The Practice (1997–2004): Season 5, Episode 6 - Show and Tell - full transcript

Previously on
"The Practice"...

My client was in shock at
the time of this interrogation.

He'd just found his wife dead
less than an hour before this.

She said that if she
turned up missing

that I should
call the police

because Scott probably
did something to her.

BOBBY: Objection!

We find the defendant
Scott Wallace...guilty.

You got to get me out.

-Scott--
-Get me out!

You got a problem.



The man is on the verge
of a psychotic breakdown.

He needs to be transferred
to a mental facility right now.

I'm convinced
that Kyle Barrett

lied on the stand

after being coached
by the prosecution.

Mr. Barrett,
you had a meeting

with Richard Bay
and Helen Gamble, did you not?

On the advice of counsel,

I'm exercising
my fifth amendment right

not to answer your question.

I have been ordered
to conduct a full hearing

into this perjury business.

That hearing has been thwarted
by the primary witness

exercising his
fifth amendment right.



The conviction of Scott Wallace
is hereby set aside.

It is the order of this court
that he be granted a new trial.

This is the part
that kills us.

That's the bomb.

This time
you will have to testify.

I can handle all the witnesses.
We're in good shape there.

But that videotape

and your response to it
on the stand--

that's what will decide
this case.

I'm ready.

REPORTER:
Do you feel pressure
because he's your friend

or because you failed him?

Both.

I want to get him out
because I care about him

and, yeah, because I tried
a lousy case.

Of course I feel pressure.
How could I not?

This guy committed murder,

and the only thing standing
between him and the street...

is me.

It's a bit unusual
for the lead prosecutor

to suddenly flip
and think he's innocent.

Helen Gamble started
feeling guilty over tactics,

and she became clouded
by her conscience.

That's all.

She claims you coached
a witness to lie.

She's wrong.

Richard Bay
will do anything.

D.A.s like him make it easier
for defense attorneys like me

to stay passionate
about what we do

because to me, he basically
represents a police state.

Oh, I don't expect it
to be at all civil.

Bobby Donnell
fights for clients

like it was his life
on the line

and Richard Bay prosecutes
like the victim was his mother.

Isn't that good--
zealous advocates?

Isn't that
what it should be about?

One would think,

but when fights
get this ugly,

it's rarely in
the interest of truth.

It's messy.
It gets personal.

Do you think you'll win?

I know I will.

How can you be so sure?

Because this time
I have the video,

which means Scott Wallace

will have to take the stand
and explain it,

and when he does,
I'll get him.

He'll lose it up there.

You watch.

♪ (theme)

(horns honking)

(siren wails)

BAY: Witnesses
are never objective.

Of course,
I want you to appear neutral,

but you need to be
every bit the advocate I am.

Never forget-- your goal
is to help the prosecution

secure a conviction,

to put a murderer in prison.

That means you're gonna have to
stand up to Bobby Donnell.

You can't be steered,

and he will absolutely try
to do just that.

His whole defense
is reasonable doubt.

Every question he asks you,
it's to build reasonable doubt.

At the first trial

he got you all to admit
things were possible,

and you all did so
too submissively.

This is why I've brought
Cindy Keller in tonight.

She's our
behavioral psychologist.

When the defense lawyer

forces you to say the words
that he wants you to say,

you can, nevertheless,

use body language
to convey your opinion.

It's all a presentation,

and you have to
train your witnesses

to be showmen a little.

The key is, they can't come off
too much like advocates.

If they do,
they have less credibility.

We used to have an advantage.
People trusted the police.

That advantage is gone now.

BOBBY:
Because they cheat,

and Richard Bay will cheat.
He absolutely will.

That seems to be
a refrain with you.

One that I have to be mindful of
the entire trial.

What will be different
about this trial?

I'm gonna win.

I mean tactics,
evidence, witnesses.

What will
be different there?

That tape...

that damn videotape.

He'll play it
every chance he gets.

HELEN: We think
you had an argument.

You hit her...
maybe by accident.

She was unconscious.

You were afraid
of how it might look.

You put her in the car to
make it look like a suicide.

That's what happened,
isn't it?

Detective Larson,
does that videotape

fairly and accurately depict
what happened in that room?

Yes, it does.

What did happen in that room?

From my experience,

Scott Wallace admitted
to killing his wife.

Objection.

Overruled.

Did he ever say
he killed his wife?

-No, but--
-In fact, he maintained
his innocence,

and he still does,
doesn't he, detective?

But when confronted--

When you say "admitted,"

you mean the behavior
we just witnessed on this tape.

-Right, detective?
-Correct.

With words, he's always
maintained his innocence,

hasn't he, detective?

With words, yes.

Are you a psychologist,
detective?

No, I'm not.

And if a psychologist
was of the opinion

that Mr. Wallace's behavior
on that tape--

Objection. He's trying
to introduce psychiatric testi--

I'm posing a hypothetical
to the witness.

I'll allow it.

If a psychologist
was of the opinion that

Mr. Wallace's breakdown
on that tape

was more the product of
despondency--

Your honor,
if he wants to introduce
psychiatric testimony, he--

Mr. Bay, your objection
is overruled.

BOBBY: Once again,

if a psychologist
looked at that tape

and concluded that
it did not constitute

an admission to the crime,

do you have
any medical training

which would enable you
to overrule him?

Do I have any
medical training?

No. But--

Thank you, detective.
That's all.

How many suspects
have you interrogated

in the course of your career?

Hundreds.

Hundreds. Do you think
you would recognize

a silent admission
if you saw one?

Absolutely.

Based on your experience
as a police officer

who has conducted
hundreds of interrogations,

what did Scott Wallace's silence
convey to you?

An admission
that he committed murder.

Thank you.

Do you have any formal training
in behavioral psychology?

No, I don't.

Thank you.

When we first started,
it was just Bobby and me,

and he was so wide-eyed--

every case, his eyes--

Oh, and if it was
a murder case,

God, the light
coming out from his eyes...

and it didn't bother him a bit
if the guy was probably guilty.

He'd say,
"Bec, we defend the guilty

because ultimately
it protects the innocent."

Or he'd say
that was the high--

You know, when you got a guy
that was actually innocent.

And now he hates it
when they're innocent,

like this one.

It's too much pressure.

That's why none of us last
on this job.

You can only bear
defending the guilty.

And how long can anyone last
doing that?

He was screaming at her,
calling her a liar.

She was pleading with him
to stop screaming.

Are you sure this was
around 9:30 p. m.?

Yes. That's when
I walk my dog.

You recognized
my client's voice screaming

because you'd heard him
scream before?

-Many times.
-So there wasn't anything

hugely unusual
about them arguing that night.

No. They fought a lot.

And, in fact, you didn't
call the police

or try to intervene,
did you, sir?

No.

I wasn't crazy about calling
that witness in the first trial.

I wasn't thrilled
about it here.

But I have to establish
a time line.

As a rule,

when you come across anemic
little wimps like Mr. Berenson

who haven't got the guts
to get involved at the time,

you can be sure

they'll be pretty impotent
as witnesses, too.

But I needed to get in
the time line.

REPORTER: Why are you so sure
he's innocent?

Because I am.
I know him.

Plus, he passed the polygraph.
That's what really gets me.

I mean,
they may not be admissible,

but lie detectors
are pretty damn reliable.

And the prosecution
and the police--

they believe in them
more than I do.

Here we got a guy who passes
over and over and over,

and they still prosecute.

Why, do you think?

Because the media
declared this a murder,

and there was
an ensuing public outcry

to get a conviction.

There seems to be
such a huge distrust here.

You have no idea.

When I first started,

the D. A. s
and defense attorneys--

we'd all go out
at the end of the day.

There were watering holes

where we'd congregate,
swap stories.

You fought hard in court,
but after, it was a--

it was a brotherhood.

Today we go
our separate ways.

They don't trust us,
we don't trust them.

What happened?

It became too much
about winning and losing.

We analyzed a skin fragment

found under
the defendant's fingernail.

It was a genetic match
to Mrs. Wallace.

Did you do any other
DNA testing, Dr. Wang?

Oh, yes.
We found shed skin cells

all over the victim's
head and neck.

They belong to the defendant
Scott Wallace.

If Scott Wallace were trying
to save his wife,

resuscitate her,

it's possible his skin cells

could have gotten on her
that way, am I right?

In my experience,
that would be unlikely.

I asked if it were possible.

I suppose it's possible.

And it's possible,
isn't it, doctor,

that Mrs. Wallace had decided

she wanted to compete
in the Olympics,

and while practicing
a back flip,

she accidentally hit her head
on a blunt instrument

-being held by the defendant?
-Objection!

As long as we're going
for far-fetched possibilities...

Move to strike!

Mr. Bay,
that is quite enough.

Dr. Wang,

based on your years
of experience

as a forensic pathologist,
did you form an opinion

as to the likelihood
of what happened?

Yes, I did.

Could you state that
for the court, please?

She was killed
by the defendant.

The defense has suggested

Mr. Wallace
discovered his wife in the car,

she wasn't breathing,
he pulled her out,

and her head struck
the concrete floor,

causing the fracture.

Yes, I think this is
a bit of a fairy tale.

The fracture--
she was hit very hard.

Is it possible that she
could have gotten this

after she died
by her head hitting the floor?

Anything's possible.

My medical opinion
is somebody hit her.

Doctor, in the first trial,

you testified that this fracture
was severe enough to be fatal.

Didn't you say that?

I did.

Was it the cause of death?

No, the cause of death
was monoxide poisoning.

So it's possible
that the head fracture

came after she died
of the car exhaust, right?

That's not
what I think happened,

but I can't declare it
to be impossible.

Doctor, you're employed by
the commonwealth, aren't you?

-Yes.
-Do you ever get afraid
of losing your job

if you don't secure
convictions--

-Objection!
-Sustained.

BOBBY: Goes to bias,
your honor.

The objection is sustained.
That's it!

Now let's move on.

It's what he does
when he's losing.

It's an excellent sign
for the prosecution

when Bobby Donnell starts
to resort to crap like that.

It means
he thinks he's losing.

In the first trial,

he was getting his possibles,
then resting.

He was more desperate
just then.

Did you see it?

He's going down again...

this time with nothing
to appeal.

You know, I keep thinking
it'll all get corrected.

They've made
this terrible mistake,

and this is the land
of truth and justice,

it'll all get cleared up.

But here I am.

REPORTER: The thinking is
for you to get acquitted,

it'll come down
to your testimony.

Yeah, I know this.

I know this.

Are you scared?

It's way beyond that now.

BOBBY:
I think that's enough.

REPORTER: The arrangement
is complete access.

Well, that's all.
You'll have to leave.

Bobby, Kyle Barrett
isn't testifying.

Why?

Bay just notified the court
they're resting. We're up.

Well, call Dr. Murphy.
He's going to--

I did.
He's on his way.

Why isn't her brother
testifying?

I don't need him.

Plus, he'd get peeled
like an onion up there.

He's a liability.

REPORTER:
I thought you said
he was telling the truth.

I never said that.

I only said I don't know
if he's lying.

That sounds
a little questionable.

Hey, question away.

I only put on the witnesses
I think will help me win.

Kyle Barrett doesn't qualify.

But this is the witness

who got you the conviction
in the first trial.

In the first trial,
I didn't have the video.

Scott Wallace was suffering
from clinical depression.

Were you able to determine
the cause, doctor?

Twin positional traumas.

The first
was his wife's death.

The second, his being accused
of that death.

Doctor, you recommended

that Scott Wallace
be hospitalized, did you not?

I did.

Can you tell us why?

I found him
to be very close

to a complete
mental breakdown.

Doctor, you've seen
this tape before.

I want to play you
a small portion again.

HELEN:
...look like a suicide.

That's what happened,
isn't it?

You've heard the prosecution
characterize that moment

as an admission of guilt
by Scott Wallace.

I think that conclusion

is as dangerous
as it is absurd.

He'd only just discovered
within the last two hours

that his wife was dead,

then he's taken down
to the police station,

he's hit with the accusation
that he murdered her.

To a guilty man, that wouldn't
be as much of a shock,

but to an innocent one,

that could cause the very trauma
I'm talking about.

And when he dropped
his head...

It was in shock.

That was likely
the beginning of his breakdown.

You can state that
for a medical certainty?

No, but--

And you were not in the room
at the time, were you, doctor?

No, I was not.

But if that makes me
incapable of drawing
a conclusion

on the basis of
the video tape,

why are you asking the jury
to do so?

You spoke of
twin positional traumas,

one of those traumas being
the loss of his wife.

Yes?

For this to be so,

he would have to have loved
his wife very deeply, I assume.

And he did,
from my observations.

Well, if this wife
who he loved deeply

told him
she was leaving him,

-couldn't that be traumatic?
-Certainly.

Is it possible that's when
this mental breakdown started--

when she said
she was leaving him?

I suppose it's possible,
but I don't think likely.

Doctor, according
to your diagnosis,

you said Scott Wallace

was in danger of becoming
psychotic, didn't you?

He never became psychotic,
Mr. Bay.

Sometimes when you get
a tough witness,

you take what you can get
and sit the hell down.

I thought I handled him well.

REPORTER: And now you have
the victim's psychiatrist.

I'm not afraid of him.

How can you not be?

He's going to testify
that she was depressed.

He'll say depressed,
then on cross,

I'll get him to say
she wasn't suicidal,
then on redirect,

Bobby will claim he has motive
to say she wasn't suicidal

so he doesn't have her blood
on his hands.

It's vintage Bobby Donnell.

He gets a witness to help him,
then he hangs him out.

You watch.

You seem a little more
agitated now.

I'm not agitated.
This is adrenaline.

It's a fight. This--

I'm not agitated.

My little informal poll
in the gallery--

they think you're losing.

I'm not losing.

Why would people
think you are?

Because with galleries,
it's about popularity.

Bobby Donnell
is good-looking.

With juries,
it's about weighing evidence,

and they'll do that.

I'm not losing.

What were you
treating Karen Wallace for?

Anxiety, depression.

Depression?

Yes.

What was she
depressed over?

Mainly her marriage.

She felt
it was rather loveless.

Also her life.

Did you regard her
as suicidal?

No, I did not.

But, doctor, now that
she's turned up dead,

do you now think
perhaps she was suicidal?

No, I do not.

Many people experience
depression and hopelessness.

That doesn't mean
they take their lives.

I mean, the very reason that
Mrs. Wallace had come to me

was to improve things.
She was looking forward.

I don't believe at all
that she had the mental state

to take her own life.

How did it make you feel

to learn that a patient you
had been treating for depression

killed herself?

Obviously, it was
distressing to hear it.

Certainly a person
experiencing hopelessness,

suffering depression,
found dead from
monoxide poisoning

with a hose connected to
the exhaust pipe of the car--

you had to wonder
if maybe she did kill herself.

Didn't you
at least wonder, doctor?

I wondered,

but I still don't believe
she took her life.

Well, if it were foreseeable
that she might take her life

and you did nothing,

you might be held liable,
isn't that right, doctor?

What are you saying,
Mr. Donnell?

I'm saying you have motive
to deny she was suicidal.

Objection-- leading.

After she's found dead,
you don't even

notify the police
that you were treating her?

-No.
-What were you
trying to hide?

-Objection.
-Permission to treat
the witness as hostile.

-Objection.
-Overruled.

Why not come forward
to anybody and say,

"Hey, I was treating her"?

-There's a privilege.
-Which does not survive
the patient's death.

You were trying
to hide the fact

that you were treating her

because you knew she was
potentially suicidal.

Objection!
It's argumentative...

I knew nothing of the sort.
Mrs. Wallace--

-Your honor --
-Just like you are now.
You let this man go down...

because you were afraid
of being hit with a judgment.

All right!
Mr. Donnell, dial it back.

REPORTER: Did you tell
that witness

you would be
going after him like that?

-No.
-Because...

Because I needed him, and he
never would have cooperated

knowing what he was in for.

Why didn't you just call him
as a hostile witness

to begin with?

Because I knew I'd get more
out of him this way.

First as an ally
and then blind-siding him?

I don't think
I blind-sided him, but...yes.

Don't you think
that perpetuates

the very distrust
you spoke of before

between D. A. s
and defense attorneys?

My goal here isn't
to repair trust.

It's to get an acquittal.

And you're comfortable
with yourself?

Yes.

ELLENOR: The truth is,

he isn't comfortable,

and when he and Lindsay
have this baby,

it's going to be
the beginning of the end

of his criminal defense
days.

REPORTER: Why?

Because with Bobby,
this job is who he is,

and when he starts
to see himself

through his son's eyes
or his daughter's eyes,

forget it. It's over.

It's gone as well as
we could have expected.

That videotape is still
the biggest piece of evidence,

and you'll have
to account for it.

I understand.

Just tell the truth,
Scott.

The truth is
on our side here.

Yeah.

Uh, you want to go over
my testimony again or...

Actually, I prefer not to.

I don't want it
coming off rehearsed.

Now, Richard Bay--

he's going to come at you
all rabid.

That's his style.

I can protect you,
but I prefer not to.

I can handle him.

Lastly,

your anger
towards your wife

for what she did to you--

let's play that down
tomorrow.

We don't want them
seeing anger.

Okay.

You all right, Scott?

I'm nervous.

Other than that...

REPORTER: You look scared.

This has been
a long haul.

Have you seen any good
appeal issues so far?

No.

That's the thing
about Judge Hiller.

Her trials
don't get overturned.

So basically
if you don't win here,

Scott Wallace
is never coming out.

REPORTER:
Were you surprised

Bobby said yes
to the cameras?

Not really. If he loses,
he hopes you catch

some prosecutorial misconduct
on tape,

give him grounds for appeal.

What if he wins,

and Richard Bay spots
misconduct on Bobby's part?

Doesn't matter.
Double jeopardy.

Not guilty is not guilty.

(reporters shouting questions)

No comment.

Bay's got
the monitors set up.

It looks like he plans
to show the tape again.

What a shock.
You tell Scott?

He's ready.

SCOTT: She just announced
that she planned to leave me.

BOBBY: Did you see
this coming?

Not at all.
We'd had our problems,

and I knew
she was unhappy,

but I never expected her
to walk out.

Did you want
to stay married?

Yes. I asked if we could
get therapy.

She said it was too late.

She'd already made up
her mind,

and she said that she wanted
to live life without me.

She, uh, she said
it had been years

since she felt the slightest
twinge of happiness with me.

I mean, that was
how she put it--

"the slightest twinge,"

and she said she wanted out.

And then what happened?

We argued.

Uh, we engaged
in some name-calling.

Did you call her a liar?

Among other things, yeah.

Then I went upstairs
to the bedroom,

got ready for bed,
and watched TV.

Your wife tells you
she's leaving you,

and you watch television?

Well, I had hoped
that when she came up

after things calmed down
a little bit,

that I could, you know,
maybe talk her out of it.

So what happened?

Well, I waited.

After about an hour
and a half,

she still hadn't
come up,

so I figured
she'd probably had a drink

and decided to sleep
on the couch.

So I went down and, uh,
she wasn't there.

I thought, well,
maybe she left,

but I thought I would have
heard the car pull out.

So, uh, I went to check,

and, uh,

uh, when I opened the door
to the garage,

uh, I just smelled
the exhaust,

and it was all smoky in there.

And then what?

I went in,

and, uh, I had to open
the garage door

because I couldn't
breathe the exhaust,

and, uh, and I saw
the hose.

Mr. Wallace?

It was a garden hose.

It was taped
to the exhaust

at the exhaust pipe
of the car,

and, uh, the car
was running,

and it-- the hose
went into the front window.

What did you do then?

I ran to the car.

I opened the door,
and there she was.

She, uh, her head was back
and her eyes were closed,

and she wasn't breathing.

It looked like
she was sleeping.

Uh, I screamed "Karen"
and I shook her.

She wouldn't wake up,
and I pulled her out.

She fell,

and, uh, I tried giving her
mouth-to-mouth

and chest compressions,
but she wasn't breathing.

She didn't have a pulse.

I, uh,

kept, uh, you know,
holding her nose closed

and trying to blow air
into her lungs,

but she wouldn't come back.

She wouldn't come back.

And when the police
arrived,

did you tell them
all this?

Yeah, yeah.

Uh, they asked me
to come to the station.

Scott, on that videotape,

when they accused you
of killing Karen,

why didn't you deny it?

I don't think I could believe
what I was even hearing.

I mean, I, uh, I still
couldn't believe she was dead,

and then some district attorney
was saying that I killed her?

I remember feeling nauseous,

like I was gonna black out.

I'm going to give you
another chance

to answer that question.

Did you kill your wife?

No.

I'm sorry.

It's just for a--
for six months,

you have been asking me
not to speak to anyone,

and I never have,

and I've waited for this day
to come before everyone

and finally say
I didn't kill her.

I did not commit
any crime.

Thank you.

You're
an investment banker.

Is that correct,
Mr. Wallace?

Yes, that's right.

In the month or so

prior to your wife's
sudden death,

how were things
going for you at work?

It had--
it had been rough.

The market was off.

Had you been told
you might be let go?

Well, my firm
was scaling back, yes.

I was told that
my position was tenuous.

How about your own
personal assets?

You suffered some losses,
hadn't you?

A few, yes.

At the time
of your wife's sudden death

you were nearly broke,
weren't you, sir?

Well, I would hardly say
I was broke, Mr. Bay.

I did live in
a million-dollar house.

Fully paid for?

No. We had a mortgage
of about $400,000.

Any other assets?

Uh, my savings,
some stocks.

Totaling more or less
than $50,000

at the time of your wife's
sudden death?

At the exact time, less,
but stocks have a--

Thank you, sir.

So at the time
of your wife's sudden death,

your assets totaled
about $650,000.

A divorce would have
cut that in half.

Add to that attorney fees
plus alimony,

plus you were looking
at unemployment.

Did you have a life insurance
policy on your wife

at the time
of her sudden death?

-Objection.
-JUDGE HILLER: Overruled.

Did you, sir?

There were life insurance
policies for both of us.

The policy was to pay you
over $1 million

in the event of her death.
Isn't that correct?

Yes.

When did you renew
that policy, sir?

We both renewed them--

When did you both renew
that policy?

Oh, I think it was
around May.

Approximately a month
before her sudden death.

Did you kill your wife
for money, sir?

No, I did not.

Gee, you seem capable
of denying it now.

-Objection.
-Sustained.

You've got a suicidal woman
on your hands.

You get into a big fight,

and you go upstairs
and watch television?

Well, I didn't know
she was on the verge

of taking her life,

and, hey, I was angry
that night, too.

-Angry enough
to kill her?
-No.

Angry enough to have
a mental breakdown?

Angry enough to have
a mental breakdown, sir?

Objection. Calls for
a medical opinion.

I'll put it
in layman's terms.

-Angry enough to snap?
-No.

You're about
to lose your job.

You've already lost
your money.

Now you're hit with losing
your wife, your house.

You weren't going to let that
happen, were you, Mr. Wallace?

-But that's not
the way it happened.
-You snapped.

-I did not.
-You hit her
from behind.

-I never hit my wife.
-You cracked when you
knew you were caught.

-I didn't.
I did no such thing.
-We saw the tape.

I explained--

You killed your wife--

I did not!

Are you about to get
violent, Mr. Wallace?

BOTH: Objection!

Withdrawn.

Nothing further.

BOBBY: Chambers,
your honor.

It's bad faith.

-Why?
-Bad faith?

Never, ever
in the first trial

did they suggest
financial gain as motive.

None of the police ever
said it. Now suddenly--

So what?

You decide on a new motive

between the first
and the second trial.

Why can't I?

Without any new evidence
that amounts to unfair surprise.

You got to be kidding me!

You can't just fabricate
a new motive.

All right. Bobby, there is
nothing to prevent

the prosecution
from changing strategies.

At a minimum, it's bad faith.

If he truly believes
that money was a motive,

they would have argued it
in the first trial.

I didn't try the first one.
Helen Gamble did.

Oh, come on, Richard.

What are you asking for?

The commonwealth does not have
a good faith belief

in its motive theory,
and to spring it

at a second trial
constitutes unfair surprise,

and I'm asking
that it be stricken.

-Forget it.
-Your honor--

Don't even waste
my time, Bobby.

You don't know what Mr. Bay
does or does not believe.

They are not bound by
the strategy of the first trial.

REPORTER:
Do you believe it--

that he killed her
for money?

I certainly don't know
that he didn't.

That wasn't my question.

You're not asking
a question.

You're making an accusation,
and I'm getting sick of it.

The idea of giving you
access was to let you observe.

It wasn't for you
to charge in here with opinions.

Was I doing that?

Yes, you've been doing that,
and I'm getting fed up.

You want to point
your damn cameras, fine,

but enough
with the judgments.

REPORTER: What are you
thinking right now?

I'm thinking this is why
you shouldn't represent people

you feel emotionally--

family members, friends.

The best legal advice
you can give them

is to hire somebody else.

You think you've tried
a bad case again?

I was caught off-guard
with motive.

I let the jury
see me angry with a witness.

I...

Yeah.

I made some mistakes.

I don't agree.

What do you think,
Lindsay?

I think it's pretty even,

and ties go to the defendants
in this business.

Bobby closes a lot better
than Richard Bay.

This isn't over.

The question I have--

you have a client charged
with a violent, angry crime.

You told him
not to flash anger.

What happened?

I don't know.

When I first became a lawyer,

I used to call my mother
and tell her about my cases.

I'd explain all the intricacies,
and she'd get bored

and snap at me,
"Just nutshell the damn thing."

And I discovered
when I did nutshell,

most of those cases
which I thought

were so complicated
were actually quite simple.

The nutshell on this one--

man in financial trouble
renews insurance policy on wife.

She announces
she's leaving him.

She's found dead with a whack
on the back of the head.

That pretty much says it all.

In the way of proof,
there's certainly a lot more.

All the DNA evidence
points to him.

Not most of it-- all.

Her skin found
under his fingernails,

his skin cells and prints
found on her head and neck.

His admission caught right
on videotape,

his anger displayed
right here on the stand.

His own treating psychiatrist
diagnosed him

borderline psychotic.

She didn't commit suicide.

The psychiatrist who was
treating Karen Wallace--

he told you
she wasn't suicidal.

This woman was murdered.

All the evidence tells you so,

and Scott Wallace...

HELEN: You put her
in the car

to make it look
like a suicide.

That's what happened,
isn't it?

He told you so, too.

Didn't he?

The only reason Scott Wallace
was ever arrested

was that perceived admission.

The DNA evidence,
the head fracture--

all that came from
him trying to save her.

The prosecution's entire case

is his reaction to being
accused of the murder.

It wasn't a normal reaction,
they say.

That's not how people
normally respond.

Have you ever been
in this situation?

Your wife die recently?

Your husband?

Any of you accused
of murdering a spouse

in the immediate wake
of discovering the death?

We're really going to sit here
and discuss normal reactions?

Seems to me

a mental breakdown of some sort
is the most normal.

That's what Dr. Murphy told you
Scott was experiencing.

Scott himself told you that.

He was feeling nauseous
in that interrogation,

about to black out.

As Dr. Murphy said,

he was suffering from
twin positional traumas.

How dare they charge him
with murder

because they didn't like
the way he responded

to being accused?

They better have more than that,
and they don't.

And now--

now the D. A. wants you
to find guilt

because Scott Wallace
got angry in the witness chair.

You saw his rage, didn't you?
Let's convict on that.

First, they arrest him
because he didn't get angry,

and now they want you to convict
because he did.

You know, people ask me

how I can spend my days
being a criminal defense lawyer,

defending guilty people.

Well, I am in this

to defend
the innocent ones,

and there is an innocent one
sitting right over there.

For six months now,

they've kept him locked up.

He couldn't even go
to her funeral.

He's never been to her grave.

They've taken away his life.

Karen Wallace took her own.

The police have taken his.

Enough is enough.

Give freedom back...

to an innocent man.

Nutshell--

borderline psychotic man
in financial trouble

renews insurance policy on wife
a month before her death.

She threatens to leave him.

He's heard screaming at her.

She's found dead
with a fractured skull.

When accused of the crime,

he doesn't even deny it.

REPORTER: You like
Bobby Donnell, personally?

He's a pretty good guy.

It's one thing
for two men

looking
at the same evidence

to have
different opinions,

but you two seem
so convinced

in opposite directions.

D.A.s come to prosecute

those they believe
to be guilty.

Defense attorneys
come to believe

those they choose
to defend.

That certainly makes
the D. A. s sound more noble.

We are.

REPORTER:
Does he usually hibernate

when he waits
for a verdict?

Yeah. Waiting--
it can be a killer.

A lot of lawyers just
go about other business.

Bobby-- he can't.

Aren't there other clients?

Plenty, and he could be
out right now

bringing in new ones.

Bobby Donnell--

if you're looking
to build a law practice,

he's not the guy to hire.

But if you ever
get charged with murder...

(telephone rings)

LUCY: Hotline. Hello?

Okay, thank you.

Jury's back.

Mr. Wallace,
would you please rise?

The jury has reached
its verdict?

We have, your honor.

What say you?

Commonwealth
vs. Scott Wallace,

on count one--
murder in the first degree,

we find the defendant
Scott Wallace

not guilty.

(gallery murmuring)

Count two--
murder in the second degree,

we find the defendant
Scott Wallace

not guilty.

(gallery reacting loudly)

JUDGE HILLER:
Members of the jury,

this concludes your service.

On behalf of the commonwealth,
I thank you.

Mr. Wallace,
you are free to go.

We are adjourned.

(gavel pounds)

SCOTT: Thank you, buddy.

REPORTER: It wasn't
as ugly as you predicted.

No. I thought they all
behaved very well.

It was nice to see
for a change.

Do you think
it was the right result?

Probably.

I suppose there was
reasonable doubt.

But do you think
it was the right result?

I haven't
the slightest idea.

♪ (theme)

You stinker!