Usually in this type of shows there is presented just one side of the legal coin: prosecution or defense. And the star character is so brilliant that he/she wins the cases in spite of the evidence (or lack of- depending on the side). In this show we have both sides presented and both are very good at what they do. Therefor the amount of evidence should be balanced. In the first episode unfortunately there was very little evidence against the defendant: a witness who may or may not have seen the defendant, phone calls which may or may not have been a build up to the crime and Chinese symbols on the victims body for which the prosecution provided no evidence that the defendant had done them. That was it! And he was found guilty. How come?! The answer is because he was guilty, as it is shown at the end. That's not good enough for me. The first episode contains the underlining message that the justice system will work even though the police does a lousy job of searching for evidence or potential suspects. And that is a LIE! I like the format of the show and I will watch the second episode to see if there is an improvement on how justice is served but if it will be with the same idea that justice will work in spite of the evidence I will not watch it again.
Review of The Whole Truth
