The Practice (1997–2004): Season 5, Episode 2 - Germ Warfare - full transcript

Previously on
"The Practice"...

My client was in shock

at the time
of this interrogation.

He had just
found his wife dead

less than an hour
before this.

I'll allow the videotape
for impeachment purposes only.

He killed my sister.

Don't tell me now
that he's going to walk.

Mr. Barrett, we had hoped
to be able to introduce

the videotape interrogation.

And you can't?



Not unless we get him
on the stand.

This will only happen

if his lawyers think
he's losing.

Which means,
when we ask you,

"Did your sister
seem suicidal?",

a response
of "I didn't think so"

isn't going to do it.

She was murdered
if you know it.

She did not commit suicide.
You absolutely know it.

Did your sister say
anything else, sir?

She said that
if she turned up missing

that I should call
the police

because Scott probably
did something to her.

BOBBY: Objection!



I know what you said to him,
how you coached him to --

Hey, Helen!

The man committed perjury,
Richard.

We both know it.

-I want to testify.
-I can't let you.

Bobby --

The defense rests,
your honor.

We find the defendant
Scott Wallace...

guilty.

This thing was built
to bring children joy,

and it's toxic.

The number Ellenor and I
think is reasonable

is 160 per child.

Nothing is good enough
for what they did to our kids.

$20,000.

$20,000?

Apiece.

And we're only offering it
to avoid the publicity

that this hearing
might generate.

We have children

with severe
learning disabilities.

Even if that thing is toxic,

the government didn't
manufacture it.

I don't think we'll lose
at summary judgment.

To say that the EPA knew
of a leaching problem

and failed either to correct it
or to warn about it

makes them negligent

is, in fact, a question
a jury should be deciding,

not a judge.

What happened?

We're still alive.

Are your experts ready?

JIMMY:
They're all set.

Dr. Tilotson flew in
this morning.

He's going to be great.

He's very dignified
and very persuasive.

Who have they got?

The EPA?
How about everybody.

They can't afford
to lose this case.

The precedent would be
a disaster.

She's nervous.

I am not.

Okay, look.
This is not like tobacco,

where the jury's going
to go in thinking

that the defendant is evil.

There's no predisposition
weighing in your favor here.

In fact, in this case,

the jury's fears will work
against you.

How do you figure that?

People don't want
to believe

that playground equipment
all over

is poisoning
their children.

They don't want to believe

that the government
could know about it

and just look the other way
because of politics.

Well, that's exactly --

People don't want
to believe it, Ellenor,

And you have to be mindful
of that as you try this case.

You are arguing something
nobody wants to accept.

Okay, Bobby.
We get it.

How is your science?

It's circumstantial
but credible.

Don't focus on proof
so much.

It's hammering the fact

that the EPA didn't test
this stuff enough.

All right, Bobby,
we have done this before.

We've been preparing this case
for eight months now,

and we know
what we have to do.

Anything else?

Yeah.

Win.

♪ (theme)

You ready?

Yeah, as ready
as I'm going to get.

Aren't you
going in today?

Yeah, just moving slow.

You okay, Helen?

Yeah.

Don't I look fabulous?

It's just you've been
acting a little blue

for about a week now.

Really?
Must be a mid-life thing.

Promised myself

if I wasn't rich
and famous by 30, I'd --

I'd at least be sleeping
with someone who was.

I'm working as fast
as I can, Bobby.

Get Jimmy to help you.

He's third-chairing
the Jamison trial.

Look, while we sit
on our hands,

Scott Wallace is sitting
in jail.

Nobody is sitting
on their hands,

especially me.

I'm off to see him now.

Bobby,
you are going to let him in

on everything
he has to appeal?

The injuries
are neurological,

most likely caused
by a toxin.

Did you form
an opinion, doctor,

as to what caused these
neurological injuries?

We couldn't make any findings
to a medical certainty,

but it's my belief that
these children were exposed

to arsenic poisoning,

and it was determined
the likely culprit

was a play gym
in the backyard.

Okay,
and can you tell us

why you fault
the play gym?

The wood was treated

with chromated copper
arsenicals,

commonly known as CCA.

It's a fungicide.
It's an insecticide.

It's also a carcinogen.

Over time,
it can break down.

The kids touch it,

they put their hands
in their mouths,

and they ingest it.

The neuropathy
these children suffered

is consistent
with the injuries

typically caused
by exposure to CCA.

You can't prove
that this play equipment

caused these problems,
can you, doctor?

Can I prove it? No.

In fact, doctor,

you can't even prove
to a medical certainty

that exposure to CCA
even causes

neurological damage
of any kind, can you?

There is certainly enough
anecdotal evidence

to strongly suggest
that it does.

Can you prove it, doctor?

One of the reasons

it hasn't been
scientifically proven

is that we haven't done
enough testing to --

You cannot prove it,

can you, doctor?

No.

Ms. Gamble?

Mr. Barrett,
thank you for coming by.

What's going on?

Well, nothing
to worry about,

but, uh, you know,

I'm anticipating
the defense to appeal.

I think I told you this.

And?

My feeling is

one of the grounds
they'll be raising

is the veracity
of your testimony.

I thought I could best
head that off at the pass

by offering
polygraph results.

You could take the test
in my office.

It won't take more
than an hour.

I thought they weren't
ever admissible.

For suspects.
For witnesses,

they can actually carry
some weight.

I don't want to take
any polygraph.

It would be a big help
to me if you did.

I'm sorry,
I don't want to do that.

Why is that,
Mr. Barrett?

Did you not
tell the truth?

I'm going to need
that polygraph.

Otherwise,
I might be compelled

to go to the judge
and ask for a new trial.

I don't know
what's going on, Ms. Gamble,

but I'm not taking
a lie detector.

You could be facing
perjury, Mr. Barrett.

I think you should
have your lawyer

pay me a visit...today.

All these names came
out of your wife's rolodex.

I need you to go through it
and tell us who they are.

What are you looking for?

The desperation of it
will probably depress you.

Tell me.

Well, is there
any possibility

that it wasn't suicide,

that somebody else
killed her?

What?

I know it's out there,
but, well,

she was leaving you.

Suppose she was seeing
somebody else.

Suppose
after you two fought,

she called him
and he came over to get her.

And killed her?

I haven't exactly thought it
through, I'm just --

I'm just groping
for something.

Well, you're right.
This depresses me.

Just go through the list.

I want to know
who everybody is.

What about the appeal?

We're putting it together.

Listen, Scott, um...

you have one other ground
we need to talk about.

It could cost me
my bar card.

What are you talking about?

You were denied
your right to testify by me.

You were adamant
about getting up there,

and I just cut you off
and rested the defense.

I think it's an issue.

Well, you did it

because you believed
it was the best strategy.

But in the end
it has to be your decision,

and I totally usurped it.

You might want to think
about hiring a new lawyer

and making that

one of the grounds
for appeal.

What, can't you argue it?

It's a little strange
for me

to argue
my own infraction.

(sighs)
Bobby...

the situation that I'm in,

it's not likely I'm going
to get out of here.

I know the odds.

Now, if I am to have
any chance,

I need a lawyer who feels

he's in the hole here
with me,

and you're it.

Now, doctor, can you get
the arsenic on your skin

by touching
the playground equipment?

When the coating
breaks down, absolutely.

It can even be inhaled,

especially
when the wood is wet.

Have any studies
ever proved this?

Yes, and the EPA
evaluated studies in 1978

and further studies
in 1981 and 1987.

All right, doctor,

is this wood a real risk
in your medical opinion?

Everybody defines risk
for themselves,

but let me put it
this way --

these things are
cancer death traps

and they're in backyards
all over the country.

Those EPA tests
about inhaling and ingesting

the arsenic off wood --

those studies were
on unsealed wood,

weren't they, doctor?

I believe so.

The wood on this playground
equipment was coated.

In time,
the coating breaks down

and seepage
from arsenic increases.

What about the wood we use
to build our houses?

That's all treated

with a termite pesticide,
isn't it?

Yes.

Carcinogen?

Probably.

So maybe even our houses

are potential
cancer death traps,

We can't rule it out.

The house you live in,
what's it made of?

Wood, but being inside,
the coating is less likely
to break down.

But the outside wood
on our houses, our porches,
our decks,

this is all treated
with CCA,

same as the play gym
equipment, right, doctor?

Most of it is, yes.

So basically, we're all
living in death traps

according to your
medical opinion.

We can't rule it out.

Overall, I think
he came off well

and it was
a good first day.

We still obviously have
big problems on causation,

but I think
the jury is with us.

They definitely are.
I was watching their faces.

What happens next?

They'll put up Feldman
from the EPA.

Lindsay, are you ready?

Totally.

This guy is tough --

he's got experience
as a witness,

and he's not afraid to go
right back at the lawyer.

I'm ready.

If we do damage here,

our chances become
very good.

Do we testify?

We've decided to hold you
for rebuttal.

We want your testimony
to come

as close to the end
as possible.

Our goal is for the jury

to be thinking of a family
in that room,

not just chemicals
and a bunch of scientists.

But your feeling is
it's going well so far?

I think
it's going quite well,

but...

their big gun comes next.

You okay?

Yeah, yeah,
I'm just, uh,

just thinking.

Your cross on the doctor?

I've got to get him,
Bobby.

If -- if I don't
get him...

You will.

You will.

First of all,
whether a district attorney

thinks
a witness lied or not,

that has no relevance.

It does to me.

It's the prerogative
of the jury

to weigh his credibility.
They did so.

Mr. Stone,
your client lied.

A man is serving
a life sentence,

in part,
because of that lie.

Allow me to be

a little bit uncomfortable
with that.

Okay, Ms. Gamble,

I'll put myself in your shoes
and feel your discomfort.

Now you put yourself
in mine.

Why in God's name
would I ever agree

to let Kyle Barrett take
a lie detector?

How about simple justice?

I was away last week.

Did the system suddenly
become about that?

I don't find cynicism
persuasive.

Well, idealism can be
pretty incredible, as well.

I will not let my client

expose himself to possible
perjury charges...

I will grant him immunity
on that.

Nor will I advise him
to help undo the conviction

of his sister's killer.

Mr. Stone,
I won't sit quiet on this.

Please.

What are you going to do?

The Environmental
Protection Agency

id extensive testing on CCA
throughout the '80s.

We continue to test it,

and we have
consistently found

that it does not pose
an unreasonable risk

to either children or adults.

But with the possibility
of a risk,

shouldn't the EPA
do something?

We have.

The EPA developed
a warning program

which requires retailers
to issue advisories

that CCA poses
potential hazards.

Their contention that
we have done nothing here

is false.

Well, I think
their main contention is

you haven't done enough.

We have federal insecticide
laws to deal with.

Under the law,
we have to weigh

the potential adverse effects
of a chemical

against the economic and social
benefits and costs.

With CCA, wood lasts
up to five times longer.

Now, this represents
a huge benefit to schools

who could never
afford playgrounds otherwise,

to poor communities
who could never build them

without the preservative.

But with the chance
they cause cancer,

do we want
schools building them?

Well, if it really
caused cancer, of course not,

but to date there is
no conclusive evidence

that exposure to CCA
causes cancer

or any neurological
side effects.

There just isn't.

Are there any
conclusive studies to show

that it's safe?

No, nor are there
with most food preservatives.

Should the FDA
ban potato chips?

Potato chips don't contain
a pesticide.

The pesticide is coated.

It is sealed, counsel.

What if the seal
doesn't work?

You're aware
of Dr. Stilwell's study

showing the arsenic
is leaching

from this playground equipment
into the soil?

That's one study.
The EPA has asked

to see the data
supporting it.

Until we review it,

we can't attach
any scientific credibility.

The State of California does.

They banned these
wooden play gyms from schools

unless they're re-coated
every other year

out of fear that the children
could be poisoned.

Many scientists feel that
that was an overreaction.

In 1997, a group
of physicians

and scientists
informed the EPA

that wood preservatives
constituted a health threat

to this country and --

Yes, and conservationists
lobby us

on behalf
of the rain forest.

But without these preservatives,
more trees would be cut down.

So kill a child,
save a tree?

Objection.

Sustained.

You talked about the EPA
requiring advisories

warning that CCA poses
a potential health risk.

-Yes.
-Actually, that was

a voluntary program,
wasn't it, Dr. Feldman?

If the wood industry didn't
want to issue the advisories,

they didn't have to,
and most of them still don't,

right, doctor?

This wasn't a situation
where a mandate was warranted.

The truth is
you were all set

to issue a mandate here
when the wood manufacturers

suddenly lobbied Congress
to get you to back off.

I don't know anything
about that.

And isn't it true
the EPA also backed off

requiring further studies
when the chemical industry

gave $4 million in campaign
contributions to congressmen

to lean on you?

The EPA has never
been bought, counsel,

I assure you.

I show you the EPA's
1981 position paper

regarding inorganic
arsenicals,

and I ask you to read
the highlighted paragraph.

All this basically says
is we don't know.

You don't know.

That same paper cites
a 1973 study which associates

arsenic-tainted milk
with severe retardation,

lower I. Q. s,
and abnormal EEG findings.

That was a study
of Japanese babies.

You don't count Japan?

What else doesn't
the EPA know, doctor,

-and when did they not know it?
-Objection.

Withdrawn.
In 1996, the EPA

failed to warn over a million
power plant employees

-that they were at risk
for mercury poisoning.
-Objection.

Because the coal lobby pressured
you, you backed off there.

-Objection. Relevance.
-Goes to pattern.

They were being bought then
just like they're being
bought now.

-Objection!
-Objection!

Overruled.

You lay off chemical companies,

don't you, Dr. Feldman?

That is absolutely
not true.

From 1989 to 1998,

of all the hundreds,

if not thousands
of pesticides out there,

now many did you get
neurotoxicity data on?

I don't know
the exact number.

I do. It's nine.

Of the hundreds,
if not thousands

of industrial chemicals,
how many did you ask for

and get
the neurotoxicity data on?

Again, I don't know
the number.

It's three.

You guys are
quite the watchdogs.

-Objection!
-Objection!

Withdrawn.
Nothing further.

Of the five names
you couldn't identify,

two were maiden names
of married women you did I. D.

One was a pool contractor.

Oh, yeah,
we were thinking

about installing a pool
last year.

One we're still checking,

and one was a psychiatrist --
Dr. Bernard White.

A psychiatrist?

Was your wife
seeing a shrink?

Not that I'm aware of.

He's in Cambridge.
I'll pay him a visit.

Listen, on the other...

I understand
if you want to replace me,

I'd even recommend it.

Can you recommend someone
as good

who will try as hard?

Look, Bobby, I'm glad
you think you screwed up.

It's my insurance policy

that you'll keep trying.

I'll keep trying.

You don't have to worry
about that.

I'm not.

They told us it really
wasn't that uncommon

for a boy to have seizures.

Did they test him
for epilepsy?

Oh, they tested him
for everything.

They finally settled on
a toxin getting to the brain.

And what did you do?

There was nothing
we could do.

We got him on medication,

which controlled
the seizures.

We thought, you know,
that was that.

Then, uh...

Sarah started falling down.

What do you mean
she started falling down?

She, um...

She would trip.

If she tried
to play hopscotch,

she'd fall
flat on her face.

They thought maybe she had
cerebral palsy.

And then things started
to happen with Everett?

He can't read.

He will never be
in a normal class.

He'll never go to college.

And you knew.

-Objection.
-I have a boy

whose body convulses,

with foam coming
out of his mouth,

and a daughter who keeps
falling down

and a son who can't read,

and you people have known
for 30 years.

Your honor.

Mrs. Jamison,
please just answer

the questions you're asked.

What was the question?

The question was,

when your son
started having seizures,

didn't the doctors say
it could've come

from a whole host
of chemicals,

including the cleaning solutions
you kept in the house?

And then I got rid
of all that stuff.

Do you live near
high power lines?

-Yes, but --
-And did the doctors
inquire about them?

Yes. They ruled them out
as a cause.

Did you and your husband

undergo any genetic testing?

No.

I see.

Where is
the play equipment today?

It's still
in our backyard.

You think this equipment
is harming your children,

and it's still there?

We don't let them
play on it.

Well, why not get rid
of it altogether?

-Our lawyers told us not to,
not until we --
-Objection.

I need to advise my client that
that is privileged.

She does not need
to answer that.

It's also work product.

You kept it as evidence
for your lawsuit?

Objection.

Sustained.

Just one last question,
Mrs. Jamison.

Did any doctor
who treated your children

conclude that their problems

came from the CCA
in the play equipment?

Did any of them
conclude that?

No.

Thank you, Mrs. Jamison.

We really appreciate you
taking the time.

Sure. But as I told you
on the phone,

I'm not comfortable
revealing information

about my patients.

I understand.

You did treat
Mrs. Wallace, then.

I know the identity
of my patients

aren't protected
by privilege, Mr. Donnell.

Nevertheless, I am
reluctant to reveal them.

But as you said yourself,
that isn't privileged.

And even if it were,

it wouldn't survive
the death of the patient.

Mr. Donnell,
I know what the law is.

I know you can subpoena
my records.

Hence, I agreed
to this meeting.

Could you tell us what
you were treating her for?

Anxiety, sleepless
and depression.

Did you say depression?

-Yes.
-You know that we argued
that she killed herself.

Yes, I read the papers.

Well, why didn't you
come forward?

The prosecution was claiming
she wasn't suicidal.

You had information
that she was depressed.

Mr. Donnell, 80%
of my patients are depressed.

They don't typically
take their own lives.

But sometimes they do.

-How could you sit on this?
-I sat on this
because I don't believe

that Karen was suicidal.
Secondly, if psychiatrists

start speaking posthumously
on their patients

that could have a chilling
effect on treatment.

Most people want
their record sealed,

before their
death and after.

We had a man charged
with murder here.

The jury convicted him

because they didn't believe
the idea she was depressed.

Don't yell at me.

-I will yell at you!
-Bobby.

-What the hell
were you thinking?
-All right.

-I was thinking
she was probably murdered.
-Well, you were wrong!

Bobby.

We need this guy.

Can we get those records?

Please.

We live
in a land of chemicals,

and it's
pretty out of control.

There's an epidemic
of autism in California.

It's up over 200%
in the last 13 years.

In New York,

learning disabilities
are up 55%.

The likely culprit --

chemicals.

And we can't expect
the private industries

to monitor themselves.

The market
is just too competitive,

just like
in everything else.

If the wood manufacturers

can make these play gyms
and deck porches better --

more profitable --
they will,

and they won't worry
about the toxic side effects,

and that's why
we need the EPA.

Just like, as the airlines
become more competitive

and cut back on their mechanics
to increase profits,

we need the FAA
to step in and protect us,

so, too,
do we need the EPA

to fulfill its duty
to the public.

And the fact is
they're not.

They've known for decades
it could be dangerous,

and they have done nothing.

They are still doing nothing.

Why?

In part because of politics.

Campaign contributions
from chemical companies

and wood manufacturers have
resulted in successful lobbying

to get the EPA to back off,
and children

like the Jamison kids
are getting severely hurt.

The EPA throws its hands up
and says,

"Hey, you can't prove it.
We don't know for sure.

We don't have the data.
The tests are incomplete."

Well, why aren't they
ordering those tests?

Why aren't they
demanding data?

They have restricted
the use of CCA

around farm animals
but not around children.

Is it because
the farming industry

has a lobby
but children don't?

What is going on?

They've known for decades

that there's arsenic
in that wood.

It gets out, it gets ingested,
it gets inhaled,

and they haven't
done so much

as to alert the public
of the risk.

And that's all
it would have taken here.

A simple warning,

and the Jamisons never would
have put that play gym

in their backyard.

You heard their star witness
Dr. Feldman.

He said EPA decisions are made
on a cost-benefit analysis.

We need you to put
a big price tag

on their failures.

We need you
to make it cost-efficient

for them
to protect our children.

One thing is clear --

if you don't, they won't.

She's right about one thing --

we do live
in an age of chemicals.

Want to kill the mosquito
with the Nile virus?

Chemicals.

Don't want to get botulism
from your canned soup?

Chemicals. Preservatives.

And I suppose the EPA

could demand proof
that every one

of those chemicals
is completely safe

before allowing their usage,

and people would die
of contaminants and viruses

and bacteria --
many, many more people.

Almost every consumer product

poses some
unproven health risk.

Should the EPA ban them all?

They studied CCA in wood.

The EPA appointed a special
scientific advisory panel

to look at this.

Their recommendation
back to the EPA

was not to ban the substance.

Now, the plaintiffs

may not like
those scientific findings,

they may choose
to disagree,

but this notion that the EPA
knew it was dangerous

and chose to ignore the risks

under the influence
of paid-off congressmen --

that's as slanderous
as it is baseless.

This is something
they are studying.

The EPA is a government agency
doing its very best to keep up

with this rapidly changing
scientific landscape,

and the decisions it makes,

they have to be made
on what is known

as opposed to what's not.

And today, like yesterday,

it has not been
scientifically established

that CCA causes
the neurological defects

the plaintiffs speak of.

And even if it did,

they have offered
no medical evidence whatsoever

that it did so in the case
of the Jamison children.

Their own doctor admitted
she was speculating,

she was guessing
at what caused these injuries.

As much as you may feel
for these children --

and you should feel,
as should we all --

we have to admit
that their entire case

is based on pure speculation

and nothing more.

You want me to sign this?

It's what happened,
Richard.

An affidavit saying
I coached a witness to lie?

It doesn't say lie.

That's the implication.

Richard --

What the hell
is going on?

We both know he lied.

He made that stuff up about
his sister being afraid.

Helen, what are you trying
to accomplish?

He should get
a new trial.

I'm not signing this.

Richard,
we can't just let --

You're not taking me down.

You might have some
professional death wish.

I don't, and if you think

that I'm going
to let you go forward --

I was in the room.
I heard what you told him.

I told him what his testimony
needed to accomplish.

I never said lie.

But that is what he did.

You don't know that.

Maybe he lied,
but neither of us know that.

Maybe you can live with
this conviction. I can't.

Well, I'll fight you
on this, Helen.

I'll fight you
all the way.

You know, Richard,

it's one thing
to be competitive.

It is another to try
and rack up convictions

out of ambition

with no regard
for a man's innocence.

I don't believe
he's innocent,

and if you go forward

saying I coached
a witness to lie,

your career could be over.

Our friendship
definitely will be.

I don't know if the jury
liked your closing, Lindsay,

but the defense
was impressed.

We have a new offer.

What?

$225,000 per child.

That's $675,000,

and they will
write a check right now.

That, uh...
that beats $20,000.

It certainly does.

Should we take it?

Well, it's hard
to turn that down,

but I suspect they had
jury consultants
sitting in on the trial

who had advised them
to settle, so I don't know.

675.

Could we get more?

We could.

We could also lose.

I think we're going
to get more.

Why?

I just do.

This isn't the time
to get greedy.

It's not about greed,
Mr. Berluti.

Like Lindsay said,

we want them
to fix the problem.

Angela has intuition
about these things.

Let's go to verdict.

Are you sure?

Are you?

It's going to be more.

It's right here --
depression.

He wanted to prescribe
antidepressants.

She didn't
want to take them.

It's all right here.

Lucy, see if we can get in
to see Judge Wolfe

this afternoon.
This is new evidence.

Eugene, call Helen Gamble,
tell her --

Helen, we were
just talking about you.

We got new evidence
on the Wallace case.

Really? I've got some news
on that myself.

What?

I'm convinced

that Kyle Barrett
lied on the stand

after being coached
by the prosecution.

Is it a good sign,
them coming back so fast?

No.

Deliberations on damages
would have been lengthy.

If they find
no liability,

then the damages
will be moot.

Can we still
take their offer?

I asked.

They laughed.

Madam Foreperson, the jury
has rendered its verdict?

We have, your honor.

What say you?

In the matter
of Steven Jamison et al.

Vs. The environmental
protection agency,

we find in favor
of the plaintiff

and order the defendant

to pay damages
in the amount

of $72 million.

(crowd murmuring)

Oh, my God. Oh, my God.

ANGELA: Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.

(judge pounds gavel)

Your honor --
your honor --

Settle down. This court
is still in session.

Your honor, the defense
moves to remit the award.

We also move that
the verdict be set aside.

Opposed.

I will see counsel
in chambers immediately.

(judge pounds gavel)

What's going on?

They're looking to strike
the award as excessive.

Can they do that?

Well, $72 million
is a lot.

But that's
what the jury found.

Let us talk to the judge

and we'll see
what's going on, okay?

JIMMY: It's all right.

The number alone tells you
the jury was off-base.

The fact that they
deliberated for an hour --

Maybe it has something
to do with the merits.

All right.

I'm granting defense's
motion to remit.

The knockdown number
is $135,000 per child.

What?

You chopped it
from $72 million

to $400,000?

That's less
than they offered.

I don't care. Your case was
pure speculation, counsel.

This isn't a matter of law.

You are substituting
your judgment for theirs.

Which I am entitled to do

when the verdict isn't
supported by the facts.

We have a right
to a new trial.

We do not
have to eat your number.

If you take a new trial,

you'll be right back
before me, Ms. Frutt,

and any number over $135,000,
I'll remit again,

if you're lucky
to win next time.

There's no guarantee
the jury will be

as stupid as this one.

And if you do win, I might
remit the next knockdown

to $75,000.

I strongly suggest that
you accept this proposal.

This isn't right.

This isn't right.

Meet with your clients,

then notify my clerk
of your acceptance.

Given this newly discovered
evidence

concerning
the victim's depression,

coupled with this revelation
by the district attorney

regarding the veracity
of their lead witness,

the interests of justice

demand that the verdict
be overturned.

In the alternative, the court
should order a new trial.

I take strong exception
to the suggestion

that I coached
a witness to lie.

There's no evidence
the witness did lie,

only opinion.

Coming from Helen Gamble.

Helen Gamble's opinion
carries no legal relevance.

I assure you

she has no credibility
within our own department.

Why, because
she's honest?

JUDGE WOLFE: All right.

Your honor, this was not
our lead witness.

This was a witness.

Who supplied motive.

You challenged
his truthfulness at trial.

You have nothing new

with which
to challenge it here.

As for the doctor's report,
I spoke to Dr. White.

He did not consider
Karen Wallace

to be suicidal.

The prosecution
portrayed her as optimistic.

Which you also challenged
at trial.

Not with these medical
reports, we didn't.

All right. Ms. Gamble
brought her concerns

regarding this witness
to the court's attention.

As I told her,

it is the jury's function

to weigh
Mr. Barrett's credibility,

not hers.

As I go through
her affidavit,

I don't think
Mr. Bay crossed the line.

Lawyers prepare witnesses
all the time.

I see no evidence
that he solicited perjury.

As for the doctor's report,

I find that to be relevant,

but I am not satisfied

that it would have resulted
in a different verdict.

The conviction,
therefore, stands.

Defendant's motion
for a new trial is denied,

and we are adjourned.

I'm not quitting.

Well, what happens now?

We'll go to appeals,

challenge some
of the legal rulings.

I'm not quitting.

I don't understand.

The judge
can cut back an award

if he thinks
it's too high.

What's the point
of a jury trial?

We go through all that
with a jury...

Well, judges
don't like to do it.

With this guy,
I'm not sure.

So if we opt
for a new trial,

we'll get him again?

That's what he's saying --

that he's going
to keep it on his docket.

It could be a year before--

(sighs)
I'm going to be sick.

I think --

I think we have to eat it
at $135,000.

If he keeps jurisdiction,

he's told us
that we can't do better.

We could lose.

This is so unfair.

We should be able
to get the money today.

We got no choice.

This isn't fair.

You blind-sided
the department --

embarrassed it.

And now we have to deal
with a media that--

I think that
it would be best

if you submitted
your resignation.

You're not getting
my resignation,

and if you fire me
over this...

then just watch the media
come at you.

Why are you
doing this, Helen?

We all say better to let
a guilty man go free

than put an innocent one
in jail.

An innocent man is serving
a life sentence, Kate.

If this were Texas,
he might already be dead.

When, suddenly,
did you become the jury?

The jury doesn't know
he passed a polygraph.

The jury doesn't know
a witness was coached,

that he lied.

The jury doesn't know
a lot of stuff, Kate.

I do.

You're right, Helen.

I can't retaliate over this.

So I'm going to just
go back to my office

and wait
for your next mistake.

Every day
I'll just wait.

Thanks
for dropping by, Kate.

Okay, look...

we had a bad day.
We'll have them again.

We can't just sit here
and brood.

Bec's right.

We got to concentrate
on picking up pieces now.

I'm going to get him.

That judge --

I'm going to get him.

♪ (theme)

You stinker!