'Criminal Minds' Season 14: Rossi's Love Life Blooms in New … – EconoTimes

Wednesday, September 26, 2018 6:46 PM UTC

"Criminal Minds" Season 14 is not just about chasing criminals. The new season is also focussing on its characters' personal life, especially to David Stephen Rossi (portrayed by Joe Mantegna), a Supervisory Special Agent of the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit.

This character started to appear in "Criminal Minds" from Season 3 to Season 14. He is also one of the favorite characters of the crime-drama series. He has been married and married three times.

"Criminal Minds" showrunner Erica Messer revealed that Season 14 will get more personal. The first thing that comes to the minds of the crime-drama series followers is about romance. Luckily, Messer shared a few details about the show and Rossi's fate.

Messer recalled Rossi's love life. As mentioned earlier, he was married three times and had divorced three times. In "Criminal Minds" Season 14, his wife no. 3 Krystall Richards (Gail O' Grady) will come back.

Messer added by the end of the Season both are giving it a go again since in the second episode of the new Season they still have a thing going on. Richards and Rossi were married for 36 hours by an Elvis impersonator.

"Criminal Minds" will introduce Richards in the second episode of Season 14, which slated for fifteen episodes. Do you think Rossi will finally find his forever romance?

Not only Rossi will encounter Romance in Season 14 of "Criminal Minds." Messer teased that Prentiss (portrayed by Paget Brewster) will meet someone during a harrowing episode of the show. The showrunner did not mention whether Prentiss' someone will be her long-term romance.

Overall, the romance Krystall and Rossi may end up sticking around this Season. Apart from romance, Messer added that one of the most notorious villains of "Criminal Minds" in the previous Seasons will return in Season 14. Fans should tune in to the new Season to find out what will be going to happen to their favorite characters in the show.

Editor’s Picks

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

How Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein became one of the most-watched officials in Washington

rod rosenstein wild monday

Speculation swirled Monday that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would soon be fired or resign.

After the White House confirmed Rosenstein was safe for now, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced he and President Donald Trump would meet on Thursday, leaving intelligence officials temporarily relieved.

But the justice department head’s future is still uncertain.

On Friday, The New York Times reported that Rosenstein had discussed using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office and wearing a wire to record their conversations. Rosenstein has disputed the report, but it is said to have pushed Trump to weigh firing Rosenstein.

Rosenstein’s authority over the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 US election has made his fate a top concern for lawmakers and officials.

Here’s how the “poster child for the professional, competent, ethical, and fair-minded prosecutor” became one of the most-watched officials in Washington:

SEE ALSO: Here’s who could replace Rod Rosenstein if he’s fired

DON’T MISS: If Rod Rosenstein is on his way out, exactly how it goes down could have major consequences for how Trump can proceed

Rod Jay Rosenstein was born on January 13, 1965, in Philadelphia.

He earned an economics degree in 1986 from the University of Pennsylvania, where Trump graduated from the Wharton School 20 years earlier. In 1989, Rosenstein graduated from Harvard Law School.

Source: US News and World Report

After clerking with the DC Court of Appeals, Kenneth Starr recruited Rosenstein to investigate former President Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Whitewater Development Corporation business in Arkansas.

Source: Department of Justice

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Source link

Criminal Minds Is Giving Rossi Some Romance In Season 14 – Cinema Blend

13 hours ago

We already knew that Criminal Minds was planning to get more personal in Season 14 and thanks to showrunner Erica Messer, we now know how much more personal. Because when you think of a character’s personal life, you often think of romance. So, it is only natural that curiosity would fall on whether there would be love in the air for Criminal Minds‘ ensemble. Well, Erica Messer has shared some insight on their romantic prospects saying:

Rossi and romance? Sounds like a robust match! Erica Messer’s red-hot romantic tease to TVLine does present fans with a bit to unpack. First and foremost, it seems as though it will be a slow burn between Gail O’Grady’s Krystall Richards and Rossi. Whether that flame leads to another trip down the aisle for the former spouses will be intriguing to learn. Fans will not have to wait long to see Rossi resume his romance with his former wife.

Criminal Minds will be re-introducing Krystall in the second episode of the series’ currently slated fifteen episode run for Season 14. There is something about reunion romances that always brings a certain sweetness with it. With Rossi’s romantic life getting a bit of the spotlight, fans may be wondering if any other of the show’s other characters will also get to feel the love. Well, it sounds as though there is good news on that front too.

Criminal Minds‘ showrunner also revealed that Rossi would not be the only character to experience an enlivened love life in Season 14. Erica Messer also teased that Paget Brewster’s Prentiss will meet someone during a harrowing upcoming episode. That said, she did not give away whether that meeting will lead to anything long-term for Prentiss. It is a positive move in that direction though! Love has to start somewhere and what better time than Season 14?

Maybe, if the heat is as memorable as it was between Krystall and Rossi in Season 13, Prentiss’ potential love interest could end up sticking around. Regardless, Erica Messer’s teases hint at a huge season ahead for fans of the crime drama. The show will not be holding back when it kicks off its fourteenth installment with its 300th episode. Among the things planned is bringing back one of its most notorious villains. Fans will have to tune in to Season 14 to find out how it will all play out.

They do not have much longer to wait! The 300th episode and fourteenth season premiere of Criminal Minds will premiere Wednesday, October 3 at 10 p.m. ET on CBS. The crime procedural is among a highly anticipated slate of new programming set to arrive on CBS, along with other series coming this fall.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Ford's lawyer expresses concern over hiring of 'sex crimes prosecutor' for Thursday's hearing – CNN

Both Ford and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh are set to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday for a public hearing to address Ford’s accusations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh.
“This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate,” the letter from Ford’s lawyer, Michael Bromwich, said. “Neither Dr. Blasey Ford nor Judge Kavanaugh is on trial. The goal should be to develop the relevant facts, not try a case.”
Bromwich also wrote that using outside counsel to perform questioning on the senators’ behalf would go against Ford’s “repeated requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning.”
“The central point is that there is no precedent for this Committee to bring in outside counsel for the sole purpose of shielding the members of the Committee from performing their responsibility to question witnesses,” Bromwich said.
Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexual and physical assault while the two were at a party during their high school years.
Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied the accusation.
Ford’s accusations prompted a second woman to come forward with an accusation of inappropriate sexual behavior against Kavanaugh. Deborah Ramirez alleged that while attending a college party during her and Kavanaugh’s time at Yale, he exposed himself to her.
Kavanaugh has also denied that allegation.
Republicans have been determined to keep Kavanaugh’s confirmation process on track in the face of the allegations. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn on Monday suggested a potential committee vote as early as this week, but deferred an official announcement to Grassley.
“I would defer to the chairman but I don’t think we would do it on Thursday,” Cornyn said. “Friday would be possible, but I’m gonna let him make those announcements.”
Additionally, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor on Monday to make forceful remarks in support of Kavanaugh.
“Even by the far left’s standards, this shameful, shameful smear campaign has hit a new low,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “I want to be perfectly clear about what has taken place. Senate Democrats and their allies are trying to destroy a man’s personal and professional life on the basis of decades-old allegations.”
Ford’s attorney responded to McConnell’s comments in his letter to Grassley, calling a previous letter from the committee “difficult to reconcile” with McConnell’s Monday speech.
“You said in your letter that you intend to provide a ‘fair and credible process’ that provides Dr. Blasey Ford ‘fair and respectful treatment,'” Bromwich wrote. “Yet earlier today the Majority Leader dismissed Dr. Ford’s experience as a ‘smear campaign,’ claiming mistakenly that the witnesses’ statements to the Committee constitute ‘a complete lack of evidence,’ implying that there has been a thorough investigation. This and statements he has made previously are flatly inconsistent with your letter.”
Bromwich also requested the identity and resume of the outside counsel who has been hired, and asked to meet with her Tuesday.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Antonin Scalia, Defender of the Rights of the Accused – The Weekly Standard

For reasons of history and disposition, self-identified conservatives are usually self-described “law and order” types. That is all well and good. I would need to hold a seminar to convince my fellow conservatives why they should reconsider their reflexive faith in police authority and, instead, harness their proper suspicion of government power in the context in which it matters most: between the citizen and the representative of the State who possesses monopolistic power to use force and detain.

But I am not here to change minds on that issue. Rather, I am here to demonstrate that originalism, as applied by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, has done more in the last two decades to secure the constitutional rights of the accused than any well-meaning progressive activists and bipartisan reformers. Originalism, generally associated with conservatism, compels its adherents to interpret the Constitution according to what its words meant at the time they were adopted. Like any human endeavor, it is an imperfect method—but, as Justice Scalia observed, “My burden is not to show that originalism is perfect, but that it beats the other alternatives—and that, believe me, is not difficult.” Originalist judges ascertain constitutional meaning from a host of sources, from consensus historical background materials to dictionaries and grammar books issued at the time of adoption. By analyzing the text in this fashion, judges stay faithful to the actual meaning of the constitutional provision, thereby conferring legitimacy upon those decisions.

This philosophy lends itself naturally to defending the rights of the accused. A criminal defense lawyer defends individuals (and sometimes companies) whom the State has accused of committing crimes. As the American Bar Association put it, “Counsel for the accused is an essential component of the administration of criminal justice” who serves “as the accused’s counselor and advocate with courage and devotion and to render effective, quality representation.” To that end, as Supreme Court Justice Byron White explained in 1967: “Defense counsel need present nothing, even if he knows what the truth is. … If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State’s case in the worse possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth.”

The “law and order” types are rarely enthusiastic about this part of our work … until, of course, they find themselves on the wrong end of an indictment—which happens, and not infrequently. We defense lawyers, by contrast, not only happily engage in these tactics, but have an ethical obligation to do so. The conscientious criminal defense attorney subscribes to a self-evident syllogism: By vigorously defending the rights of all criminal defendants, the attorney ensures the integrity of the justice system, the preservation of guaranteed constitutional rights, the vindication of the rule of law, and the protection of the innocent from conviction. These weighty concerns operate in courtrooms throughout the United States and give life to Judge Learned Hand’s observation that “the spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.”

To ensure that innocents are protected from the crushing power of the State, a criminal defense attorney must put the prosecution to its burden of proving each and every element of the offense, ensure that the police acted in conformity with the law, and make sure that the State’s evidence is reliable and truthful, which often includes a defense lawyer questioning a witness’s credibility and recollection of the events giving rise to the witness’s testimony. This is the essence of the adversarial process—the genius of our justice system.

Justice Scalia understood this well.

Justice Scalia, Originalism, and the Accused: When in the majority, the late justice left us with significant decisions that favored criminal defendants. When in dissent, he inspired defense lawyers with his vivid and brilliant prose extoling the Founders’ skepticism of government authority. And he was aware of this, as well: “I ought to be the darling of the criminal defense bar. I have defended criminal defendants’ rights— because they’re there in the original Constitution— to a greater degree than most judges have,” the justice said. His constitutional catalogue is too vast to address, so I list four of his greatest Sixth and Fourth Amendment hits, respectively.

The Sixth Amendment reads: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), writing for the majority, Justice Scalia interpreted the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause— “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”— to mean what it says: “[T]he Clause’s ultimate goal is to ensure reliability of evidence, but it is a procedural rather than a substantive guarantee. It commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination. The Clause thus reflects a judgment, not only about the desirability of reliable evidence (a point on which there could be little dissent), but about how reliability can best be determined.”

Prior to Crawford, prosecutors were permitted to offer into evidence against criminal defendants untested adversarial testimony provided that the witness who gave the testimony was unavailable for trial and the out-of-court (hearsay) statement fell within a firmly rooted exception and bore the indicia of reliability or trustworthiness. Needless to say, this gave the State an unfair advantage at trial because, as Justice John Paul Stevens opined, “cross examination is the principal means of undermining the credibility of a witness whose testimony is false or inaccurate.” Indeed, “the lack of an opportunity to cross examine the absent declarant has been the principal justification for the Anglo-American tradition of excluding hearsay statements.” If the accused does not have an opportunity to undermine the credibility of his accuser, he is rendered virtually defenseless to those accusations. Through originalist means, Justice Scalia restored the proper meaning of the Confrontation Clause because “[d]ispending with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty. This is not what the Sixth Amendment prescribes.”

Likewise, in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), Justice Scalia, in the majority and in reliance upon a 2000 decision, imbued further substance into the Sixth Amendment’s textual guarantee that a criminal defendant shall have an impartial jury decide his fate. As a corollary to that guarantee, he reasoned, when a convicted defendant is sentenced beyond the standard range for a crime, the facts that enabled increased punishment must, if not admitted to by the defendant, be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, not a judge. With originalist precision, Justice Scalia concluded: “The Framers would not have thought it too much to demand that, before depriving a man of three years of his liberty, the State should suffer the modest inconvenience of submitting its accusation to ‘the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbours . . . rather than a lone employee of the State.”

In practice, prior to Blakely, when a defendant was convicted at trial or pleaded to the indictment, the prosecutor would apprise the judge at sentencing of so-called relevant facts— facts that were unnecessary to prove the underlying offense that resulted in conviction but that served to increase the defendant’s sentence. Those facts, however, were not subjected to adversarial testing before a jury. Blakely corrected that deprivation.

Although plea-bargaining is the predominant setting in modern criminal practice, the lifeblood of criminal defense work remains the jury trial. An authority on liberty no less than Thomas Jefferson once wrote to someone equally concerned with liberty’s promise, Thomas Paine, that, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” Originalist jurisprudence ensures the jury remain so.

The Fourth Amendment reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

A favorite of mine, the Fourth Amendment regulates interactions between citizens and police. Here, too, Justice Scalia championed protections for the accused, from requiring law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before applying thermal-imaging technology to invade a man’s home to condemning the assault upon dignity entailed by police officers patting down citizens upon less than probable cause. Two cases, in particular, illuminate originalism’s presumption in favor of the accused.

In United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), writing for the Court, Justice Scalia analyzed whether the FBI’s placing a GPS tracking device on a suspected drug trafficker’s automobile without a judicial warrant constituted a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Answering in the affirmative, Justice Scalia wrote: “[I]t is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.” In originalist fashion, the justice examined English common law to bolster the Court’s decision, observing that “ Entick v. Carrington, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765), is a ‘case we have described as a ‘monument of English freedom undoubtedly familiar’ to ‘every American statesman’ at the time the Constitution was adopted, and considered to be ‘the true and ultimate expression of constitutional law’ with regard to search and seizure.” The holding and rationale in Jones—animated by 18th-century English jurisprudence, no less—stands for the proposition that originalism robustly protects the rights of the accused despite rapid technological advancements that erode privacy in general while enhancing the State’s ability to inject itself into our personal affairs with minimal effort or judicial oversight. By examining the Amendment’s text and meaning at the time of adoption, Justice Scalia easily found that “for most of our history the Fourth Amendment was understood to embody a particular concern for government trespass upon the areas (‘persons, houses, papers, and effects’) it enumerates.”

Unlike in Jones, in Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013), Justice Scalia was unable to prevail upon his brethren that it was constitutional error to permit the State to systematically collect DNA samples, without a warrant, from anyone arrested—not convicted—for a violent crime. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy reasoned that DNA collection, via cheek swabs, pursuant to an arrest upon probable cause, constituted a minimal physical intrusion upon the accused akin to stationhouse fingerprinting and photographing and “no different than matching an arrestee’s face to a wanted poster of a previously unidentified suspect.” By this logic, the Court held that such an intrusion is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Justice Scalia thought otherwise.

In dissent, the originalist justice, as he was wont to do, took the majority to the woodshed for its cavalier attitude toward the State’s collection of genetic material. He observed that, “[w]henever this Court has allowed a suspicionless search, it has insisted upon a justifying motive apart from the investigation of crime. It is obvious that no such noninvestigative motive exists in this case. The Court’s assertion that DNA is being taken, not to solve crimes, but to identify those in the State’s custody, taxes the credulity of the credulous.” He analogized such undifferentiated searches to British “general warrants” that, “[a]t the time of the Founding, Americans despised,” for they were “not grounded upon a sworn oath of a specific infraction by a particular individual, and thus not limited in scope and application.” As to Justice Kennedy’s photograph analogy, Justice Scalia reasoned that taking a person’s photograph “is not a Fourth Amendment search at all. It does not involve physical intrusion onto the person.” With regard to fingerprinting, “Fingerprints of arrestees are taken primarily to identify them (though that process sometimes solves crimes); the DNA of arrestees is taken to solve crimes (and nothing else).”

With constitutionalist verve, Justice Scalia delivered the coup de grâce:

Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes; then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane (surely the Transportation Security Administration needs to know the ‘identity’ of the flying public), applies for a driver’s license, or attends a public school. Perhaps the construction of such a genetic panopticon is wise. But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.

As the originalism revolution that Justice Scalia incited molds and shapes generations of law students and lawyers, it will likely come to pass that King’s “incursion upon the Fourth Amendment, like an earlier one, will some day be repudiated.” Indeed, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, in memoriam, “[Justice Scalia’s] articulation of textualist and originalist principles, communicated in that distinctive splendid prose, transformed our legal culture: It changed the way almost all judges (and so almost all lawyers) think and talk about the law. . . . Does anyone now decline to focus first, in reading a statute, on its text in context? Does anyone now ignore the Founders’ commitments when addressing constitutional meaning[?]” Until this incursion is repudiated, we criminal defense attorneys will continue to hold the line in courts throughout America.

Non-originalism: A word about judicial activism (or what is fashionably called “living constitutionalism”), the antithesis of originalism. Non-originalist Supreme Court justices have done much to advance the rights of the accused—primarily in the 1960s. The Warren Court revolutionized criminal procedure in meaningful ways. In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Court gave us the exclusionary rule, which holds that evidence the police obtained in violation of the accused’s Fourth Amendment rights is inadmissible at trial. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Court held that, prior to custodial interrogation, the police must inform a criminal suspect of his constitutional right to an attorney and to remain silent. And, in the case that assures all previous and subsequent cases benefiting the accused have force, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the Court announced that the Sixth Amendment requires the states to appoint a lawyer to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases. Justice Scalia was no fan of the exclusionary rule or Miranda warnings and was not of the opinion that the State “had to pay for your counsel.” As an originalist, I understand his objections. As a practicing criminal defense attorney, however, I find these constitutional rules indispensible. To those unable to reconcile the contradiction between my judicial philosophy and my professional obligation, I offer Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Self-Reliance,” namely, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Or, as Justice Scalia was fond of saying about Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), “Get over it.”

That is not the end of the judicial activist narrative, however. While the Warren Court expanded the protections of the accused in necessary and healthy ways—to say nothing of its most lasting, consequential, and venerable achievement in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)—it also had excesses. Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Court gave America “the right to privacy,” as announced in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), which, apparently, emanates from the penumbras of the Bill of Rights. In The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law, the late legal scholar and former United States Circuit Court judge Robert Bork called the right to privacy a “constitutional time bomb” because it did not answer its obvious question: “Privacy to do what?” The Griswold decision helped create the judicial framework for Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), in which the Supreme Court held that women have a constitutional right to procure an abortion. Roe and its progeny have been a subject of national controversy ever since, primarily because the Court removed such a profound moral question from democratic discussion and decision. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in 1985, when she was then a United States Circuit Court judge, that Roe was a “[h]eavy-handed judicial intervention [and] was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

As the Supreme Court became a political prize, it instigated a schism between right and left that led to the morally repugnant character assassination of Judge Bork in 1987, when President Ronald Reagan nominated him to the Court, and culminated in the “mini-Constitutional convention” each time the president, from either party, sends a Supreme Court nominee to the Senate for confirmation. Responsible conservatives and liberals alike agree that these “confirmation wars” are more harmful than beneficial to republican government. Faithfully applied, originalism ensures that the Supreme Court remains in its proper, limited place in our constitutional order and leaves the thorny, controversial questions of culture and morality to the democratic process, where they belong.

And so while a comprehensive originalism would keep the Court honest, so, too, it would preserve and, where necessary, expand the rights of the accused. In contemporary America, the only major bipartisan issue in Congress is criminal justice reform. Despite this promising development , little has been done on this front at the federal level. Unlike legislation, the Constitution is not subject to electoral winds. In the last two decades, originalism, as applied by Justice Scalia, has done the heavy lifting of protecting the rights of the accused. My colleagues at the criminal defense bar who have been reflexively critical of Justice Scalia’s life’s work would do well to reexamine their views in light of his full legacy.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

John Oliver blasted Trump and Fox News for defending Kavanaugh amid sexual assault allegations

last week tonight with john oliver

  • John Oliver on Sunday took on President Trump and Fox News analyst Jeanine Pirro for their defenses of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, amid the sexual assault allegations against him.
  • The episode focused on reactions to the first allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford. It was taped before an article published by The New Yorker brought a new allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh by Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s. 


John Oliver on Sunday criticized President Trump and Fox News analyst Jeanine Pirro, among others, for their defenses of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, whose nomination has been rocked by sexual assault allegations

Sunday’s “Last Week Tonight” episode was taped before an article published by The New Yorker brought a new allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh by Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s. Oliver’s show thus focused on reactions to the first allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford, who is set to publicly testify about her allegation before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. 

The “Last Week Tonight” host first took on Fox News host and Jeannine Pirro. Pirro last week criticized Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein for keeping Ford’s allegation under wraps until Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, despite first hearing from Ford about it in July. 

“And Dianne: Why would you wait to even send it to the FBI? Is it because nothing in you and your path of demon-rats — that’s what I said, demon-rats — Democrats’ bag of tricks was working against Kavanaugh?” Pirro said in a clip Oliver played. 

Oliver then threw to another clip of Pirro calling Democrats “demon-rats,” and joked, “Jeanine: Stop trying to make demon-rats happen.” 

He moved on to Trump, who last week tweeted that Ford should prove her allegation with a police filing. 

I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!” Trump tweeted. 

“So the president cast doubt on someone who says she was sexually assaulted, while also sort of implying that her parents don’t love her. To borrow a phrase, that’s one of the most s—headed things I’ve seen from the standpoint of s—headedness,” Oliver said.

Watch the episode on HBO.

SEE ALSO: Why Democrats brought up the Kavanaugh accusations at the last minute when they’ve known since July

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A top movie actor reveals how he learns different accents

Source link

Criminal Minds Boss Reflects on 300 Episodes, Teases a Personal Season 14 – TVLine

Criminal Minds will open its 14th season with not just any ol’ episode, but the CBS crime drama’s 300th outing. What better way to mark the milestone than with an UnSub who has killed a full 300 times? (Eep.)

On the occasional of the landmark episode (airing Wednesday, Oct. 3 at 10/9c), TVLine invited Erica Messer — who has been with the series since nearly Day 1, and has served as sole showrunner since 2011 — to reflect on the show’s ever-growing collection of off-kilter killers, then tease a bit of what is ahead during the upcoming 15-episode run.

TVLINE | Three hundred episodes of Criminal Minds. You must have run out of disturbed people by now, so is the show going to segue into, like, an elite task force that investigates home burglaries or something?
You know what’s crazy is that there are, truthfully, countless bad deeds out there in the world, and we aren’t coming up with anything that’s crazier than happens in real life. It was one of those things when the show first started, we kind of had our 13 ideas because we knew of 13 serial killers — or, you know, certainly the “household name” serial killers that everyone had heard of. And here we are, 300 episodes in, and I’m still learning about these bad people in the world. Our premiere deals with somebody who has killed 300 people…

TVLINE | Oh, wow.
… and I thought, “Is this bonkers? Like, has anyone every killed 300 people?” And it turns out yep. Indeed, they have. I looked up this Monster of the Andes who is believed to have killed in excess of 300 people and is currently missing. No one knows where this guy is. So there’s that. Just when you think, “Oh, certainly we’ve done everything, it’s like, “Nope!”

TVLINE | I’m sure I’ve asked you this in the past, but do you know in real life how many serial killers are working the United States at a given time?
The FBI contacts that we have say there are at least 50 open cases, at a time, statistically.

TVLINE | Who at your office is in charge of keeping track of what you’ve done before? Who’s the person who says, “No, we already had a guy who dressed up as Little Bo Peep before killing his victims”?
I’m sort of the walking Bible for the show, which is crazy. I’m a little bit Rain Man about it. But also, we have the physical Bible that we can check, or a database we can search.

TVLINE | “Search Little Bo Peep and….”
Yeah. There are also maybe 30 people who have been here from the very beginning. When you look at different department heads and people within those departments…. We all try to keep each other pretty, pretty honest about that kind of thing.

TVLINE | What’s your guess as to the male/female split over 300 episodes?
Of UnSubs? I mean, I’d say…

TVLINE | Eighty percent male?
I’d say probably 85 percent male.

TVLINE | OK. You’ve got to do something about that. Women get in moods, too!
When we first started, I remember, Aileen Wuornos was certainly one of those. Monster had already come out. [We did episodes where] this monster that we are chasing is a woman, but there were times that if we did more than, like, two or three a season, it felt like we’ve had too many. Because the stats would tell you that there really aren’t that many women, and so often we were trying to play by those rules of reality.

TVLINE | What’s a well-known instance where you had to pull back on something due to the network, where they said, “Yeahhhhh, that’s a step too far”? “Don’t show that, don’t do that, don’t suggest that….”
It’s been a while since we’ve had that note.

TVLINE | You know where the line in the sand is now.
I know where the line is now. I’m also a big believer in its scarier to imply what’s happening off-screen then to see it. Broadcast standards wouldn’t let you see a lot of the stuff that we’re implying.

TVLINE | The limitations are probably thematic, as well, not just visual…
Yeah. The psychological impact that it has with the audience.

TVLINE | In the season premiere aka Episode 300, are you going to pick up in real-time where we left off? Where Reid (Matthew Gray Gubler) is basically been told, “Help us spring the Messiah, or Garcia gets it”?
We’re picking up just moments later. We don’t see the exact pickup of the standoff with guns, but with the rest of the BAU racing back to Quantico to figure out what has happened, trying to piece together where are Reid and Garcia.

TVLINE | Does any particular episode of the new season have you excited?
Well, I’m super excited about 300, because, you know, TV history, but also because I’m always a huge fan of the ones that are all about the team the whole time and the team really having to dive into the history of being in the BAU to solve the present problem, which they definitely do in this episode. I love being able to go back 10 years and say, “Oh my God, this thing that we worked on back then, what if that’s connected to today?” We did that a bit last year with “Lucky,” when we brought Jamie Kennedy back. It’s such a privilege to be able to have all of those years’ worth of a series to go back and touch on. (It was recently reported that Luke Perry, for one, will somehow reprise his Season 4 role as the late Benjamin Cyrus in the season premiere.)

TVLINE | Do you find a moment in the milestone Episode 300 to give us a warm, fuzzy flashback to something or another?
Yeah. Yeah. We do.

TVLINE | Any personal storylines this season for any of the characters?
We’re doing a few, actually. We wanted to play that Garcia (Kirsten Vangsness) is going to be affected [by the finale/premiere]. She’s been abducted and held captive, and that’s not a place we’ve seen her before. And what she does in order to survive is, again, not something that character has truly played. Obviously we don’t want our sunshiny Garcia to be depressed for the season, but to have it resonate with her in a way that we normally don’t get to play. That takes us for about five or six episodes, and then we’re doing a bit of a backstory with Alvez (Adam Rodriguez), because when he joined us in Season 12, there was really no opportunity that season.

TVLINE | You had to hit the ground running, yeah.
We had a lot going on that year, so his backstory kind of got pushed. We are diving into that this year, and it sort of explains why he’s a bit of a lone wolf. Even though he plays well with others, we’re going to see in Episode 6 why he’s willing to not play by the rules for a minute. Really, each of Episodes 2 through 9 will have a moment where we are with one of our heroes in their home life in some way.

TVLINE | Home life is one thing; what about love lives?
Well, Rossi (Joe Mantegna) has Gail O’ Grady back in his life. She [played] the infamous Wife No. 3 that he was married to for 36 hours, by an Elvis impersonator, and in the second episode we see that they still have a thing going on — and then, ideally, by the end of the season they’re giving it a go again. You know how I’m a sucker for my backyard weddings! So we might be leaning towards that.

TVLINE | Still nothing for poor Prentiss (Paget Brewster)?
Well, she meets somebody in an unexpected way in an episode written by Erica Meredith that almost plays in real-time, where every 27 minutes somebody’s getting killed in Washington in a machete attack.

TVLINE | Oh my God.
I know, it’s horrifying when you Google machete attacks. They’re prevalent, which is frightening, especially in cities, but the “27 minutes” of it is unique to this particular UnSub. Prentiss is working hand-in-hand with the Washington field office and her equal in that department, and they kind of hit it off.

TVLINE | You’re working off of, what, a 15-episode count this season?
Right now, we’re working off of 15. You know, there’s always a chance there’s more. I wouldn’t know about that until probably mid-October, but at this point we’re just going with the 15 order. And I’m planning for that in terms of storytelling, but if they give us more, great!

Want more scoop on Criminal Minds, or for any other show? Email InsideLine@tvline.com and your question may be answered via Matt’s Inside Line.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Legendary Tampa criminal defense attorney Barry Cohen dies at 79 – TBO.com

TAMPA — The accused and the wronged beat a path to Barry Cohen’s door.

The tenacious, canny criminal defense attorney took on pharmaceutical giants and law enforcement agencies. When judges and attorneys needed representation, they often reached out to him.

And when the odds seemed stacked against his clients, he would fight their case outside the courtroom, too.

When Steven and Marlene Aisenberg were the only suspects in the disappearance of their 5-month-old baby, Mr. Cohen’s defense included an appearance on Larry King Live. Charges were later dropped, and Mr. Cohen won the couple $3 million in legal fees.

But leukemia came with odds that not even the pugnacious Mr. Cohen could beat. He died Saturday (Sept. 22, 2018) at his home in South Tampa’s Hyde Park neighborhood. He was 79.

“It’s a huge loss for the legal community and all of Tampa,” said Hillsborough County’s State Attorney Andrew Warren, whom Mr. Cohen had supported in his bid for office. “His legacy is as a fighter, standing up for the weak and the marginalized and those who needed help.”

“One of Tampa’s treasures,” said Kevin Kalwary, a private investigator and former journalist who covered, worked with and had been friends with Mr. Cohen for 40 years.

“If he was your friend, he was your friend ‘til the end,” he said. “There was no wavering. Obviously, being the alpha dog adversarial lawyer that a number of trial lawyers are, he made enemies, and he would regret that they were enemies, but it never would have changed what he was doing. It was always for the client.”

Mr. Cohen learned last year that his myelodysplastic syndrome, a disease that affects normal blood cell production in the bone marrow, had progressed into full leukemia. His treatment at the Moffitt Cancer Center included a trial five-day-a-week chemotherapy regimen.

Illness meant the closure of his law firm, but Mr. Cohen couldn’t accept he had tried his last case. He hung onto a few clients hoping to work their cases from his Hyde Park home.

What he wanted most, he told the Tampa Bay Times in February, was more time with his family, including his wife, psychologist Barbara Casasa Cohen, and their son, Barry Alexander Cohen, 17.

INTERVIEW: Legal lion Barry Cohen reveals leukemia and tells how it has changed his priorities

As his illness worsened, he knew that he would not live to see Barry Alexander’s graduation from Berkeley Preparatory School. At his wife’s request, the school held a special graduation ceremony a few weeks ago. She expected a modest affair in a school office. Instead, she and her husband were ushered into an auditorium close to full with friends, family, music and food.

“My husband and I both teared up,” Casasa Cohen said “When we got in the car to drive home, he said, ‘Thank you for doing that. I can die a happy man.’ “

Cohen spent his last evening with his family and a few close friends. He had been mostly unconscious in recent days but rallied a little in those hours, his wife said.

“He was on his journey, but he knew who was there and who was speaking,” she said. “He hugged everyone and smiled and looked them in the eye.”


Mr. Cohen’s father, Irving P. Cohen, was a Brooklyn candy store owner before the family moved first to Jacksonville and later to Tampa. He later ran a scrap yard on Adamo Drive and worked as a cook. His mother, Rhea Cohen, became a successful local businesswoman and leader in the local Jewish community.

Mr. Cohen, their eldest child and only son, said his zeal for taking on authority came from the time when he saw his father was verbally abused and bullied by bosses while working in a kitchen. It affected him deeply, leaving him unable to abide bullies and pushing him into a law career that allowed him to take on authority.

“I swore I’d never be in a position to be bullied like that,” he told the Times in February.

After graduating from Plant High School, he served in the Coast Guard, graduated from Florida State University and earned a law degree at Mercer University in Georgia. After starting a law firm in 1975, he forged a reputation as an attorney who seldom lost, a trait that meant he was hired for some of the most high-profile cases in Tampa Bay.

They included Pinellas chiropractor William LaTorre, whose 35-foot boat hit a smaller vessel and killed four of the five teenagers onboard in 1989. LaTorre, who was charged with vessel homicide, was found not guilty after a six-week trial. He committed suicide in 2014.

When Hillsborough State Attorney E.J. Salcines was accused of case-fixing, Mr. Cohen took out a full-page newspaper advertisement to accuse then-U.S. Attorney Bob Merkle of a witch-hunt. No charges were brought.

Mr. Cohen kept elementary school teacher Jennifer Porter out of jail after her hit-and-run accident left two children dead. He represented Joel Miller, the University of South Florida football walk-on who school officials determined had been hit by head coach Jim Leavitt, leading to Leavitt’s dismissal in 2010.

His success was not a surprise to fellow attorney Steve Yerrid, who was still a rookie when he got to work with Cohen on a racketeering case.

“He had a marvelous gift of raw intellect, and he was able to apply that in a common-sense way that everyone could follow,” Yerrid said. “He was my dear, dear friend, and I will absolutely miss him terribly.”

Mr. Cohen’s approach was to out-work and out-think his opponents, a goal spelled out on his law firm’s web site for anyone with the temerity to work for him: “That means following Barry’s lead: working nights, weekends, whatever it takes,” the site reads. “It means reading every new book in Cohen’s extensive library dealing with jury selection, evidence, or other trial matters. It means doing all the things that other lawyers and law firms are simply unwilling or unable to do in order to be the best.”

TIMES COLUMNIST SUE CARLTON: After a terminal diagnosis, Barry Cohen finds there’s no place he would rather be than in a courtroom

His firm’s victories were commemorated in framed front pages from local and national publications that lined the walls of his law office and chronicled four decades of not-guilty verdicts and multimillion-dollar settlements.

But financial stresses took some of the gloss off that aura of success in recent years.

A lawsuit filed in 2014 by a disgruntled former employee revealed that Mr. Cohen owed financial firms about $35 million, which he said at the time was a result of his high-stakes litigation where attorney costs run up for years before a settlement is reached. His law firm had also “sold” anticipated legal fees at discounted rates, a way for law firms to create cash flow since banks are loathe to lend money on the basis of an expected settlement.

And in April, the owners of Fifth Third Central tower sued the Barry A. Cohen Legal Team claiming it owed them about $69,700 in rent on a penthouse office space.


Mr. Cohen, a Democrat, also liked to flex his muscles in the political realm, regularly supporting and advising liberal candidates in their bids for local, state and national positions, including 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry. Tampa City Council member Harry Cohen, who is not related to Mr. Cohen but who worked for him as a young lawyer from 1999 to 2005, recalled a constant stream of politicians in the office.

Once, U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the California representative who is now the Democratic leader in the U.S. House, swung through Tampa. Mr. Cohen, who at the time was unfamiliar with Pelosi, mispronounced her name.

She charmed him, Harry Cohen said, and the pair ordered smoothies up to his office. By the end of the meeting, they were good friends.

“Honey, honey, you’re some kind of woman,” Mr. Cohen told Pelosi, recalled the councilman. She left with a commitment from Mr. Cohen of $50,000.

The decline of Mr. Cohen’s health was well known, so his death did not come as a shock to those closest to him. But they all agreed it nonetheless left a gaping hole in a community he had so heavily influenced.

“It’s a devastating blow,” said Lyann Goudie, a private defense attorney who once worked for Mr. Cohen and remained friends.

“He was really larger than life,” Harry Cohen said. “It’s really hard to believe that somebody with that amount of energy and passion is gone. Because he was really a force of nature.”

Goudie recalled her final conversation with Mr. Cohen. The pair texted about two weeks ago. He said he was feeling weak, and she sent him a sad-faced emoji.

“Don’t be sad,” he told her. “I’ve lived my life exactly how I wanted to and I’ve made peace. I’m ready and everything’s going to be okay and know that I will always love you.”

Times staff writer Richard Danielson contributed to this report. Contact Christopher O’Donnell at [email protected] or (813) 226-3446. Follow @codonnell_Times.



Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

As the controversies pile up, Google misses the skillset of this former exec more than ever (GOOG, GOOGL)


  • Since Eric Schmidt stepped down as executive chairman in December, Google has been without its most seasoned and effective spokesman.
  • When Schmidt was running Google, he reveled in the spotlight.
  • None of Google’s current leaders seem interested or capable of taking over for Schmidt in that regard.
  • That’s too bad, because with Donald Trump and the far right bearing down, Google needs someone to make its case.

When Google’s business practices came under scrutiny earlier this summer and members of the Senate wanted to hear from one of the company’s top leaders, Google declined.

The Senate Intelligence Committee voiced its displeasure by placing a card bearing Google’s name at the same table where Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg testified, even though no one from Google showed up.

But back on Sept 21, 2011, at a previous Congressional hearing, Google wasn’t satisfied to be represented by an empty chair.

Instead, the company’s managers dispatched Eric Schmidt to Capitol Hill. Lawmakers grilled Schmidt, Google’s then executive chairman, about whether the company was using its search engine to promote its own products over rivals. Schmidt strode into the hearing room that day grinning. While he didn’t convince every lawmaker that Google wasn’t “cooking” search results, the pundits said he more than held his own.

“You had to know going into this that Eric Schmidt was too smart and too practiced an operator to let himself get cornered,” Charles Cooper, a columnist with CBS Interactive, wrote at the time. “Schmidt didn’t come close to breaking a sweat.”

Larry Page

Compare that with how Google responded to the Senate’s questions two weeks ago. Dorsey and Sandberg appeared at the Sept. 5 hearing called by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and answered queries about the role social networks play in US elections.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai or Chairman Larry Page, were no shows, and Google was criticized from all sides. The imagery of the empty chair during the hearing was a constant reminder of the company’s absence. Tom Wheeler, the former FCC chairman, summed it up this way: Google’s decision not to appear was “a strategic mistake of virtually incalculable proportions.”

The stark differences in the two responses to near-similar situations highlights the huge hole that Google has yet to fill since Schmidt stepped down as chairman in December. Schmidt, who was Google’s CEO from 2001 to 2011, was a leader who thrived in the spotlight, and reveled as Google’s point man anytime the company drew fire.

He was equal parts salesman, statesman, and technologist.

And now, more than ever, Google is missing that kind of frontman, someone in authority who can stand before the cameras during a crisis, and effectively make the company’s case.

Google misses Schmidt, historically its best spokesman

The President of the United States and his allies have targeted Google.

Without providing much proof, Donald Trump has accused Google’s leaders of “rigging” its search platform to muffle the voices of political conservatives and to deliver only bad news about his administration.

More recently, the far right has claimed that a recent series of rather banal news leaks at Google supports their claim that the company is using its influence to wage war on Republicans. Google has continually denied these allegations, but the controversies keep cropping up.

On Thursday evening, The Wall Street Journal reported that it had seen an email exchange from last year between Google employees in which they discussed potential ways to tweak Google’s search results to help those protesting Trump’s travel ban on people from Muslim countries.

Google said the email chain only contained proposals, and that they were never implemented, reiterating that the company does not bias Google search for political reasons.  

Sundar Pichai

At this rate, one has to wonder how long before lawmakers compel Google to testify.

In the three years since being named CEO, Pichai has proven himself capable enough of addressing the Google I/O developer conferences, speaking to friendly crowds with the aid of teleprompters and rehearsals.

It remains to be seen, however, whether he’s as effective a spokesman when faced with a hostile audience in impromptu situations that are high stakes.

“Unlike the CEOs of the other large tech companies, Pichai has kept a much lower profile,” said Tim Calkins, clinical professor of marketing at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. “Most people know the CEOs of the other big companies, but I’m not sure anyone knows Pichai. I think it’s important for an individual to become the recognizable leader of a company. It puts a human face on what would otherwise be faceless.”

As for the company’s other top leaders, Page and Google co-founder Sergey Brin, neither has shown much interest of late in addressing the public on Google’s behalf, which should leave Google pining for Schmidt — and not just for his communication skills.

In 2007, Schmidt was interviewed on stage at the annual National Association of Broadcasters conference. At the time, Google was attempting to acquire DoubleClick, the web-ad services company.

The interviewer noted that Microsoft had complained loudly to US regulators that the deal would kill competition and that they should fear Google’s growing size.

“Microsoft?” Schmidt deadpanned.

With one word, expressed with faux surprise, Schmidt instantly cast doubt on Google’s accuser. A decade before, the US government had famously brought a massive antitrust case against Microsoft. To much of the public, Microsoft was still the symbol of anti-competitive practices. 

The audience laughed and applauded. Just off stage, the faces of Schmidt’s assistants lit up. 

Schmidt’s swagger, quick wit, and sense of theater are character traits that can inspire employees, as well as win over the public. Sometimes, those are the kinds of traits that can even help sway skeptical lawmakers.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Apple took another subtle jab at Facebook during its iPhone XS event

Source link

'Criminal Minds': Kirsten Vangsness Previews Garcia 'out of Her Element' in the 'pretty Harrowing' Season 14 Premiere – Newsweek

The resolution of the Criminal Minds Season 13 finale cliffhanger won’t just affect the two characters, Garcia and Reid, at the center of it. The events of the milestone 300th episode will impact the team—but especially Garcia—in future episodes.

The Season 14 premiere is “a pretty harrowing episode” and “to do [it] was scary,” Kirsten Vangsness told Newsweek. “Just the locations we were in and the stuff Garcia does in the episode are so out of her element.”

“Garcia is, ‘Hate the behavior, not the person.’ In the finale of Season 13, the last moment you see her screaming at Reid and saying to kill this woman, which is something Garcia would never say,” she continued. “The whole season premiere is interesting because it’s the first time she’s actively hated a person.”

“No one is at risk of mortal peril by the end, but it causes more than one character on the team to have a deep, existential crisis and personal turmoil that will affect them in dangerous ways for episodes to come,” she added.

The Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) tracked down a cult of serial killers and had its leader, Benjamin David Merva (Michael Hogan) in custody in the finale. A cult member, Special Agent Mary Meadows (Karen David) threatened to kill technical analyst Penelope Garcia (Vangsness) if Dr. Spencer Reid (Matthew Gray Gubler) didn’t free her “messiah.” 

Garcia told Reid to shoot Meadows—and she was ready to die in that moment in what would have been a best-case scenario. 

“I don’t think she’s thinking through it for herself,” Vangsness explained. “In that moment, she’s pretty sure she’s lost control of the situation and that the way to save many is someone is going to take the fall, and she’s already in the most peril. … But she’s also scared out of her mind.” 

113045_0138b Above, Benjamin David Merva (Michael Hogan) is pictured in the “Criminal Minds” Season 14 premiere. He’s the leader of the cult that has taken Reid and Garcia captive. Cliff Lipson/CBS

Even though Garcia and Reid both make it out of the garage alive, they’re not in any less danger in the cult’s clutches in the Criminal Minds Season 14 premiere. “It’s very uncomfortable,” the actor said, previewing a first for her character. “She is so unkempt. I just remember being like, ‘I have to sit in this chair, all tied up, and my bra strap is down by my shoulder.’ It was scary and uncomfortable and very emotional. It’s very Reid and Garcia trying to save each other.”

While being kidnapped is a new situation for her, it isn’t for him. “Reid’s kind of used to it, but at the same time, he’s been through so much,” Vangsness said to Newsweek. “Garcia doesn’t really know what’s going on. He’s much more adept at this, ‘When taken captive, this is what you do.’ She’s more fish out of water, but I think he’s still in more trouble.”

The cult does need Garcia to do something for them, as you may have guessed from the glimpse of a computer in the trailer—but this is the one time she doesn’t want to be anywhere near such a device. “That in turn turns into a whole mess for her later,” Vangsness teased. “They took the experiences that not only Garcia but everyone in the team goes through in [the premiere] and then put it into upcoming episodes.” 

What Garcia goes through affects her mental state. “It’s an internal experience she’s having, where she doesn’t like how she got pushed to feel so much bad stuff and help people that are the bad guys, so she has a lot of shame about that,” she explained. 

Though her character won’t ever have a “strong friendship” like she did with Derek Morgan (Shemar Moore), who left the team in Season 11, “there’s good sisterhood that happens in upcoming episodes” as she deals with what happens, she revealed.

Garcia is due for a break and will get one. She confronted the person responsible for her parents’ deaths and forgave him only a short period of time before the events of the finale. “The emotional pimple pops,” she said. “She gets a little moment with someone from her family again to have a moment to heal. We have a little return from stuff that happened last year that is soothing and good.”

In behind-the-scenes news, cast members will direct a third of this season. Gubler, whose episodes behind the camera tend to be creepy, did the Halloween hour, which Vangsness described as “really spooky and cool.” Joe Mantegna finished directing his ninth episode of the series and Adam Rodriguez was prepping his second at the time of the interview. A.J. Cook is making her directorial debut. 

Vangsness, who has written four episodes, will be penning the season finale with showrunner Erica Messer. “I have not written a season finale, and I’m nervous, but it’s exciting,” she told Newsweek

Criminal Minds Season 14 premieres Wednesday, October 3 at 10 p.m. ET on CBS.

.node-type-article .article-body > p:last-of-type::after, .node-type-slideshow .article-body > p:last-of-type::aftercontent:none

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link