If not for the even-worse-than-usual procedural inaccuracies in the courtroom scenes, and other legal inaccuracies, I would give Newton's Law 9 stars. The casting is excellent, and the acting top-noch :-)
In Newton's Law, barristers (aka lawyers who go to court ;-) ) ask leading questions (e.g. "Isn't it true that..."), and they testify instead of asking questions (even introducing evidence and testifying about it!!!). Also, witnesses are asked for their opinions about other persons' states of mind; regular, everyday witnesses, not experts.
Since almost every other English-language tv show and movie with courtroom scenes is inaccurate, I've not taken off a bunch of stars. However, I've take off 2 stars, because the courtroom scenes are SOOOO inaccurate, that they are worse than ones in Matlock! (In Matlock, at least the judge orders Matlock to behave in his witness examination/cross, although, then, the judge usually allows the abnormalities ONLY after assurances from Matlock that he has a good reason for his behaviour. Yup, that's b.s., too, but, at least the behaviour's pointed out!)
In Newton's Law, barristers (aka lawyers who go to court ;-) ) ask leading questions (e.g. "Isn't it true that..."), and they testify instead of asking questions (even introducing evidence and testifying about it!!!). Also, witnesses are asked for their opinions about other persons' states of mind; regular, everyday witnesses, not experts.
Since almost every other English-language tv show and movie with courtroom scenes is inaccurate, I've not taken off a bunch of stars. However, I've take off 2 stars, because the courtroom scenes are SOOOO inaccurate, that they are worse than ones in Matlock! (In Matlock, at least the judge orders Matlock to behave in his witness examination/cross, although, then, the judge usually allows the abnormalities ONLY after assurances from Matlock that he has a good reason for his behaviour. Yup, that's b.s., too, but, at least the behaviour's pointed out!)