Pilot: One sister accuses the other of destroying "Nana's" cell phone. (I don't know how I would accurately write that well-known set of tones loyal viewers hear when an episode of 'L & O' starts.)
Final Scene: Summations
D.A.: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'll be brief. The defendant confessed to the crime so therefore, you must come back with a "Guilty" verdict. Thank you."
Defense: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this case isn't the 'crime, confession, guilty' one the D.A. would have you believe it is. This goes deeper. This case is one that is as old as Cain and Able. Jealousy, manipulation and destruction.
The facts are these. Nana's phone was connected to the charger and was lying on the floor. About an hour later, Nana went to pick up the phone and found it disconnected from the charger and wet, as the prosecution's star witness, Miss Julie Reins said. But what Miss Reins didn't say was that the phone was lying right next to the charger and not reconnected. What does this mean? First, it means that someone had disconnected the phone, gotten it wet and placed it on the floor beside the charger without reconnecting because they knew what might happen if they plugged in a wet phone. The defendant isn't capable of knowing such consequences.
For my client to have committed this crime, she would've had to disconnect the phone, throw it into the toilet--as her accuser claims--retrieve it and carefully lay it next to the still plugged in charger's prong from which she had supposedly taken it. Impossible. Why? Because my client was in fact. in the laundry room with Nana while this crime was being committed. Oh, but my client confessed. Yes, she did. Let's go over her confession.
"Julie: Did you throw Nana's phone in the toilet?"
"The defendant, Zaya Reins: Yeah."
"Julie: Did you mean to throw Nana's phone in the toilet?"
"Zaya: Yeah." But ladies and gentlemen, you didn't hear the rest of my client's so-called confession.
After this exchange, Nana herself asks, "Zaya, did you throw my phone in the toilet?"
"Nana: Did you drive my car to work today?"
"Nana: Okay. Zaya, did you kill Kennedy?"
"Not much of a slam dunk confession the prosecution thought it was, wouldn't you say? One thing was never discussed. How is it that the defendant's sister knew where the phone had been thrown? How did she know it had been 'thrown' into anything at all? But most importantly, how is it that my client could be in the laundry room with the victim of this crime AND destroy her phone at the exact same time? No one, not even Zaya can do that. The defense concludes that it was not Zaya but her very own sister Julie, who cooked this whole scheme up with the intention of replacing her younger sister as 'the highly favored sister' thus moving herself into that position. As with Cain, Julie was not her SISTER'S keeper but her accuser. Therefore, you must return with a verdict of 'not guilty.' Thank you. Defense rests, Your Honor."
The jury returns. "Madame foreman, have you reached a verdict?"
Foreman: "Yes we have, Your Honor. In the case of 2 year old, Zaya Reins, we the jury find the defendant, 'not guilty'."
Roll credits. Coming to NBC this fall.......LOL