Aww, Steve/Maureen. (See, I dabble in small fanbase fandoms and end up desiring rarepairings; life is pain. Incidentally, there was no Christian Kane in this episode.)
Spousal privilege means you can't testify against your spouse? I can understand a law that you can't be forced to do so (though I would still find that problematic -- I mean, I find the Fifth Amendment problematic) but . . . I am boggling.
I, um, kinda dorked out at the "Bright Angel trail in the Grand Canyon" moment.
For the first, oh, three-quarters of this episode, I was not a fan. I didn't like Randy (husband) or Lisa (driver) or Annabeth (blond prosecutor). I didn't have a sense of quite what the truth was (and thus for whom I should be rooting for) and I felt like Annabeth was committed to one particular reading of the case and since I didn't get the vibes she apparently was it felt kinda cracked.
I forgave the writers by the end 'cause I really liked the fiancee and the neat [def. precise, tidy, skilled, etc.] way everything was wrapped up (in terms of motivation, etc.) but it didn't leave me feeling like I wanted to continue watching the series.
I really liked the resolution of the subplot (the testifying mailman who turned out to have a brother).