Am really not a fan of the "she said, he said" sort of stories overall. Especially when a show like 'Law and Order: Special Victims Unit' does them in most of its seasons (especially the later ones) and to such variable effect. Some are hard hitting and powerful, like "Burned". Others are sleazy and one sided, like too many in the later seasons. So expectations were not high on first watch of "A Misunderstanding". Was not impressed with it on the whole on first watch.
Sadly, "A Misunderstanding" also wasn't much better on rewatch and epitomises why this sort of story is not a favourite. With it having all the reasons as to why the later seasons "she said, he said" cases don't do it for me and to a distasteful degree. Season 17 was an inconsistent season but not an awful one, and this is very easily down there among the worst episodes of the season. Not unspeakably awful, but the aftertaste it leaves is quite a bitter one.
It has things that redeem it a little. On a visual level, the episode is solid and the intimacy of the photography doesn't get static or too filmed play-like. The music when used is not too over-emphatic and has a melancholic edge that is quite haunting.
There are some nice one-liners from especially Barba and Calbourne. The Romeo and Juliet references were interesting. The acting is very good considering the material, the best performance coming from Raul Esparza.
However, absolutely nothing new is done with the type of story this is, most of what happens is what has been seen quite a number of times. It has a very flimsy case with too much circumstantial evidence and very slight. There is no suspense, with the urgency already drained early on from the overlong opening scene, and it is dully paced and overstretched, this could easily have been done in half the time.
Olivia comes over as self righteous and biased, really don't when she jumps to conclusions with little evidence and where she judges on her gut instinct and doesn't consider any alternative. The ending left more questions than answers, the truth seemed vague to me. The writing is very preachy, especially in regard to the discussion about a sexual engagement law and affirmative consent, and just didn't care enough for anybody involved.
Concluding, underwhelming. 4/10.