I caught this episode the other day, and while I'm sure I've seen it before I realized something that I hadn't in the past: the ep ends with no real change or resolution. Sure, a murder suspect is caught with a kidnapped victim, but given the response from the judge earlier what makes any of them think this will result in a happy ending considering the officers involved are either a Regan or a partner of one? Speaking of that judge; dismissing a case because of a YT video and a Tweet from a teenager, both of which had nothing to do with the case? Absolutely ridiculous! The only intelligent thing that judge said was for Erin to recuse herself in cases where her family is involved (which is true). Having said that, technically speaking, ALL evidence is circumstantial. With two correlating fingerprints no judge would dismiss that murder/officer assault case, but a grand jury could easily overturn that ruling, and with some simple editing that much more logical storyline could've happened.
The entire social media subplot should've either been dropped or made into its own episode, since I'm confident in saying none of it is mentioned again and they didn't know what to do with it in the first place. At first it started as a lesson for Niki to realize even her words on social media can have a negative impact on her life and her family's. Later it's presented that it was her way of defending herself from an overbearing teacher. So what's the takeaway supposed to be: respect an authority figure even if she doesn't reciprocate, or does freedom of speech only matter to people you agree with? Niki never said she sided with Henry's specific comments; in fact I don't think anybody really did except maybe Danny, but context matters, and there was a severe lack of that throughout the episode.