Kathryn Peale (Maura Tierney) is the prosecutor, and Jimmy Brogan (Rob Morrow) is the defense. It's a pretty standard legal drama procedural. There is a lot of quick banter between the leads. Rob Morror is playing a fast talking guy. They're both very high stress characters. The gimmick is in the last part of the show after the case is done. They show what really happened. They show 'The Whole Truth'. While I appreciate the attempt at something new, I don't think the gimmick works. It feels very arbitrary as if it could work either way. They may as well film two 'The Whole Truth' and flip a coin.

To even begin enjoying this show, you need to have an enjoyment and interest in all things to do with the American law and order system. So if you don't enjoy Law and Order than it is highly unlikely you will enjoy this.I however do and so enjoy this show every week. I like the lead characters of Brogan and Peale and especially enjoy their interactions together. At the moment I will admit a lot of the supporting cast are much more stereotyped than they should be but that is usual of any show that is just starting out.The one part of the show I most enjoy is that as the viewer we aren't told whether or not the person committed the crime or not. We are allowed to wonder throughout the whole episode. It actually makes you feel kind of like a juror.I can't comment on how realistic it is in relation to the reality of criminal law but what I can say is that it is an enjoyable hour of escapism with a lot of room to grow and improve.

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.

This show much like many of its predecessors has been made in the speed through the motions fast and get to the trial phase. The major difference is the time line of how this show seems to go. Unlike most other shows where we have the prosecutions move and the defenses response it give and entire side of first the prosecution and then the entire side of the defense, the only thing it leaves is really the closings to be symbiotic at the very end of the episode.It's actually done in a very nice fashion, we get to see what evidence each side unfolds on their own and how they intend for it to play out in court, there aren't too many sidewinders just a few mostly at trial which is the way real lawyers would duke it out in court. All and all I like the cast and the plots, 8/10 for a nicely put together legal drama.