FindLaw | Legal News & Information

This week's episode of The Practice was a highly entertaining piece of storytelling. It was also completely, entirely, and totally unrealistic.

A very pregnant Lindsay Dole is contacted by Jeannie Reynolds, her criminal psychologist friend, about William Hinks, a patient Reynolds is treating. Hinks is a bug-eyed accountant who has confessed to brutally killing nine women. Although Hinks has pleaded not guilty to these crimes by reason of insanity, Reynolds believes he is innocent, but that he is delusional and confessed to the crimes simply to get attention. Hinks has already fired two attorneys who have come to the same conclusion. Reynolds wants Dole ("I don't do serial killers") to defend Hinks and somehow prove his innocence.

Dole meets with Hinks (did I mention that he is bug-eyed?), who assures her that he is guilty and that he wants to pursue a defense of lack of criminal responsibility because of mental disease or defect. When Dole suggests that he might be able to convince a jury that he is not guilty of the charges, Hinks rejects this option outright. His rationale is that a not guilty by reason of insanity will provide him with the psychological help that he so desperately needs. Right. If I wanted psychological help, the absolutely last place I would look for it would be in prison. The other aspect I found curious was that there was no description of Hinks's psychosis. Did the devil make him do it? Did he hear voices? Was the neighbor's dog, Sam, urging him to murder women and then to dissect them? A defense of lack of criminal responsibility by reason of a mental disorder, without any evidence of a mental disorder, is not much of a defense.

Dole quickly buys into the "Hinks may be bug-eyed but he didn't do it, and he is just saying he did to gain attention" defense. There is some basis for this line of reasoning. First, there is no physical evidence connecting Hinks to the killings. Nada, zilch, none. Second, an FBI profiler admits to Dole that Hinks was able to recount most of the facts of the various murders that were reported in the papers, but Hinks did not, or could not, provide other details that only the killer would know. And finally, under hypnosis, Hinks apparently had told Reynolds that he did not commit the crimes.

The trial begins. Because Hinks has raised a defense of lack of criminal responsibility, the Commonwealth's opening statement concentrates on the calculating nature of the crimes and other aspects to show that Hinks had to be lucid and sane at the time. Dole, quite coyly and simply, states, "William Hinks is insane" and sits down.

Even though Hinks has confessed to the crime and has raised a defense of lack of criminal responsibility, the Commonwealth must prove that Hinks committed the crimes. The proof of his guilt consists of a police officer recounting portions of Hinks's confession. Dole's cross-examination of the officer is very weak, probably because she wants to surprise everyone with the withdrawal of the defense of lack of criminal responsibility. In real trials, the proof of a defendant's guilt, even one who has confessed and is pleading an insanity defense, can take an extended period of time. It would certainly call for more than a single police officer repeating portions of a confession that seems sparse on details, especially where there have been nine murders. Also, to lessen impact of the defendant's evidence that he lacked criminal responsibility, the prosecution would then go into each murder in great detail, showing the horror of the crimes, and that lucid thinking was required by the defendant for the murders to take place.

It was incredible - as in I did not believe it - that there was no physical evidence - none - to tie Hinks to any of the killings. C'mon. We are supposed to believe that there was no DNA evidence, no fingerprints, no eyewitnesses, no hair samples, no evidence that Hinks handled or purchased any of the murder weapons, no fiber samples, no specks of blood on his clothes - nothing tying Hinks to any of these crimes? In addition to this, we are supposed to believe that in the process of questioning Hinks, he provided only the information that was available to the public? The police do not accept confessions willy-nilly. They would have required that Hinks provide information that he could not have gotten from the media and that only the killer would know, before they would have been willing to rely so heavily on his confession.

Dole is right on top of this and, after the Commonwealth rests its case, she formally withdraws her defense of lack of criminal responsibility. This prompts the Judge to shout. "I will see counsel in chambers - now!" It seems like every lawyer show has to include this phrase. I have never heard a real judge say it.

In chambers, Dole reveals her strategy. Hinks is innocent and his confession is simply a delusion of his. The one problem with this strategy is that Hinks, the client, refuses to go along with it. Hinks wants to continue to assert that he committed the murders. Dole apparently convinces the Judge that Hinks is delusional and that she, Dole, should be calling the shots. At this point, the show diverges significantly from reality. The judge decides that the strategic decisions made by Dole trump those of Hinks. A defendant should not be a spectator at his own trial. If he is competent, he ultimately decides the strategy, including whether or not to assert various defenses. The problem that the episode does focus on is the fact that our system of justice is adversarial. If one side, like Hinks, does not play along and simply wants to confess to a crime that he did not commit, there are few built-in protections to avoid this result.

Another way in which the case diverges from reality is the testimony of the criminal psychologist Debbie Reynolds, who is the first witness called by Dole. Reynolds's testimony was to have been along the lines that Hinks was suffering from a mental disease so that he could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his acts. Once that defense is jettisoned, she could have testified that Hinks's confession was a product of a psychosis. She goes way beyond this. In essence, Reynolds testifies that she believes that Hinks is innocent and that the jury should believe her, because she is a professional. The prosecution then calls a rebuttal witness (the rebuttal witness should have testified after Dole rested for the defense and not before Hinks testified) who testifies that he believes that Hinks is the killer.

The climax of the show is Dole's examination of Hinks. In the course of her questioning, Dole seemingly demonstrates that Hinks does not know as much about the murders as he claims and certainly less than the real killer would know. As part of her examination, Dole simply makes up a tenth victim and has Hinks testify about this non-existent crime. The effect is to discredit his confession and his testimony. While this is interesting television, none of it would have been necessary if there truly was no physical evidence tying Hinks to the crimes.

Of course, it turns out that Hinks is the serial killer. I doubt that anyone was really surprised by this twist, though I thought Michael Emerson, the actor who played Hinks (the bug-eyed one), did a good job of being creepy and transforming himself, in a matter of thirty seconds, from the delusional, but innocent, defendant to the brilliant, but diabolical, serial killer. He'll be back.

Past Reviews

Message Boards

Disclaimer