appears to be in multiple places at once, with people buying and wearing matching jackets because they agree with his message that. for the company, it was “People over profit.” To some, he’s a hero.
Riley and Danny do eventually track him down as he’s about to kill another insurance company CEO. But at his arraignment, people are cheering for Ethan (Ty Molbak). The evidence against him is overwhelming, including that he was found with the murder weapon and the ballistics was a 100 percent match. He also had a notebook filled with his extremist views and the stated objective to kill as many health insurance CEOs as possible to incite social change. While Price (Hugh Dancy) thinks he has a strong case, Baxter (Tony Goldwyn) knows how people feel about what the shooter did.
Ethan targeted OptiShield’s CEO because the company refused to pay for the drug that he believed would cure his mother’s terminal cancer, even after he advocated (many times) on her behalf, and she died. To Price’s shock, Ethan’s lawyer, Megan Stratton (Laila Robins), in her opening statement (which she gives after the people rest), says that Ethan had a legal reason for killing Andrews: He was trying to save lives. Andrews caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people by denying legitimate claims, and more would have died as a result. Ethan killed him before he could kill again, and his actions are completely legal under the laws of New York (though they were never directly applied in this kind of situation).
Price, of course, argues against it, but the judge allows Stratton to move forward with her defense and leave it up to the jury to determine if it’s preposterous. Stratton is open to a plea, but Price refuses, arguing that Andrews deserves justice and he has faith in the jury.
When Ethan takes the stand, he talks about his mother and how the treatment could have extended her life, despite how much he pushed. When he confronted the CEO, he just said he was late for a meeting. Despite Price’s objection, the judge allows Ethan to answer if he believes his mother would be alive if she’d received the drug, and he says yes. The judge also allows Ethan to go on longer than Price wants during his cross-examination. Ethan argues that he wasn’t going to let more die and fought for hard-working people kicked around by the corporation. “I did this, and I’ll accept whatever punishment,” he says.
Price, realizing he’s underestimated how strong the current is, then approaches Stratton about revisiting a deal, murder 2, 15 years. She’ll only accept a dismissal, and so it’s in the hands of the jury. And when it comes time for the verdict to be read, they find Ethan, of murder in the first degree …. The episode ends without a verdict.
“I feel like this open-ended episode played incredibly well,” Metcalfe tells TV Insider. “It really works for this episode. We don’t really take a stand on what the verdict should be. We allow the audience to have their own opinion. I think a lot of times when a storyline isn’t resolved, it can cause the audience a little bit of frustration. I think in this particular episode, I think it’s still incredibly satisfying, which is important.”
What did you think of the way Law & Order handled this case and not giving us the verdict? Let us know in the comments section below.
Law & Order, Thursdays, 8/7c, NBC
Get Both Sides of the Story
Get absolutely everything about Law & Order in your inbox!
Conversation306 Comments
Please read the TV Insider Community Guidelines.
Comments are closed on this story.
-
C
I have watched Law and Order for over 20 years and there have been times a verdict was not revealed. However in this episode you made the wrong call in not giving us the verdict, and how you did it, i.e.,having the jury foreperson start to tell us and then cutting her off. It was a highly charged case and interesting trial and I believe in this case you cheated the audience by not finishing the story.
163 7
-
B
I love all the Law and Order series, but I thought this ending was a political cop-out. Sadly this is the way of the legal and political world these days.
154 10
-
G
I thought it was a poor decision to air a copy-cat episode like this so soon after a real event with similar facts. In addition, the ending was ridiculous. Based on the evidence, the jury had to come back with a guilty verdict. I also wondered why the prosecutor wasn’t investigating the judge’s personal life to see why he was so biased in favor of the defendant- did he lose someone because of a denied medical claim?
134 18
-
P
I agree.
3
-
C
I had the same thought about the judge. I didn't like leaving viewers hanging like that. No matter what, he should have been found guilty.
58 4
-
C
Law & order always has a copycat version of real life episodes pretty soon after they happen
6
-
G
New Directors have the strong opinion, making 'woke' episodes brings in more viewers, when as we can clearly see through MCU's history, it does the reverse. More and more men are not watching Marvel as non-comic based movies are made
Law & Order is doing the same thing which is why I prefer Chicago PD and FBI now. They still stay up to date but they aren't 'woke'
1 2
-
-
P
The judge was ridiculously biased and his errors made any "not guilty" verdict ripe for an appeal
3 3
-
B
Haven't you heard of double jeopardy?
If he was found not guilty, no matter what the judge did wrong he could not be tried again.
4
-
-
-
C
Hated not getting the verdict. Ruined the show for my husband & I. Upsetting, felt like a waste of time. If they continue with shows like this we will stop watching.
112 14
-
R
I agree. That's why I quit watching after 15 minutes iñto it.
1
-
G
I am close to closing the door on this series.
4
-
-
O
Two Words: Bloody Glove.
2
-
-
G
I thought the ending was a lazy cop-out, which made the whole hour a waste of my time.
99 6
-
O
Poor writing that the defense didn’t call the insurance co employee who the police questioned! He said the algorithm was wrong a lot, killing people, yet the ceo still wanted to use it.
85 5
-
G
Wholly irrelevant.
1 1
-
P
Doesn't mean you get to be murdered in cold blood
1
-
G
Completely irrelevant to the case. That is why it wasn't added.
1
-
-
N
Also, they should not have aired this episode before the trial has occurred.
82 5
-
R
like the depp/heard spin off...way too close to home
-
R
yet i am aware that was SVU
-
-
C
This show might influence the trial. I think it leaned toward a verdict of innocent. The Defense made a very good case.
18 12
-
O
I do too. I think he got off.
1
-
G
No, the jury's questions seemed like they may have wanted to, but knew the couldn't. Also, the defense did not make a factual case, they made an emotional one. I don't know if I would call that a good case, but maybe effective for jury nullification.
1
-
-
-
-
C
Strong episode, but the ending was a cop out.
61
-
B
That was a cop out with no verdict
Bad ending.
57 3
-
C
NBC didn't have the guts to show that The verdict should be, would be guilty, according to the LAW.
45 18
-
B
I thought it was a cliffhanger and part 2 was next week. Sad to see that that’s not the case. I was hopeful for a guilty verdict but you guys copped out!
26 2
-
P
Then they did their job. They got you angry about something that is very important. Because the truth is we have no idea how this trial is going to play out. And when it does half the country are already wanting him free. Because then it justifies murder. But them leaving it open ended makes us worry. Who knows the future???
-
-
O
Very disappointed. I think guilty is the verdict according to the law. It's a shame the writers let politics sway their ending....we don't need more of these in this world. Very pissed off!
38 14
-
M
They let the trial play out in a way that allowed the defense to show the full intent, but the other CEOs were not called to the witness stand by the defense, and yet at the end giving us no verdict fade to black screen was a cop-out.
24 1
-
B
Horrible the only verdict that makes any kind of legal sense is guilty. You can’t kill a man because a company he works for denying claims according to the laws and the guidelines that they follow you want better insurance pay for better insurance if you don’t have collision on your car and your car gets hit you’re not covered guess what experimental drugs are not covered under most insurance plans you don’t get to kill somebody because the company they work for rules didn’t allow you to have what you wanted I think I’m done with this show
43 26
-
J
I feel the writers did a brilliant job !! The outcome of this program will not bias the true trial of Mr Mangione . It's a true piece of art to leave it open ended for thr viewer to cone to their own conclusion at this point.Again ,great job!!
22 8
-
G
If they were (correctly) worried about biasing the case, they should have waited. We all form our own conclusions while viewing the trials on L&O... but the closure of the verdict is, and always has been, integral to the show. Few would watch every week without one. Been a fan since episode 1...this was a cop out ending to an episode that should have waited until after the trial.
3
-
O
Totally agree, they should’ve waited until after the Mangione trial.
1
-
-
-
B
Shameful to do this episode before the trial. The evidence in Luigi’s case has more holes than Swiss cheese if you really look into the case. This could bias a jury.
22 8
-
G
This was awful! Of course sad he lost his mom, however killing someone is a crime and of course he should go to prison. Insurance does have issues, however the prices of medications are insane
No matter what, they should have showed guilty and given a sentence
Poor writing, very disappointing
26 14
-
G
It would have been irresponsible to show the verdict when the real trial is just now getting started.
1
-
-
R
Well I must admit when the verdict wasn't revealed I said "What." But Law and Order is one of my favorite shows and I was enjoying every minute of it and it ended in the most appropriate way given the pending case.
12 1
-
O
Absolutely! I knew 20 minutes in that they were not going to have a verdict because there’s a pending case and if they had ever given a verdict there would’ve been all kinds of legal challenges in the upcoming Mangione case no matter what the verdict for him is! The ending was appropriate, but I think it hit a little too close to home and it’s a little too soon for us to be watching this on TV!
4 1
-
-
R
I hated the ending. When I watch a show I want the whole story and not leave me hanging. I love this law and order series, but this ending was Terrible
11
-
G
There's no way they would have given a verdict before the real trial has even started. It would have been irresponsible if they had shown the verdict.
2
-
-
G
I may never watch this program again. There are too many things wrong with this ending. It was a huge mistake.
13 2
-
O
You’ll watch it again. LOL…
1 1
-
-
G
Can't believe I sat for an hour watching that only to not get the satisfaction of seeing the judicial system work the way it should.
Uhh, this is not a "Viking" society we live in where you can walk around butchering people because you don't like something.
You absolutely unequivocally 100% without a doubt can NOT kill a person in this modern age and expect a free pass.
No, not even if they indirectly aided in the death of another because of their job..
Sorry, It doesn't work like that and for anyone that thinks it does you should be ashamed you're unrealistic and savage thoughts of redemption hamper your ability to understand the law.
Educate yourself morons.
18 7
-
G
Just bullcrap. I hate what they did. We as fans deserved to have a verdict. Plus the whole trial was a joke. The judge was a sham and the entire trial was ridiculous.
14 4
-
C
WHAT verdict? There was NOT one. The show and NBC, chickened out. They did this BEFORE, a long time ago. Was trash then, trash NOW.
12 3
-
B
Rule of Law goes out the window when our government allows corporate corruption on this level. Not guilt. And this story is just beginning.
20 11
-
G
Terrific ending. Well written and well acted.
11 3
-
P
I was very disappointed with the non-conclusive ending. I don’t remember L&O doing that before. I have my own opinion .., of course … but wanted to see the writer’s view.
I hope the show doesn’t repeat this ‘thought provoking trick’ as I am less likely to view future episodes.
8 1
-
O
You’ll continue to watch. LOL…
-
-
B
I thought it was very compelling. Not knowing how the real trial of Luigi will play out. The episode let the viewers decide what the verdict should be.
13 6
-
O
Horrible. The verdict should have been guilty. The judge was biased and despicable.
15 8
-
O
I thought the episode was poisoning the potential jury servers so the ending was perfect for the show.
9 3
-
B
It was the perfect ending. There is no way, at this point in time, that they could have revealed a guilty or non-guilty ending.
5
-
O
It ended exactly the way it should have. It is now a vehicle to discuss the different aspects of the case, while the case is still happening..Fantastic way to start legitimate discussions.
13 8
-
P
Great reply, there will be a real trial coming soon and we should let THAT JURY decide. If they gave a verdict the jury pool will be tainted. GOOD JOB AS ALWAYS LAW AND ORDER
6
-
-
G
Very disappointed that the verdict was not revealed. Poor way to end a show.
8 3
-
G
This is based on a true story and the real trial is just starting so it would have been irresponsible to have shown a verdict.
1
-
-
O
Cop-out
Ridiculous judge but in this day and age not shocking
Clearly this was a slam dunk guilty verdict and even with the poor excuse of a judge and because of it the jury needed to come back with guilty verdict
8 3
-
G
Went to Google to see what the heck happened. I hate it. I rewound three times thinking my recording must have skipped ahead a few seconds. Absolutely ridiculously stupid ending.
8 3
-
N
Totally agree!!!
1 1
-
-
C
I think it gives Mr. Mangione more hope than he might have had before. I suspect the Judge favored the defendant and the Jury will find him innocent. The Defense made a very good case.
5 1
-
R
Really to be honest it is left up to the viewers of the show to make up in your own mind. What could the verdict be because the actual case is not been tried yet so they could not have a made up verdict because it would be a poor decision on Law and order so they left it open for us to decide for ourselves. I’m happy they ended it off like that.
5 1
-
R
It would have been a guaranteed acquittal if the defense had presented the fired COO/early suspect's testimony. The company's new 85% denial algorithm might now be dropped because the murdered CEO was no longer around to push it thru, saving an easily definable number of lives. This fulfills the "defense of others" part of the statue. L & O is a far cry from the original series' well-written scripts. How could they miss this unless the writers wanted to sabotage the public debate?
3
-
O
Not providing the verdict was wonderful. As often happens, L&O distorted the legal process for simplicity. The judge allowing the jury to decide the law - that could have been appealed before trial.
4 1
-
B
Total crap that a guilty verdict was not given!
4 1
-
C
Hate story ended w/o conclusion.
3
-
G
If this guy is not found guilty, each of you had better start looking over your shoulder because if someone 1. decides to try and take you out of this world due to a disagreement and 2. has enough public support behind them and also seemingly justifies their actions against you, they apparently will be found not guilty.
That type of thinking and reasoning is called "the beginning of the end" of humanity as we know it.
2
-
G
Since the real trial has not taken place, I feel like it was the only way to end it. Delivering a verdict could potentially influence the real trial.
3 1
-
R
The foreperson was about to say Guilty (look at her mouth, G in Guilty versus N in Not Guilty). I liked the episode.
2
-
O
Pure genius. The defense made no sense. Killing the CEO was not going to stop any other deaths.
2
-
O
That was absolute garbage. Had you on the edge of your seat. The first half hour chasing him down. Then to not show the verdict. Was extremely disappointing. My wife and I couldn't believe it! They never do that on that show. They need to do better!
2
-
C
Cop out, frustrating,aggravating, I'm taking a break from law and order for a while after this episode.
3 1
-
O
Be waste of My Time! Coward Stance! Won’t watch Law & Order anymore!
2
-
R
Total cop out. Typical corporate pandering, trying to please everyone by not showing the verdict, and instead pissing everyone off. Sounds a lot like the insurance executives--more concerned about profit and image than actually serving their audience.
PS: The big flaw in Law and Order is that the defense always puts the defendant on the stand. That almost never happens in TRW, especially if they're winning the case.
4 2
-
G
That's frustrating. No verdict? Wasted my time watching the show.
4 2
-
O
Do we get to watch episode 17?? if so, when
2
-
B
I'd say a person who murders someone in cold blood is indeed a dangerous man. If Luigi Mangione is not a dangerous man in your eyes, I'd hate to find out what kind of person you DO believe would be dangerous.
1
-
O
Find him guilty (which, according to the law he is) but then let the jury recommend a sentence of only a year, or a month, or even just a week. If the jury doesn’t have that right, then have the judge make that decision on his own about giving the defendant a light sentence. This would send a clear message to other insurance agencies to stop being so damned greedy, and actually have compassion on people.
1
-
P
I think it was perfect honestly. One of the best episodes for a few reasons.
First off L&O has always done ripped from the headlines episodes before the cases ever go to Trial.
Second the opinion isn’t about the fact that the guy murdered a healthcare ceo it’s that he murdered anyone. You can’t say I murdered someone to save lives because you don’t know if it does save lives. If one healthcare CEO Denies someone benefits that doesn’t mean another company couldn’t take them. Thereby negating the fact that you might not be saving future lives. You don’t know.
Third is anybody who puts a non guilty verdict on that guy is automatically saying it’s ok to murder CEOs as long as you think it’s saving other lives. Where does it end? Does that mean any person on a sex registry can be murdered with no repercussions because the person thought it was saving lives of children. Murder is still murder. And until someone physically commits it they haven’t done it.
And lastly fourth the ending was brilliant. Classic L&O. They made everyone think. They made people come to to their conclusions and they left it open ended bc the trial hasn’t happened yet. What if they said he was found not guilty or even guilty on the show and that swayed future Jurors who watched this episode. Leaving it open ended makes us wonder what the real answer is going to be.
And mark my words if Luigi IS found not guilty bad things will happen. This is a very important case.
1
-
G
Law and order owes me an hour of my life back based on that one
1
-
B
The ending was very upsetting. What is the reasoning behind this?
I think they do not want to give a verdict while the Mangioni case is still going on as to not lean a certain way. I would have voted guilty (because he took a life) even though I totally see the shooters point. Insurance companies do not want to pay for very much which is very wrong and frustrating.
1
-
R
I am truly disappointed and it may make a difference whether I ever watch again. I have been a faithful follower from day one. No verdict totally ridiculous!!
1
-
B
The ending was horrible. This guy was guilty of murder. Poor choice on L&O to leave us hanging.
1
-
G
We’re in unprecedented times with Luigi Mangione. He deserves an unbiased trial. He’s not a dangerous man. He may be misguided but he‘s a principled man who you can trust around your children. He’s peaceful and perhaps a little too ideological. Sadly we can’t change the world. He will surely have to pay for his mistakes, as he should.
2 1
-
P
A peaceful, ideological cold -blooded murderer
3 1
-
-
P
Horrible ending. NBC took the cowardly way out and angered its loyal Law & Order viewers in the process. If NBC was too scared to allow a verdict one way or the other then they either needed to either: 1) hold the episode until after the Luigi M. case has been tried or 2) had the matter resolved by something other than a jury verdict. Maybe the ridiculously biased judge could have been forced to step aside like the DA suggested and the parties lived to fight another day in a retrial. Maybe another activist bombs the courthouse and the defendant is killed in the explosion. Anything would have been better than simply cutting out the last words spoken by the jury foreman. Shame on the Peacock!
1
-
P
Not a cop out at all. The ending is brilliant, giving the circumstances. This is what the real jury will have to deal with when this goes to trial, not what was presented in a tv version. Some of you say he was found guilty, some of you say he would have been found innocent. The result is it got America thinking.
1
-
R
I was pissed that they cut the last 10 secs of the screen. We need that ending. To me it makes the episode final and not hanging.
1
-
G
I thought the show was extremely well done and I was at first disappointed with no verdict but I quickly realized this was the best and only option as too many people now days blur real life and television and it may influence a future juror!
1
-
S
When the rule of law is so under attack in this country right now, it is sad that a popular TV series, does not have an ending that follows what is right and true but feeds into the premise that we maybe should not follow the law! It's not good to leave an episode hanging, when people need guidance in this day and age especially with what is going on in our country!
1
-
G
I think this was a terribly irresponsible episode, basically condoning the murder of a man because he was the head of an insurance company. Your liberal political views were front and center. Shame on you.
1
-
P
I think it was a totally gutless cop out! I was very disappointed and very frustrated.
1
-
O
If he is found innocent what kind of a precedent would that set. Kill the next CEO and get away with it?
1
-
C
I thought it was a great ending. I was actually nervous that they would find him not guilty since there should be no excuse for what he did. I think the defense attorney did a great job. So in my mind, he was guilty.
2 1
-
F
Agree with all of the comments that called ending the show without a verdict a huge cop out — incredibly unsatisfying. What was even more ridiculous to me was the prosecution (really just Hugh Dancy’s character) putting blinders on about how the jury might feel about the case. It made him look incredibly dumb, like someone who has no fundamental understanding of human nature. His arguments that the victim never met any of the people he was accused of killing or that the estimated number of people the victim was accused of killing was “made up” was not persuasive at all. If anything, he should have argued killing the victim would not prevent future deaths because someone who thinks the same way would just take his place. Where’s Jack McCoy when you need him?
1
-
C
I thought it was brilliant! Frustrating, yes, but realistic in that we don't know where this is going. I also liked the twist of a bunch of young men dressing up like him to throw the police off his trail. The reboot has taken a while to find its footing and I feel like this episode finally got there. Also liked the bit of comedic banter in the very beginning, which I've been missing from the show.
1
-
P
Perfect ending! This cliffhanger ending is not a new thing for Dick Wolf shows! It's been used many, many times in the past! The "real trial" hasn't happened yet, so we don't know what the verdict will be. Of course, we want the folk hero to be found not guilty, but he did shoot the asshole. The defense should have called the fired employee to the stand to talk about the faulty algorithm responsible for denying claims. The writers dropped the ball here, in my opinion.
1
-
G
The ending was a copout plain and simple. When the witness for the defense stated how many people were denied claims Price should've countered with how many people received their claims from the insurance company! And what was Maroun's purpose in this episode, window dressing?
1
-
P
Perfect way to end.....responsible....no other way to end it
1
-
O
You WILL get to see the ending. Please understand that a very large number of those who support Luigi are Conservatives who attended private schools. We seldom get a fair shake in public systems and we resent the trumped-up charges. We, too, have been discrimintated against in DEI programs, public venues, by rednecks, etc, etc. This evil perpetrated by Unitied Helathcare is a very serious ordeal. The situation here is just scratching the surface. Most Conservatives understand this.
1
-
G
I understand why you let the show end that way, because I believe that the real case is still on going. Also, in my perspective killing someone because you decide that an establishment wronged your family does not justify you taking someone else's life.
1
-
P
The judge made horrible rulings to the objections, letting the witness drone on and on. I feel this would be ripe for being overturned in a higher court.
1
-
P
He committed murder, bottom line.
1
-
C
Never watching again. Clearly an attempt to influence a potential jury. No Judge would ever allow that to happen. Liberal pulp!
1
-
O
this was plain and simple murder.
what needs to happen is all insurance companies must be held accountable.
why do car, home and health insuramce get to raise premiums but then refuse or simply cancel insurance altogether.
insurance here in california is bullshit.
the companies have to be less greedy and be satisfied with moderate profits while fulfilling legitimate needs.
especially in healthcare. life is greater than any amount monetary amounr.
2 1
-
P
We had a right to know the jury verdict.
2 1
-
O
I was mad I hate when they don't tell if he was guilty I don't think I am going to watch the tv show anymore
2 1
-
G
I was very taken back at the fact that you left the viewers hanging like that.
2 1
-
P
They borrowed the ending from the sopranos couldn’t believe it
1
-
R
I will not watch it again any episode from now what you did is wrong
3 2
-
B
But that's what has made Law & Order an excellent series over the years. The very fact we're talking about an episode like this says a number of good things about the show.
-
B
Or, based on the biased judge in this case, quite possibly a verdict of guilty by the jury, but then the judge issues a directed verdict of not guilty notwithstanding the jury's finding of guilty. I was thinking the producers might have gone that route.
-
R
I liked the ending ..and personally I support Ethan, because we are all victims of big corporations and people with money and power, either in public or private sector.
-
B
I'd say it was totally relevant, for the defense. The guy had info pertaining to something which helped the victim in his reasons not to pay out claims. He didn't like being told the numbers resulted in unfair decisions so he fired the guy, & now no one would have to know that a change could have occurred that would benefit the people more than his own pocket. In other words, it would have been more proof the victim was only in it for the money, not to help people.
-
G
It would have been cool if they threw a surprise twist to the ending unlike the real life scenario- a corrupt judge, maybe another murder happening while the suspect is on trial, or just have the jury say they can’t come to a verdict- leaving it open kind of just made it seem like they should have waited to air this episode until way later, after the real trial happens. Make it a two parter and come back to it later!
-
G
While I understand leaving the episode open ended and not providing of verdict is frustrating, I can appreciate why they did it. I was actually more frustrated by the fact that the prosecutor never presented the idea that if the law allows for the CEO of the insurance company to be killed in the name of saving more lives, what is to stop anyone from going out and murdering anybody who works for any insurance company. Quite a slippery slope to allow the public to take matters into their own hands.
-
G
Cowardly writing to not have some sort of resolution. This runs contrary to the history and spirit of the show, and feels like a betrayal for us longtime viewers.
-
G
I didn’t like the ending. I wanted a verdict
-
O
Cop-out. Should have told us the verdict. Vigilantism on behalf of a number of unnamed and unknowable "victims" is ridiculous. As usual, evidence that would never be raised in a real trial is allowed in and misinforms the viewing public.
-
G
No matter what it should have ended with GUILTY. It's ok to feel frustrated with an insurance company, its even ok to be hating on a crooked insurance company but there is always another way to deal with it. There are regulators, at no point should your resolve result in violence. If it does, your life as you know it will be over and your family won't know who you are anymore
Also another thing bothered me about this episode, the judge did not allow Price to argue but allowed the defence to argue, its like he was biased. In Australia that judge would have been thrown off the case.
For the defendants part, he is not a medical expert, he couldn't have known that an unapproved drug would work. We still don't have 100% confidence in Chemo (IRL) so this kid was in the wrong all the way through his thought process
-
O
Price didn’t ask any of the right questions. He should have said, “exactly who did you save with Logan Andrews’s death? And now that Logan Andrews is dead, are all those people suddenly, instantly going to live? Is optishield instantly going to cover all necessary meds and procedures now that the ceo is dead? Are Optishield’s practices going to instantly change with the CEO’s death? Are all it’s patients instantly going to get all necessary treatment in time to save their lives? Can you probe it with names and addresses of all individuals who are now going to instantly live because Logan Andrew is dead? Boom! I just won the people’s case!
-
C
I want closure when I watch a television program or movie. Writers and producers need to grow a pair by writing and performing a screenplay that concludes a story. Knowing that either of the two or more possible endings will not sit well portions of the viewing public a show nevertheless has a duty, in my mind, to provide a definitive ending. There is much emotion in all of these episodes and theoretically you could end each one of them this way without returning a verdict. That’s a cop out and not very satisfying to the viewer. Please, no more of this nonsense.
-
G
He could have easily sued the insurance company and who or what give him the right to determine who lives and who dies?
-
J
Until I read this blog, I thought maybe the episode was a 2-parter. That it was like a cliffhanger, until the next episode, when they would give the verdict and continue the story. But after reading this, and seeing that they are ending the story this way, I think that was a mistake. Obviously, the jury came up with a verdict, so why not let the audience see it? I don't really like open-ended stories. Why not use the same ending as the real case? (which, btw, I didn't know about until reading this blog)
-
G
They should have shown a verdict.
-
B
Even if the verdict had been not guilty, the prosecution would have successfully appealed because of the blatant bias of the judge.
-
P
I'm upset because I really wanted to see how the jury felt after his testimony. To leave us hanging is bs and will not help the people to want to watch future shows.
-
C
The. Drug companies should make the drugs more affordable! You can’t lay all the blame on the insurance companies
-
B
I thought it was horrible
-
O
Knew they would end like that. They’ve done it before on a current headline story. Hated ending.
-
O
I wanted a verdict and felt cheated we didn't get one. I would have hoped for a guilty verdict. You can't go around killing people !
-
P
Very disappointing. If a TV show is taking on a controversial story, they need to show the verdict. Otherwise, it's a copout.
-
G
Idiotic! The whole idea of a judge being so obviously biased is also ridiculous!
-
G
Did not like the judge behavior and ALSO not showing the GUILTY verdict.......very upsetting
-
P
I think this episode was BS. I am not going to watch this show again.
-
B
Never should have aired.
Never should have happened in real life.
All the hero stuff directed at any killer is disgusting.
People are sick and yes alot of the sickness and hatred has been festering since 2015, you can feel it.
A criminal is a criminal and should be treated as a criminal.
Not a family member, not a love interest , not someone who kills someone you think deserves it and not even a President.
-
O
I didn't like the ending at all!!! Did not like not getting a verdict!! Very frustrating!! 😞
-
B
They were afraid that any verdict the episode ended with would draw ire from the viewers, so they took the easy way out.
-
G
Leaving it open ended like that for people to take however they'd like it crazy to me!
He should have been found guilty no matter what! Otherwise, it leaves people to believe that it is okay to murder someone because they don't like their actions.. It leaves it open for interpretation and allows people to believe they're allowed to murder whomever whenever without consequence! What's to stop them or someone else doing the same thing to other people?!?
Murder is murder and that was planned out to a T cold blood murder!
-
O
I think it was pretty cool to see Katarina from Blacklist again as the defense attorney!!! Don't like cliffhanger endings tho!
-
O
What is there to discuss? He stood in wait & deliberately shot a man. His notebooks show premeditation.
A not guilty verdict would give everyone in the world a legal defense to murder anybody in any business that creates a situation or contributes to any deaths...all gun owners and manufacturers, cigarette smokers (counting second hand smoke) and manufacturers.... I could keep going.
His actions were unequivocally impermissible!!!!!
-
G
It sucks, allows for chaos to reign and just kill anyone who may represent the possibility that people could be injured or die. That is what we have civil courts for and possibly send company leaders to jail plus hurt them financially.
-
G
Hated it! I wanted to know the verdict!!
-
G
I feel for the guy… health insurance is such a scam. But that doesn’t give anyone the right to murder. I hated the ending. It’s almost as though they were condoning being a vigilante. And the only message he sent was that it’s ok to seek justice by breaking the law.
-
O
Guilty as charged, the judge was horrible.
-
O
OMG - so frustrating not to have a verdict. This is not the pay the original L&O should play out. Very disappointing. I, of course, would have voted GUILTY, but I am sometimes wrong about how the jury votes on other cases. Very poor episode and definitely NOT "satisfying."
-
G
Dick Wolf shameful ending leaving us hanging. There should have been a verdict for your audience.
-
G
Completely disappointed and leaving it without a verdict is ridiculous and the judge was clearly biased with no consequences to him either. If this is left for people to think he’s not guilty then you have people thinking it’s ok to murder someone in cold blood because they blame someone or more importantly blame a system and single out only one person or small part of that office or organization for the death of their loved one.
This was not ok and this young man decided that the victim deserved the death sentence and followed through and the fact that the law even entertained that as being justified is appalling.
Yes the healthcare system as well as most systems in this country are a mess but not an excuse for cold blooded murder.
-
P
The No- Verdict black out ending was Infuriating! I have no knowledge of a current case being tried in NY but why should that matter?! It made me wish that J.J.McCoy was still working, he'd have nailed a guilty verdict for sure!
-
G
I feel that NBC being a liberal outlet rushed this episode out before the actual real life trial with cliffhanger intentionally to influence real trial
-
G
Lousy ending. The writers are not the jury. Right,wrong or indifferent,please "wrap it up". I think everyone's tired of "Who shot JR endings."
-
P
Since this is a "ripped from the headlines" story, I believe the verdict was not guilty, especially since the judge practically demanded that verdict. I think they couldn't show a not guilty verdict because it would cause copycat murders by people against more company CEOs in real life. The lawyers would then claim their clients were not guilty based on what everyone saw on the TV show. It looked like the jury foreman was about to say "not" when the show abruptly ended. Since a real culprit killed a real medical insurance company CEO a short time ago, the tv show episode was a very delicate one that required restraints to prevent more real murders of company CEOs and higher ups.
-
G
The judge irritated me. He definitely wanted a certain outcome. I'm hoping the real trial has a fair judge
-
C
The law and order shows have become pretty liberal. But in this episode, the judge was pretty biased toward the defendant. Twisting the law and logic and with the jury packed with women. Then it's very likely that the idea of self-defense is ludicrous but with the liberal mind of New York City, it probably could have been a not guilty Verdict. And terrible Miscarriage of justice for the people and victim.
-
B
Not satisfied with the way it ended, a verdict should’ve been read. Murder is murder regardless of the circumstances.
-
G
The withholding of the verdict was cowardly. I could have understood if it had been a hung jury, but not to tell us the outcome reflected "Law And Order" not wanting to offend anyone.
-
R
I loved it leaving to your own self to what you think. They did that before quite a few years ago but an army man came busting through the court room door and put a halt to the verdict Just can’t remember all of it
-
P
How else is the man in the street going to get justice in a world rigged in favour of capitalist fat cats. Not guilty!
-
V
It sucks that they never brought this episode to a conclusion.
Thin the Dick Wolf gang is trying to being invotating however, just the opposite was achieved.
Last time I watch any Law and Order show and have been with it from the beginning.
Netflix from now when they are on.
-
P
The writers should have come up with a verdict. I think this story was too recently in the news to do it well. Also the judge's bias went undressed. Not good writing for this episode.
-
G
I’m furious. I wasted an hour. If they were worried about influencing an ongo8ng trial they should have waited to broadcast it. Plus they stated he would be next tried for the attempted murder of the other CEO. Why didn’t they use that, he is a danger to society and if freed would continue his murderous Campaign. I’ve watched L&o since the beginning. I didn’t like all endings but at least they ended.
-
O
Munchkin in Mesa,AZ
I didn't like that they didn't give the verdict. Especially with this being a very true topic with people around me and the price of medications in the world today.
-
P
I felt they should have given closure. Of course, either way their would be upset people, but they needed to take a stance..
-
A
I am getting sick and tired of these endings. Law and Order has done this a few times this season and it is beyond frustrating. A great episode, literally perfect—until the last ten seconds. The acting was great, the lines were great, and then this disappointing ending.
-
R
I think it opens the door to say it’s OK to murder if you feel strongly enough about something.
-
R
Very disappointed!!!! Being a viewer from the start of the show you let the audience down. 😡😡
-
B
It made me think if he was right. I.may have done the same
-
P
Law and Order needs to end with a verdict. Whether we agree with it or not, there's the closure of having one. If the show starts leaving me hanging, I'll stop watching.
-
G
It’s very disappointing that they left the episode unfinished!! They would’ve had to find him guilty. If they didn’t want to show the verdict why even air the episode? Makes no sense.
-
O
I did not like that ending. After watching it I have a right to the verdict. It wasn't fair
-
G
I think NBC did the right thing being Luigi's trial hasn't happened yet. They don't want to be seen ad tainting the outcome. I would like to see them air this episode again with the verdict after the actual trial.
-
C
As soon as the show was over, my first reaction was “perfect”!
-
C
The episode was quite thought-provoking. As such, I can see the verdict going either way.
-
B
Disappointed with the show didn't get the results of the court i hate it when they leave us wondering that show needs to get axe they don't have any more new stories it's always the same pattern
-
C
I’m disappointed I wanted to here what the jury said. They left the show unfinished.
-
G
Hate there was no verdict
-
P
I liked the ending left hanging. What do you think should happen? Definitely makes us think how broken our health system is in the country. Legally speaking he is guilty. Morally
-
C
not right bullish. t
-
P
It was not good, so disappointed
-
G
TOTAL COP OUT...😡
GUILTY AS HELL....
-
R
It was crap, give the verdict good or bad. Don't pull that crap again.
-
K
I loved it. A Soprano ending!
-
G
A gimmick!!!. Not appreciated.May encourage more if same...similar to execution of real life insurance ceo.
-
R
First time ever not liking an episode of Law and Order
-
B
This episode is so typical of what Law and Order has become. I’m a big fan of the show over the last 20+ years but it’s not what it used to be. It has become just another politically correct show. They’ve ruined a great show!
-
C
I was not happy with ending!! I hate it when shows leave us hanging!!!
-
G
Smart decision, it's neutral, so caters to everyone that's watching.
-
O
I was like "Are you kidding me?" I was hoping to see the verdict. I was also hoping to see them looking into the judge to see if there is bias and to possibly have him removed (I thought Maroun was going to do that). I also didn't like the Defense Attorney.
-
B
The ending was AWFUL!!!! Every show should have an ending!! I have watched Law & Order shows for a long time. After watching last night’s show, I learned courts can allow anything to be said, judges can allow anything to happen, and attorneys can present their case anyway they want to. A good show has a verdict. Some will agree and some will not. They can discuss why the verdict went each way. It led many people to feel they can perform any crime they want as long as they feel strongly about it!!! ABSURD!!
-
G
It was annoying and cowardice to not give a verdict.
Left up for "WE" the jury to decide.
And while I have you here, the reboot of L&W is a disgrace.
It's so awful, the acting, the directing, the writing, the music, the whole enchilada.
I could fix it all in no time flat.
The only reason I watch it is because everything else is worse.
I proudly have rabbit earsTV.
T.V. has been ruined.
And does Dick Wolf own Network T.V.?
Cripes.
-
O
While ridiculous on its face, the latitude the judge showed to the defense is exactly what I expect from NYC "justice" system.
-
G
Well done by Law and Order. Ending without verdict was right but jury nullification would have been better.
-
C
I thought the ending was perfect since we have not yet had a trial for Mangiione. Personally, I would find him guilty but so many people think of him as a hero, not sure what a jury will do
-
R
I didn’t like it. No matter what “Thou shall not Kill.”
-
C
Super Pissed! I hate Cliffhangers. I hate not knowing if something is a two-parter. No ending? That's F'd Up.
-
O
Guilty ss charged!!
-
R
I think the verdict should have been guilty and have been read. He knew what he was doing and what the consequences would be.
-
O
Yes, but not necessarily in NYC. You are overestimating the jury pool and their ability to apply common sense.
-
-
G
I think Metcalf's comment above is a cop-out. Your just a damn tv show. Your screwing with my relax don't think time. This ending really pist me off!!!
-
G
I think it sucks big time!!! I hate when tv shows do this! I watch Law & order organized crime and SVU which are my favorites. I have never really liked this one only watch when nothing else to watch. If they keep pulling stupid shit like this it's going to turn me off from watching it at all. I watch TV for entertainment to relax my brain. If I want to sit and think and ponder over something I will watch something that is real happening in real time. Who ever decided to keep this ending should just stick to entertaining us. your just a tv show. If you want to provoke thought go do something real that can make a difference. Don't do it on my relax time.
-
G
Prrfect ending!
-
O
If you break the law, you should be found guilty, even if you are Donald Trump.
-
O
The verdict is not Guilty
-
C
NBC chickened out. They did this BEFORE, way back in another season. Didn't work then, doesn't work now. They coped out.
-
O
I’d have voted for acquittal
Based on my personal history of cancer In my 20’s .
& all the denials I got from my insurance co
I was refused cancer insurance for 20 years when I married someone who had a policy covering me with no pre existing conditions . Prior to that I spent over 34000 dollars on European insurers as well as small policies here that covered one or 2 things .
So —- by all means ask me how ad a juror in that case would vote !
-
P
I think not finding him guilty and cutting off the verdict was a cop out. I think the show didn't want to get hate mail from either side and chose an easy way out. In the show, the evidence is overwhelming, and to follow the law would require a guilty verdict.
This is what's wrong with society today, there is no public outcry for wrong doing. Legacy media chooses to downplay crime, and the younger generation sees no repercussions for doing wrong. It's not teaching correct morals and setting examples. Killing CO'S is not going to change company policies. It's kinda like robin hood stealing from the rich and give to the poor, it's nice and sounds good but it's still against the law and wrong. The old saying two wrongs don't make a right. Stand up media and teach people correct morals.
1 1
-
O
With the real trial not happened yet it was the only ending they could have. Loved it!!!
-
G
I thought all along that they would not have verdict because it would influence the real trial. Thought it might end in a mistral, but never thought they'd show an actual verdict.
-
O
I was disappointed we didn’t get to hear the verdict, but after I thought about it, the viewer got to decide on their own. I thought it was brilliant.
-
P
Couldn’t end any other way; perfect!
-
O
I didn’t like it. I thought my TV cut out and I missed it
-
O
I hated it! It feels tacky and unfinished.
-
G
More realistic would've been a split jury. There's no excuse for not showing the verdict
-
G
I felt he was guilty. He shot the man in cold blood
-
C
Bogus! That’s what I think. What a cop-out. So disappointing. Dick Wolfe this isn’t like you.
-
C
Bogus! That’s what I think. A cop-out. Wrong call. Very disappointed in Dick Wolfe. And I’m someone who loves all the Law and Orders.
-
O
Reficulous
You kill someone on a premeditated sane manner
Guilty
No not a great ending
Poorly done
L&O wimped out
Enough of caving in to the law for “social justice “
It begets a form of vigilante
-
O
I guess you are waiting for the real Mangioni trial to take place. So you just jumped the gun for ratings sake, and left us hanging. SADLY YOU, SCREWED UP!
-
B
I think they should have given us the veridick and it should have been guilty, no one gets a pass to kill anyone
-
C
Disappointed, but that is nothing new these days……
-
R
Extremely bad ending!!!! Why would the writers not say if the jury found him guilty or not!! Watching the entire episode, then not to know, very disappointed! Toying with the idea of not watching anymore if this is how we we the viewers are left! Please don't do this EVER again!!!
-
G
Hated it! It was a cop out for sure!
-
O
Guilty!
-
O
We deserved a better ending….. guilty, not guilty, or even a hung jury.
-
O
I feel they did not give the verdict because the trial is currently active and they didn’t want to influence the jury on this case. He killed someone and it seemed to planned so I feel he is guilty on all counts!
-
O
I was sure that they would end it just the way they did..."we find the defendant..."CUT. Given that the real case is ongoing, that was the best way to end it. Certainly has gotten us all talking and pitching, hasn't it?? lol
-
G
Guilty
-
G
L&O ending really upset us. He should of been found guilty
-
B
Since it was so blatantly based on a true event, a case that has not gone to trial, I can see why they didn't reveal a verdict. No use contaminating the jury pool for the actual trial. I thought the defense stratagy was an interesting take how things might go...
-
P
I was pissed. I expected closure from the court perspective and I was left to decide for myself.
-
P
It got what it wanted people talking... Some will love but most will think it was stupid.
-
O
What is the real name of the Judge
-
O
You don’t have a “right” to kill someone even you hate their guys. Otherwise you would have everyone that offended you and you have the right to go and kill them
-
O
Totally disappointed. I can have my own opinion…. But I wanted to see the verdict from the writers. Total bummer.
The writers verdict would not have affected my decision. Hope this doesn’t become a regular thing.
-
R
I think it sucks! You watch the entire show and at the end the judge asks if the jury has reached a verdict and the spokesperson says we have your honor and then says we find the defendant……………??????? Wasted an hour watching the show and no real ending! I’m gonna go back to watching the earlier good ones with Jerry Orbach!!!
-
G
I want to know what they voted on.
-
R
It seems like no one wants to think any more. Why do we need a show to tell us a verdict? Why can't we be satisfied with the verdict that we believe is the right one?
This case is similar to the justification of murdering workers at a birth-control clinic to save the lives of the unborn. Murder is murder, and we never have the justification to commit murder for the "greater good."
He is guilty and that is the way I am ending this episode for myself.
1 1
-
P
stupid way to end it. The whole purpose people watch the show is to hear the verdict at the end . very disappointing.
-
R
Sucks
-
B
Poor ending should have made decision very disappointed
-
R
I absolutely love this show, however, lately is turning into a bias political points of view.
There's no reason to kill in cold blood a man shooting him in the back and became a hero. What kind of sociaty support such actions?
-
O
Terrible I may quit watching.
-
O
Predictable
-
B
Would rather they had a verdict but hopefully it will make the ins companies think about the lives of the people who buy their ins.
-
C
Is it going to be continued on the next episode?
-
R
It was a surprise and frustrating. However, I believe the verdict should have been guilty in spite of the circumstances. Murder is illegal.
-
C
Now let’s focus on the judge, the judge was bias. I guess his premium is up.
1 1
-
C
He was guilty of murder. It’s about evidence not emotions. The ending was not appropriate.
-
G
Shouldn't have gone there in the first place. Too new and I felt offended. Price is always made out to look ridiculous!
-
G
What Verdict?
-
R
honestly not surprised by the "no verdict" ending... Such strong opinions/reasons (good or not) in the episode...sometimes people take tv WAY TOO seriously if there was a verdict i feel like the show would have received a good amount of backlash
-
P
In the 2002 episode that foreshadowed the real event, the jury was deadlocked and the prosecution decided not to refile the case.
-
B
Gotta have a verdict
Would have been better with a hung jury
-
G
I too have watched Law and Order over the last 20 years. Not allowing a verdict to be heard, leaving us to come with our own conclusion, was politically disappointing.
-
M
I thought my DVR stopped recording prematurely! I was expecting a guilty verdict even though I sympathised and understood the shooter’s motive.
-
O
It's easy to understand why the folks in charge decided to abruptly end without a verdict announced -- it's because Luigi Mangione's case is ongoing. But to say it was open-ended because there's two sides to the fictional (or the real) story is rubbish. A better decision might have been to go rip another headline from the news and leave this one alone.
-
R
I loved the ending of the
show when verdict got cut off!!! 10 seconds before that I’d said to myself outloud “cut it!!!!”
I thought it was brilliant and so clever- thank you L&O!!!
-
B
I would never not have watched the show if I had known that there was no verdict broadcasted! Horrible ending!! I may never watch this show again!
-
G
NBC shows what they think ,a total progressive network and this is why the criminal system is working for criminals.
-
B
Waste of time made me very angry.
-
R
I agree the verdict should have been guilty but it seems most of you missed the point. The writers weren't wanting to take a side; they wanted to start a conversation about reform. L&O has always leaned liberal... You have to remember that when you watch each episode.
-
G
I thought my TV recorder had malfunctioned. So I woke up this morning and watched it at the end and it ended the same. Yikes how disappointing! Definitely guilty killing the CEO will not change things for the actual members in any way!
-
G
I thought my TV recorder malfunctioned so I got up this morning and fast forward to the end and the same thing!! Yikes! That was so disappointing!! Definitely guilty. His killing the CEO will not change a thing for the actual members.
-
B
I wish the prosecutor would have presented a better case. Just because the CEO was gone didn’t mean the insurance company would change their policies. The case was no different than someone murdering a criminal or rapist for revenge. Wish they would have shown the verdict.
-
G
Poor ending. Writers should have taken a stand. No matter want you cannot kill this CEO. . There would be thousands of other killings if prople didn't agree with policies We need to follow laws otherwise we become savages!
-
B
Hated the ending……my husband said it was an hour of his life wasted and couldn’t get back
-
O
I think played well he is going to be acquitted and we know by jurors questions it would have been same
-
B
Show was great ending below not good
-
G
I wish they gave the verdict in this one. One may argue he did this to Emphasize that they company was killing many not just his mom and sympathize and find him not guilty. However, the fact that he paid multiple people to dress like him to avoid capture like a game in this he should be found guilty. He made it more like a game so I think he went beyond making it go beyond that he killed for his mom.
-
G
I was pissed. They wasted an hour of my time by not showing a verdict. And regardless of how you feel about the health care system, the thought of just being able to go around shooting people is ludicrous. He was caught while trying to gun down somebody else, for God's sake. I get while he was upset with his mom's health care provider, but was his plan to shoot every CEO of every health care plan? L &O is quickly becoming the show i don't even like anymore.
-
P
Hated the ending. He was definitely guilty of murder. It should have ended that way! You cannot shoot and kill someone for revenge and get away with it. That sends out a terrible message.
-
F
I think it was cowardly for Law and Order not to take a stand one way or another on how they felt this case would resolve. Do I understand it...yes but it doesn't make it any less cowardly.
-
G
Leaving us hanging was wrong. I believe it should have given the verdict.
-
G
NBC, by leaving the verdict open, has helped to unleash into the culture more lawlessness and gutless compromise. At least the foolishness of the judge was exposed along with the insurance company’s heartless behavior. Our cultural decline continues…
-
B
This episode was nothing more than NBC trying to influence or sway a verdict in the actual Mangione case. They mentioned the 3 D's of insurance but clearly spread the Misinformation, Disinformation, Fake News agenda that NBC has held for years.
-
G
Not a very good ending— somewhat of a cop out
-
R
I think exploiting a real situation where someone is facing death for a crime they most likely didn't commit is vile. I shouldnt be surprised though.Just like health insurance companies, hollywood is lead by greed.
-
R
I am disappointed they left the show unfinished. Whatever the story would have been, guilty or not, we'd have closure to the story and how the characters reacted to it. Not showing it was a cop out by NBC to not 'offend' somebody. Well, they offended our time by wasting it on an unfinished show.
-
O
Given that the actual trial hasn't started and a large portion of the country can't tell fact from fiction, I think NBC made the right decision.
40 9
-
G
Then they should have waited
10
-
R
Good point.
-
-
-
O
I liked there was no verdict. Sparks conversation. I doubt health insurance companies have changed anything since the murder. Luigi deserves life.
8 8
-
B
What was the actor's name who played the judge in tonight's episode of Law & Order, titled Folk Hero?
-
O
I was very frustrated at the end of the show. I wanted this "folk hero" to pay for the crime of murder. Even though this man will no longer walk the earth, this insurance company will continue to deny benefits to many people. Unfortunately, it is the way of the world.
-
O
Weirdo
2 2
-
O
it's not a crime if you're going after a criminal
10 12
-
G
Says who?
-
P
That is absolutely false and I hope someone like you gets arrested for thinking these stupid things.
-
-
B
Murdering the CEO in cold blood will not give the sick benefits they need! Clearly guilty.
12 5
-
C
Cmon!! So the other attempted murder on a CEO from a different company that wasn’t his mother‘s insurance. What about that and the excuse for everybody else to go after all the insurance companies top guns? What about that? GUILTY OF MURDER .
43 1
-
G
Thou shat not kill!
-
-
O
It is the way of your world.
1
-
-
T
I love this show and watch this every week. I watched the whole episode and always watch it to the end and I HATE when they don't give the verdict. Is this the easy way out for the network due to negative comments. As for the judge I was really glad to see that he stuck up for him in court and letting this kid tell the whole story and not get cut off. He was a fair judge and not biased.
1
-
G
Very disappointing. I thought something was wrong with the TV when it cut off. The Judge was really annoying. He gave the defense too much leeway. I think he should have been found guilty but I really thought the jury wS coming with a not guilty the way it was going.
1
-
P
The evidence clearly showed that he was guilty. There is no justification for murder except an immediate threat to your life or life-threatening injury of an innocent person. The verdict should have been revealed. I am disappointed.
1
-
B
GUILTY! This show like many others has become increasingly liberal. Time to cut out all major channels!
1
-
R
I completely understand why they didn't offer up a verdict. The verdict should be guilty based on law but the episode was focusing on the need for insurance reform... So a verdict would have taken away from the real "issue" and goal of the writers.
1
-
G
I find NBC guilty of being morons.
-
-
R
I personally liked that the ending didn’t give us a verdict. BTW, My vote was guilty as charged.
1 2
-
O
rather scary that nearly all comments side with the "law" whatever that is. apparent that we are in much deeper trouble than previously thought if everyone is rooting for the poor grieving widow inheriting nine figure estate of a guy who kills 45, 456 poor sick people.
1 2
-
O
The non verdict was not a surprise. L and O obviously wants to maintain a neutral position to avoid offending half of the audience.
1
-
O
I think that this episode poisoned the jury for the real Luigi trial
1 2
-
O
I think it should have been a guilty verdict. Doesn’t matter that the health ins in this country treat many unfairly, he still committed cold blooded murder. Very disappointed that the show didn’t have the nerve to do what is right!!
2
-
P
It certainly was annoying but I completely understand why.
1 5
Watchlist Easy access to only the shows you care about — all in one simple place
Alerts Only important notifications — when a show is returning, when it becomes available to stream, and more.
Special Offers Exclusive products we release related to your favorite shows and streaming services