Deep Space Nine--"Rules of Engagement"

I do not claim to be a legal expert just because I have a law degree, but I do notice errors and illogical points in any television episode or movie that features a trail these days. My view affects my enjoyment of these episodes and movies more than more than it would have in the past. “Rules of Engagement” is a case in point.

The plot is not bad. Worf is accused by the Klingon Empire of destroying a civilian vessel, killing all 441 men, women, and children aboard. It is all a ruse to have him extradited to the Empire to punish him for being a dishonored traitor because of his opposition to the invasion of Cardassia. It is all a ruse. Worf attacked an empty transport in the heat of battle. The Klingons faked the casualty list from another transport accident three months prior in order to frame him.

The moral is not bad, either. Worf did blow it and destroy a civilian ship. He got lucky it was empty. The incident serves to strip Worf of some of his credibility with Starflert. It is a dramatic point considering he no longer has his people or his family in his life. Chipping away at his career is the last thing that can be taken away from him.

What bugs me is the trial procedure itself. Sisko serves as Worf’s counsel instead of a JAG. I understand that is for thesake of drama. We have to have a regular character to root for. But it still defies all logic when Worf’s life is on the line. The prosecutor then steals a holodeck program from Worf and submits it into evidence. No judge would have allowed it even if the defendant agreed. Any final ruling on Worf’s extradition would ave been overturned on appeal. Then Sisko calls the prosecutor to the stand to testify. While it is not prohibited for the opposing lawyer to testify about unprivileged information, there is a high standard to meet before it is allowed, at least in American law:

1. That [opposing counsel's] testimony will be actually adverse to [his or her client].

2. that the evidence sought to be elicited from the lawyer will likely be admissible at trial under the controlling rules of evidence.

3. that there is a compelling need for such evidence, which need cannot be satisfied by some other source.

Does calling the klingon prosecutor asa cultural expert qualify? Probably not. It is also certain the evidence of the faked casualty list could have been entered into evidence otherwise. There was no point to calling the prosecutor to the stand.

I cannot be too harsh on “Rules of Engagement,” however. It is a decent episode when the procedural errors are overlooked. Worf did screw up. He just happened to catch a break when the Klingon deception was exposed, so the standard hero comes off smelling like a rose did not happen. Kudos for not following the formula there.

Rating: *** (out of 5)