Unfortunately, almost nothing in the show was realistic.

         A brief run-down of the relative facts: Bobby Donnell and Eugene Young are called upon to defend Eddie Wicks, a notorious drug dealer and long-time client of the firm, on a murder charge. Wicks is accused of stabbing and stabbing and stabbing one Phillip Olson to death. Olson, an equally despicable character, happened to have owed Wicks $60,000.

         Unquestionably, Wicks is guilty. His defense hinges on the ridiculous claim that Olson was strangling him, so he knifed him in self-defense. That's hard to swallow. Olson had no apparent motive for attacking Wicks. Wicks was forty pounds heavier than his victim, and probably could have stopped any attempted strangulation without stabbing Olson. Plus, there were no marks on Wicks's neck to show he was actually being strangled. Add in this: the stab wounds on Olson's hands were defensive -- as though he were trying to fend off an attack. Olson was stabbed seven times, a little overkill if Wicks were merely trying to defend himself.

         Of course, the verdict is not guilty.

         The verdict has to be not guilty, since one of the dramatic aims of this show is to illustrate the contempt that the characters have for the "system." Bobby and Eugene have contempt for Judge Swackheim (Paul Dooley), who is determined not to declare a mistrial no matter what happens. Assistant District Attorney Helen Gamble has contempt for defense attorneys who lack integrity and jurors who lack intelligence. Judge Swackheim thinks the whole system stinks. Such contempt is justified only if a guilty defendant is allowed to go free, so a verdict of not guilty is a must.

         It ends up being one big screaming match. Bobby screams at Judge Swackheim , who screams right back. Among the phrases bandied about in court: "you're a joke!," "scumball," "fat piece of crap," and something about Judge Swackheim procreating with Judge Judy. The trial resembles a WWF bout, and it's about as realistic as one, too. While these verbal clashes might be fun to watch -- and they are -- it simply doesn't happen that way. Thank goodness most people don't believe what they see on TV.

         The nonstop screaming was only the first in a parade of inaccuracies. First, the testimony of the medical examiner, Dr. Foster (Ed Begley, Jr.), was in the wrong order. In the TV world of The Practice, Dr. Foster was apparently called after Wicks had testified, to counter Wicks's assertion that he had acted in self-defense. This makes sense dramatically, but not legally. As the medical examiner, Dr. Foster would have been called as part of the Commonwealth's case-in-chief -- before Wicks ever took the stand -- to describe the nature of the victim's wounds and other facts demonstrating how the stabbing most likely had occurred.

         Equally unrealistic is the blistering cross-examination of Dr. Foster, which eventually causes him to explode about how awful the "system" is -- why should he be any different from the other characters? -- and resign as medical examiner. Eugene forces Foster to admit that certain scenarios he had dismissed in his direct examination were, in fact, theoretically possible. It was possible for a man who had been stabbed in his jugular vein to continue to strangle the stabber for a few seconds, and it was possible that the wounds on Olson's hands had come about by Wicks inserting his switchblade under Olson's hands to pry them off his neck. While many attorneys follow this same line of questioning on cross-examination, I find it rarely worth the trouble. Is it possible that Wicks inserted his switchblade under Olson's hands to pry them off his neck? Yes, but does that make any sense? If someone is strangling you, are you going to take out a switchblade and thrust it right up against your own neck?

         I don't think so.

         The grilling by Eugene is hardly the worst that Dr. Foster goes through. Bobby spends his cross-examination digging into the physician's alleged psychological problems and perversities (he was fired for whacking off in his office in the presence of a cadaver). That kind of cross would never be permitted. Plus, the prosecution would have known about Foster's termination and would not have been caught with their pants down on Bobby's line of questioning. On top of that, if this had been a real trial, Bobby and Eugene would have put on their own expert witness to testify that Olson's wounds were consistent with the claim of self-defense. They would not have relied on the cross-examination of Dr. Foster for that. And another thing. The closings were in the wrong order. In Massachusetts, the defense closes first, and the prosecution follows. That would clearly have had a tremendous impact here.

         As long as I'm talking about closings, Helen's was a lousy, self-indulgent diatribe on the system, complete with indignant references to the O.J. Simpson trial. She should have focused on the evidence. That's what a lawyer is supposed to do, and it's precisely what was needed to destroy Wicks's claim of self-defense. Instead, her exasperated grumbling simply set up Bobby's impassioned justification of his role and the role of the jury (parts of it reminded me of a Robert Redford speech in that old film Legal Eagles). Again, interesting television. Just don't confuse it with the real thing.

         So here's my dilemma. This week's episode was one of the more inaccurate ones of the season. But it was also my favorite so far. The dialogue was razor-sharp. The underlying issues were interesting. And the character portrayals were great fun. Thing is, the episode bore almost no resemblance to the criminal process here in Massachusetts. Which leads to the question: can a show provide both good drama and an accurate account of the law? I'm still waiting.

Past Reviews

Message Boards

Disclaimer