FindLaw | Legal News & Information

In the first part of the show, Judge Kittleson compels Eugene Young to defend a murder suspect in a case that is self-evident (get the reference to the episode's title?). Judge Kittleson suggests that the trial for this defendant, who is a "world class scum," is simply a formality. When Yong suggests that Judge Kittleson does not have an open mind about his client's innocence, she counters, "Oh, please." A mind is like a wound. If it's too open, you get an infection." Right.

Still, we are all led to believe that Young's client, his "lovely wife-murdering client," is guilty. In truth, he does not give any reason for us to think otherwise. In preparing his defense, he tells Young that the police officer who will identify him is a liar. The client reasons, "It was dark. I was moving fast. No way he got a good clear look." This is why clients are represented by lawyers.

The first tip off that this is not at all realistic is Judge Kittleson's assurance that it is "a simple trial - one prosecution witness." I will go out on a limb and say that there has never been a murder trial that has had only one prosecution witness. Even where the defendant is videotaped committing the murder, the prosecution presents more than one witness. In this case, you would expect to have some witness testify that they had heard the defendant argue with his wife or threaten her. The prosecution would have someone testify that the defendant owned a gun of the same caliber that was used to kill his wife. For the defense, Young would have a witness testify that his client was not at the house when the police officer claims to have seen him. There would be a witness to testify as to the reasons that the client did not go home for two days.

The reason for concentrating on one single witness, the police officer, is to focus on his credibility. Since he is the only one who identified Young's client as the person running away from the murder scene, Young must find some way to attack him. The police officer complies. Turns out he is gay and he has been lying about it to his family, friends and co-workers. Without ever specifying what the police officer is lying about, Young very adroitly conveys to the jury that the police officer is living a lie.

Helen Gamble's questions to the police officer on her re-direct examination was a good example of rehabilitating her witness, i.e., trying to undo the damage that Young did with his questions. On the whole, it seemed to me that it was pretty clear to the jury that the police officer was gay, or was a cross-dresser, or was having an affair, or was lying in some way about his personal life. I thought his testimony as to what he saw at the crime scene was not damaged too much.

The way the show handled the police officer's psychiatric record was unrealistic in that these records are privileged and could not be revealed to the defense under these circumstances. Technically, I suppose that the police officer himself admitted to Gamble that he was gay and this fact did not come from his psychiatric record, so perhaps the show walked the line very carefully.

One other thing caught my attention. The police officer said that he got a good look at the defendant as he was fleeing the murder scene. He also testified that he was able to identify the defendant from a line up two days later. However, the police officer admitted that he had been called to the house previously to respond to a domestic disturbance and recognized the defendant from that call. What struck me was that if the police officer knew who was running away from the house, why did he need to go through a line up?

It should not have been too surprising that, with only one witness to go on, the jury finds that there is reasonable doubt as to the client's guilt. At the conclusion of the show, to show that some truths are not "self-evident," we learn that the client really was innocent and another person committed the murder. Oh, the twisty little TV world we live in.

Tell Me If You've Heard This One Before

As realistic as Young's one-witness murder trial was, the portion of the show dealing with the story-telling judge that sentences Jimmy Berluti's client (charged with drug use) three times is unrealistic.

The premise is that the sentencing judge feels compelled to moralize to the defendant before sentencing him and tells an absurd story about Gladys Knight or Stevie Wonder that causes the defendant to break out in loud guffaws. This causes the judge to increase the sentence. Berluti has an improper ex parte meeting with the judge, who agrees to resentence the client who again can't help himself from laughing and receives a harsher sentence. Berluti finally himself tells an absurd story about Judge Judy which causes the court personnel to laugh uproariously and causes the scales to drop from the judge's eyes. It's all very silly.

Rosebud

Finally, Donnell is getting ready for the retrial of Scott Davison next week. Apparently, next week's episode will be shot as a mockumentary in the style of Citizen Kane.

Davison, you will remember, is accused of hitting his wife over the head, putting her in his garage, and starting his car's engine, causing her to die from carbon monoxide poisoning. Judge Hiller, who will be the trial judge, ruled this week that Davison's "confession" can be shown to the jury, so Davison will likely have to testify to explain it. His mental state is questionable, since he now claims to hate his wife and blames her for his current situation. I think he has issues.

Past Reviews

Message Boards

Disclaimer