Worst episode of Dragnet ever!

A jury refuses to convict a man on circumstantial evidence involving the type of clothes he was wearing and what he was carrying in his pocket. They deliberate all night long, then find the man not guilty. Afterward, they are called lazy and the judge actually calls them morons! Like that would ever happen in a courtroom!
Whoever wrote this had never been anywhere near a real courtroom and I hope he never sat on a jury.

This program was a good episode of Dragnet. Not the best, but I enjoyed it for what it was, a 30-minute crime drama.

The scrip-writer's use, or misuse, of figures to reach a trillion-to-one conclusion was, I think, done to show that the accused was, based on the evidence, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If a scientific analysis of each bit of evidence was done, that alone would probably take longer than the running time of the episode.

This was a good "Dragnet" show from very early 1952 after the series had started in the fall 1951. Barney Phillips was the temporary "sidekick" of Jack Webb after the death of Barton Yarborough on December 19, 1951. Yarborough had transitioned with Webb from the radio program, which continued for the next 4 or 5 years. There are issues to be brought up, which were done by some of the reviewers as noted below,but overall it is entertaining.

As a mathematician I cringed at the so called "expert" when he applied the fundamental "product rule" for probabilities as he pulled the individual probabilities out of thin air and multiplied them to get a 1 trillion to one probability. While I might agree that some of the individual events are unlikely and probably would carry a low probability, pulling figures out of thin air and expecting a jury to use them to convict a man is absurd. And then the judge has the nerve to call the jury folks morons ? The judge was a moron for not striking that so called "experts" testimony from the court records.

Still and all, if you can overlook some of the the unrealistic elements it is an interesting show and the scenery certainly reflects a long gone era, elements of which were still around when I was a youngster.

What a crock!
1.(I'm paraphrasing from memory) The "expert" was making his "statistical" analysis using figures with no basis in fact! Let's say one out of hundred men in LA wears size 8 shoes with Cuban heels with taps. One out of a hundred has red paint on his shoes, One out of a hundred... about the clothes until he has 6 examples
Prosecutor asks what the odds are. Response 10 x 10 6 times A trillion to one! Considering he had no basis for his figures, that must have really pissed off any real police investigators. An investigation on the jury! That is so outlandish! What would they do if they did find anything? You can't charge someone twice for the same crime! Hmmm well maybe if it was proven they tampered with the jury... However, I can't imagine LA didn't have enough crime that they could spare so much time on something already said and done!

Three cops in a car sixty feet from the woman's car. Nothing else on the street and she doesn't notice?

Sarcastically he ask's: Is it just on TV or ia it the late fifties that you can just barge in and to quote Friday, Shake 'em down?"

Whoever wrote this was pretty ignorant! I did use to watch this as a kid, but I was too young for the first seasons. I did grow up watching it and thinking Friday was cool, then getting older, my opinion went 180 degrees! Oh, I probably take this garbage to seriously and should just remember its TV! Though I remember I was presented and had the reputation of being the most "real" cop show. I believe Adam 12 and then Chips were spin offs.

This one is a HOOT! Nominally about a safebreaker, it features:

* Some courtroom drama and somewhat snoreworthy statistics from Leeland (?) Jones of the Crime Lab.

* One of the high points of the entire series, the Superior Court judge insulting the jurymen as "innately dishonest or complete morons"!!!

* The District Attorney trying to dig up dirt on the jury to see if they were "fixed".

* The use of an ultraviolet lamp and some super scientific "cyclo-hexane" powder to prove him guilty.

WELL worth watching.