FindLaw | Cases & Codes | FindLaw Sports | Legal News Saturday, November 07, 2009  
 

Legal News Home

US Law
Election 2000, Supreme Court, Civil Rights, Tort

Investigations & Litigation
Tobacco, Guns, Microsoft, Waco, Wen Ho Lee, Napster, Tires

Business

Labor & Employment

Technology
Cyberspace, IP, Telecom

International

Environment

Crime & Trials

Writ

Chat Transcripts

Recent Case Law

Entertainment

Sports


Supreme Court Center

Cases & Codes

FindLaw Library

Legal Dictionary

Message Boards

MY FindLaw

 

 

 

 

The Practice ABC Sunday 10 pm/9 central

Reviewed by Doug Salvesen


October 29, 2000




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

Findlaw Newsletters
E Legal News
Sports Law Update

More Newsletters
FindLaw TV Reviews

Ally McBeal

Ed

West Wing

More reviews...

FindLaw Entertainment Poll
Which is the best legal TV show?
Ally McBeal
Ed
Law & Order
The Practice
West Wing

View the Results...
Message Boards

See What Others Are Saying About Your Favorite Legal TV Show Here

Costanza v. Seinfeld

Review The Order From The Case Where The Guy Character George Costanza Was Based On Sued Seinfeld
[PDF File]

Entertainment Law Resources

Entertainment Law Resources

Entertainment Law Web Guide

FindLaw's FBI Files

Celebrity Files

Entertainment
News Wires

Industry News

Film

Television

Film/TV Reviews

People

Music

Media

Today in E History

 

 
Copyright © 1994 - 2000 FindLaw, Inc.