FindLaw | Legal News & Information

Gideon's Crossover

A trend in television shows these days is to mix and match characters and blend story lines into different shows. Last season, characters from Ally McBeal referred cases to Donnell, Young, Dole & Frutt. Earlier this season, lawyers from The Practice defended teachers from Boston Public. This week, Ellenor Frutt has a medical emergency and is treated by Dr. Ben Gideon of Gideon's Crossing. She is cured, but not until Monday night's episode of Gideon's Crossing. Personally, I would really like to see more of this type of programming where characters are not restricted to their hour time slots but move effortlessly throughout their network and beyond. Donnell could butt heads with Detective Sipowicz. Jimmy Berlutti could perform improv on Who's Line is it Anyway. Richard Bay could be a Survivor.

Enough of my daydreams. On The Practice this week the theme is the sexual abuse of minors. Helen Gamble prosecutes Bruce Wilson for raping eleven-year old Amanda McGowan. The case is shaky, because McGowan is emotionally unprepared to testify in court. Unfortunately, the only other witness who can identify Wilson as the rapist is Michelle Tritter, an admitted alcoholic. Tritter testifies that she saw Wilson attack McGowan- from 200 feet away, and at night. After Tritter admits on cross-examination that, on the night of the rape, she was too drunk to drive, Gamble finally decides that McGowan must testify.

Increasingly, courts recognize the unique problems created when children are called to testify at criminal trials - especially trials involving sexual abuse. Some states have addressed the problem by keeping the defendant out of the child witness's view, by using a closed circuit television, or putting a screen between the defendant and the witness. These methods keep the defendant's face away from the child's view but allow the defendant to hear the testimony.

Gamble asks the Court to allow McGowan to testify by closed circuit television. In Massachusetts, there used to be a statute that allowed children under fifteen to testify by closed circuit television in sexual abuse cases. However, in 1988, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a case entitled Commonwealth v Bergstrom, 524 N.E.2d 366 (1988), determined that the statute violated the defendant's right under the state constitution to a "face to face" confrontation with his accusers. Therefore, the Judge's denial of Gamble's request was proper.

Gamble feels she has no choice but to call McGowan to testify. As McGowan approaches the witness stand, she sees Wilson, becomes terrified, and freezes. Gamble quickly reverses herself and decides not to call McGowan but, as the defense attorney notes, the damage to the defendant has been done. McGowan's behavior in Court was tantamount to identification, but because she was not sworn as a witness, the defendant was denied his right to cross-examine her. Wilson moves for a mistrial that is properly denied by the Judge. Since McGowan was never sworn in as a witness, nothing she did or said was proper evidence in the case, and any harm can be avoided by instructing the jury to disregard what they saw - which is precisely what the Judge does. Moreover, if the defense thought it absolutely needed to cross-examine McGowan, it could have called her as its own witness - a point that was never made.

The closing arguments are pretty much what you would expect. The defense argues that there is no physical evidence - no semen, no DNA, no fiber, no hair - linking Wilson to McGowan. The only evidence is the word of an alcoholic. Gamble's closing is pretty weak. Indeed, she seemed to play up the fact that there is little hard evidence linking Wilson to the crime. As to Tritter, all Gamble says is that she's "not perfect, no witness ever is." Her exhortation to "get the man who did this" comes pretty close to vigilantism - but it works. This is TV magic, and Gamble finally wins one.

The second case also may involve the sexual abuse of a minor. Raymond Littlefield is accused of killing his sixteen-year old stepdaughter, Fiona, whom he may also have been sleeping with. Although his trial is imminent, Littlefield has decided to change lawyers because he believes his lawyer no longer believes in his innocence.

Against his instincts, Donnell agrees to take the case. His first priority is to seek a ruling from the Court that the stepdaughter's statements to her friends and to her therapist that she was sleeping with her stepfather will not be admitted at the trial. There is no physical or other evidence to corroborate the girl's statements of the affair. Her mother and her sister both state that Fiona is a pathological liar who more than likely made the statements to get attention. Given these facts, the Court allows the motion to suppress the statements.

Donnell then turns his attention to the strategy he will follow at trial. If the stepfather did not commit the murder, who did? Fiona's mother? She might have found out her daughter was having an affair with her husband and, in a fit of rage, smacked her with a nine iron. Also, she has a motive. Now that Fiona has died, her mother has become the beneficiary of a $2 million dollar family trust. However, Fiona's mother was at a school board meeting the night the murder took place. What about her sister Jenny? Jenny seems to be holding something back - if she did not kill her sister, maybe she knows who did. Or was she also sleeping with her father? And then there's the "other" woman. Littlefield was having an affair with a woman (a lawyer, at that, and one who knows that Donnell is out to "Plan B" someone). Could she have smacked Fiona with a mashie in a fit of vengeance?

At the end of the show, Donnell learns that Littlefield's sperm was found "near" Fiona's vagina. What does that mean? Can Littlefield be the murderer? Does this remind anyone of "Presumed Innocent?" In any event, this means that Fiona's statements about her affair with her stepfather should now be admissible.

The one part of the show that surprised me was Donnell, Young, Dole & Frutt's newfound concern about ethics. As Donnell is considering accusing Fiona's mother of murdering her own daughter, Jimmy Berlutti suggests that doing so might raise an ethical issue because it was the mother who retained the firm. They consult Rebecca ("Don't snap at me. I just got out of a coma!") who concludes that the issue is "murky." I don't think it is - the client is Littlefield, and the firm's sole obligation is to him. In any event, they then decide to consult an outside attorney to clarify the issue. Huh?

Other Reviews  West Wing  Law & Order  Ally McBeal  Ed

Are these the same lawyers who think nothing of marching into a Judge's chamber out of the presence of the opposing attorney to argue a case? Are these the same lawyers who think nothing of defending a client where they have to call one another as witnesses in the case? Are these the same lawyers who think nothing of sleeping with a Judge and appearing before her on other matters? These are lawyers who don't think much. While this week's concern about ethics is probably an improvement, it's not believable.

Past Practice Reviews | Message Boards