Appeal and Denial
Midway through the "Denial" portion of Sunday's show, Assistant District Attorney Helen ("I am an angry overzealous assistant district attorney who can't let go of her rage") Gamble is trying to coax Margaret Wakefield, a domestic abuse victim, on the stand to testify about the abuse. Wakefield had filed a complaint with the police but now is testifying for the defense and denying that her husband was abusive. When Gamble suggests that Wakefield is lying to protect her husband, Wakefield (sporting a Princess Leia Hairdo) barks "Like it or not, it's the truth!" But of course, it's not the "truth."
The truth is, as we suspected, Wakefield's husband pushed her down the stairs. She decided not to testify against him in order to protect her nine-year old stepdaughter. This gets a tad complicated, but - since Wakefield's husband, if found guilty, could only get three years of prison time for the assault, he might try to regain custody of his daughter when he gets out. Although it is unlikely that he could gain custody, Wakefield fears he just might win and end up abusing his own child. So. in order to protect and be with her stepdaughter, Wakefield decides to reconcile with her husband. Got that? Now that is the "truth" - and what we believe is what a trial is supposed to be all about - a search for the truth by the jury, whose verdict is meant to be its collective determination of what is true.
Well, that's a little too simple. A trial is not simply about the truth because there are just too many obstacles created that restrict the jury's ability to get at the truth: There are rules of evidence that allow the jury to hear only certain types of evidence; there are evidentiary privileges, like the attorney-client privilege and the priest-penitent privilege, that restrict what a witness can and cannot say in testimony.
If we really wanted to get at the truth, we might reconsider the laws against torture. Instead of the system now in place, we could decide to hook every witness up to a lie detector and an electrical generator. "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, realizing that if this machine says that you are lying we will zap you so full of electricity your eyebrows will ignite?" That would help us get to the truth - maybe.
Back to The Practice. The jury, not being as intuitive as our gal Gamble, acquits Wakefield's husband. No other outcome would have been believable. When an alleged victim retracts her accusations and testifies under oath that it was all a big mistake, reasonable doubt usually exists.
In the "Appeal" portion, Bobby Donnell is able somehow to get an appeal of Scott Wallace's guilty verdict heard within two weeks. This is TV Time, as it generally takes a year or more for an appeal to be heard by the Appeals Court. Donnell's argument before the Appeals Court was also not realistic. In a real appeal of a murder conviction, the appellant and the appellee are each allowed thirty minutes to argue. While the appellant argues, the appellee listens silently. While the appellee argues, the appellant is silent -just like the presidential debates are supposed to be run. There is no back and forth, as the show demonstrated. Most appellate arguments don't make for good TV. Also, decisions take months, sometimes years, but not days.
As a result of the appeal, the trial judge is ordered to have an evidentiary hearing to determine if the witness committed perjury. The trial judge gives every indication that he is going to screw Donnell's client. However, when the witness refuses to testify about his testimony (which I found unbelievable) and asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege, there is only one outcome. The trial judge assumes for the purposes of the hearing that witness's testimony would have shown that the witness had committed perjury. Wallace is therefore entitled to a new trial - next week, of course (remember, TV Time).
Finally, if you are interested in transcripts of episodes of The Practice, including this week's, check out http://dekland.tripod.com/thepractice/.
Past Reviews
Message Boards
Doug Salvesen
is an attorney with the law firm of Yurko & Perry in Boston. In his practice, Salvesen represents a mixture of clients, including businesses and individuals. A significant portion of his time is spent on pro bono matters, including law suits seeking to vindicate the civil rights of prisoners. He writes out each of his reviews of The Practice in long-hand.
Disclaimer