TiVo Community Forums Archives - The Practice (SPOILERS)

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

The Practice (SPOILERS)
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: loopey

Spoilers and speculation are allowed in this thread (going along with the spoilers guideline thread).

I'm just wondering what everyone thought of last night's episode.

I was kind of surprised that Lindsey was actually convicted and got life. Remember when Bobby was on trial for murder? They got him off, and what he did was a lot less excusable than what she did. I guess it's good that they are finally showing that the firm and it's people are not invincible (remember how Jimmy got off when he "borrowed" the clients money :rolleyes:), but I liked Lindsey. I think they should have axed Jimmy.

That being said, I wonder how they are going to get her out (unless her character is leaving the show), and how believeable it will be.

Posted by: NatasNJ

Great episode. I think Jimmy is going to screw up and let his morals get involved in the kidnapping case.

Lindsey will get out on the season finale through their appeal.

Those are my guesses.

Posted by: Philosofy

This is another show that routinely throws believability out the window. Its good, don't get me wrong, but its not as accurate as ER. (ER seems to be letting it slide, also, but don't get me started on that.)

Posted by: NatasNJ

I agree. This shows just covers WAY TO MUCH and has some far fetched story lines with crazy twists and turns. Makes for good tv though.

The one show that is even worse in my opinion is Boston Public. That school has some issues. They should just shut it down..

Posted by: JayAndSilentBob

I haven't seen the episode yet. But I was just wondering, did Bobby yell at all?

Posted by: daperlman

The Practice has officially spiraled completely out of reality. There was a time when the cases were actually somewhat believable, even made you wonder what you would say if you were on the jury.

But lately it is just ridiculous.

Spoiler
Of course they should have tried self defense in Lindsey's case.She shot a man who was accused of being a serial killer and admitted to eating people, who had a restraining order against him...who showed up at her house! Secondly, of course a lawyer would be compelled to reveal the whereabouts of a kidnapper... Jimmy takes the case and then acts sort of surprised that the DA wants to prosecute the kidnapper. No lawyer would have ever taken on that case!

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

quote:
Originally posted by JayAndSilentBob
I haven't seen the episode yet. But I was just wondering, did Bobby yell at all?

I haven't watched the show in over a year.

But yes, he yelled. A lot. Unless the show has changed drastically in the past year...

Posted by: Pan Chun

MG admits to speaking sans authority, yet he makes a blanket statement from that place of no knowledge anyway. Good one.

Wrong anyway. No Bobby yelling last night. In fact, he almost cried more than once. He's heavily demoralized. Elenor is, too...and could she have BEEN any more inappropriately harsh toward the new girl? :eek: I mean, COME ON!

The Jimmy thing is going to prove interesting. Phil is right, of course, this ain't "REAL LIFE LAW"...and I don't think they make any attempt to characterize it as such. It's filled with "what ifs?" and "let's try this" approaches in every episode.

It's what keeps it interesting. It ain't CourtTV...and thank god for THAT! :)

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

Well, Pan, you're just an icky poo-brain. So there.

:D

Posted by: Pan Chun

But...but...<sputter>

I know you are but what am I? :D

Anyway, am not! ;)

Posted by: Todd

I just watched it. Good start to the season. All kinds of interesting twists already, plus a cute new lawyer. How can you beat that? :D

Posted by: AJRitz

quote:
Originally posted by daperlman
Spoiler
Of course they should have tried self defense in Lindsey's case.She shot a man who was accused of being a serial killer and admitted to eating people, who had a restraining order against him...who showed up at her house! Secondly, of course a lawyer would be compelled to reveal the whereabouts of a kidnapper... Jimmy takes the case and then acts sort of surprised that the DA wants to prosecute the kidnapper. No lawyer would have ever taken on that case! [/B]

I'm commenting on daperlman's spoiler above, but given the thread title, I'm not going to use spoiler tags when commenting. I'm not sure what line of work you're in da, but I suspect you're either not a lawyer or at least not a criminal defense attorney. I am an attorney and my wife is a criminal defense attorney. While The Practice often goes too far afield in its "legal" aspects, you are simply incorrect about most of the legal analysis in your spoiler.

There were good reasons not to pursue self defense in Lindsey's case. Two critical ones: 1)The psycho never showed a weapon, stayed at the doorway, and Bobby was between psycho and Lindsey. All that adds up to a lack of an imminent bodily threat, without which self defense doesn't cut it. 2)Self defense is usually limited to the force necessary to make a safe retreat. Deadly force in this situation was probably excessive - we don't even know that the psycho had a weapon of any kind, and the police were on the way. As the newbie lawyer said to Eleanor in her interview, self defense would have essentially been an attempt at jury nullification - trying to get the jury to ignore the law of self defense and let Lindsey off because the victim was a psycho. Frankly, since self defense is a justification defense, if they couldn't meet the legal burden of the elements of self defense the judge could have refused to instruct the jury regarding self defense and they'd have been left with nothing. The real point here is that Lindsey's situation sort of falls through the cracks of the legal justification defenses, so her friends who defended her will get to spend the season second-guessing themselves and their legal approaches because there is no clear answer as to what the "correct" approach would have been. This is one of the reasons that my wife has begun to scale back her criminal defense practice - it's not the guilty ones that give you ulcers, it's the innocent ones.

Second, while you are probably right that no lawyer in their right mind would have taken the case that Jimmy took when he agreed to be the middleman for the kidnapper, the show got the law right. An attorney (usually - technically this varies according to each state's ethics code) can be compelled to break privilege only in the event of that he has knowledge that a crime is about to be committed involving death or serious bodily harm. If the attorney has information regarding any other kind of ongoing crime, the attorney MAY break privilege without fear of violating the ethics code, but cannot be required to break privilege. Having seen the daughter healthy and apparently happy, Jimmy had no knowledge of any imminent death or serious bodily injury. As such, he cannot be forced to break privilege. Jimmy acts surprised because he knows that Helen knows the ethics rules and knows darn well that he can't be compelled to break privilege.

He's also suprised that they staked out his office. While not directly illegal or technically unethical, the DA's office staking out a prominent defense attorney's office is VERY problematic. It might even (and I'm just thinking on my feet here) lead to a violation of the 6th Amendment right to counsel or a lawsuit from the law firm against the city and police department for an unlawful taking of property without due process of law, if they have in effect created a barrier preventing criminal defendants from entering their attorney's office without running a police gauntlet. This last bit is pure speculation, but the real point is that staking out a criminal defense attorney's office is highly unusual and was perhaps the least believable part of the episode.

Posted by: daperlman

Yes indeed I am certainly not a defense attorney so my opinion is pure speculation. But come on.. do you think they'd would try a person that did what Lindsey did for murder one?

This guy showed up at her house. If a burglar showed up and mine and I filled him with lead, they wouldn't try me for murder one.

Posted by: Rcrew

quote:
Originally posted by NatasNJ
Great episode. I think Jimmy is going to screw up and let his morals get involved in the kidnapping case.

This is going to be interesting to watch. Remember the last time Jimmy ran into this issue? The accident victim boy with the brain hemorrhage discovered by the insurance company's doctors? Jimmy went to the parents and told them then was reported to the judicial review panel by Eugene? We'll get to see how his character has developed. But I think what we saw him do near the end when confronted by the mother indicated he'll stick to the privilege with her. As for the accused woman, I think there's lots of stuff going to happen there.

AJRitz had interesting comments. But I don't think Jimmy & Eugene should have been surprised that the office was staked out. After all, earlier in the episode, Eugene suggests they open a file with estate planning as a cover, in case the kidnapper mother is seen coming and going from the office.

Anyway, its a keeper.

Posted by: AJRitz

quote:
Originally posted by daperlman
snipdo you think they'd would try a person that did what Lindsey did for murder one? snip
If a burglar showed up and mine and I filled him with lead, they wouldn't try me for murder one.

1. Yes
2. The might, and they might even convict you.

To elaborate: What Lindsey did (and what you propose you might do if a burglar showed up) meets the legal elements of murder one in many if not most jurisdictions. Whether or not the prosecutor pursues murder one charges is a matter of prosecutorial discretion. In your case, as an average joe, assuming that the police/prosecutors didn't have anything else they wanted to but couldn't pin on you, they'd probably pursue manslaughter. But remember, Lindsey is a thorn in the side of the prosecutor's office and Walsh is a vindictive ******* who loves the camera. Walsh would have pressed on with murder one even if Lindsey DID have a decent self-defense argument (like if psycho-boy had brandished a weapon). When she didn't have such a clear defense, there was no question he'd go after murder one.

[soapbox]There's a lot of variety from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on this kind of thing, but this is exactly the kind of over-aggressive prosecution that gives rise to so many wrongful convictions. Prosecutorial personalities end up having way to much impact on the judicial process, and it's just this sort of behavior that keeps my wife from leaving criminal defense practice entirely. I challenge you to meet one person who's spent over a decade in prison for a crime he/she could not have possibly committed (so convincingly that their cases were actually overturned on findings of "actual innocence" - a HUGE burden on the defendant) and still have such a "they'd never do that" attitude about darn near anything that a prosecutor might come up with. Sorry about the rant, but I've personally met three such people, and still there are folks that recoil when my wife tells them she's a criminal defense attorney.[/soapbox]

Posted by: daperlman

quote:
2. They might, and they might even convict you.

In the real world this happens everyday, a person with a gun using it to prevent a crime, and I can't think of any times that the registered gun owner, who is the victim of the attempted crime, has been prosecuted or convicted.

Posted by: NatasNJ

Criminals haev more rights than victims. Really sad. Not that I have a better solution to our justice system but there has to be a way to equal things out..

I am such an advocate of "if commiting a crime you LOSE your rights as a citizen." You rob me and I defend myself and end up killing/hurting you. I should not be held accountable. Of course their are circumstances that would void that situation but in a clear cut case I stand by my statement.

Posted by: grecorj

Well, since we've established that daperlman is not a lawyer and AJRitz is a lawyer, I guess I'll take daperlman's blanket statements with a grain of salt and a side of "you don't know what you're talking about". :D

I will say from my brief, brief introduction to the law that I recall that "self-defense" means using "equal force". Thus, if a burglar breaks into my house w/o a weapon and I shoot him or stab him or do anything that will certainly kill him, self-defense does not apply. If he threatens me with a gun and I shoot him, that would be self-defense. "Eye for an eye" kind of thing.

quote:
Originally posted by daperlman

In the real world this happens everyday, a person with a gun using it to prevent a crime, and I can't think of any times that the registered gun owner, who is the victim of the attempted crime, has been prosecuted or convicted.

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

quote:
Originally posted by daperlman
In the real world this happens everyday, a person with a gun using it to prevent a crime, and I can't think of any times that the registered gun owner, who is the victim of the attempted crime, has been prosecuted or convicted.

For shooting somebody who, if I understand correctly, was let in, did not actually enter the house, was just standing there, and was unarmed?

Posted by: Rcrew

quote:
Originally posted by grecorj
...I will say from my brief, brief introduction to the law that I recall that "self-defense" means using "equal force". Thus, if a burglar breaks into my house w/o a weapon and I shoot him or stab him or do anything that will certainly kill him, self-defense does not apply.

Guess until we hear back from AJ we won't really know. But...

I too remember an equal force concept. But I'm going to guess that this is one of those gray areas. For example, when the resident is say a 70 year old frail typical grandmotherly type and the burglar is a burley 6'2" hunk, I'm going to guess that when she pulls out her deceased husband's 45 and cranks a few rounds into him it approximates equal force. (That is unless her husband died from 45 caliber lead poisoning..) ;)

Posted by: AJRitz

Well, I was going to walk away from this discussion, but since my opinion was requested in response to the equal force question:

First, this is highly dependent on the law of the jurisdiction where the shooting takes place. Because we're talking about "TVLand" here, I'll focus on what I understand to be the most common formulation:
1) Most states require retreat where possible. This is one point in Lindsey's favor, as even the states that require retreat do not require retreat from your own home.
2) Self-defense is permitted only to the extent that the force expended is reasonably necessary to avoid the threat posed. Deadly force is only permitted when the one defending is faced with deadly force. This is where Lindsey's defense starts draining down the toilet. Psycho boy never brandished a weapon or indicated in any way that he even had a weapon. He also never approached Lindsey and he even stood there while she retreated to her purse. Psycho was right there in the doorway (either at the threshold or just inside, I don't remember which). Neither Lindsey or Bobby made any attempt to just shut the door on his face.
3) This is a VERY important point. There is NO privilege to use deadly force for the defense of property. This is important because if you shoot and kill an unarmed burglar, with no indication that the burglar intended to do anything but steal property, you cannot defend on the basis of self-defense. This point, too, is applicable to the situation on The Practice. Even if the psycho was extraordinarily creepy and dropping scary innuendos, even a felony criminal threat (which I would argue the psycho never even really made) wouldn't lead to a right to use deadly force.

A good example of this situation, where over-zealous use of defensive force got the defender in trouble, was a guy who was involved in a barroom fight. The fight spilled out into the street. It was purely a fistfight - no weapons, bottles, etc. The guy had knocked his "attacker" down and could have left at that point. Instead, he banged the attacker's head on the ground a couple of times - one of which caused a fatal brain bleed. Initially, this was a self-defense situation. But as soon as the guy passed up the opportunity to walk away, it was no longer self-defense. The guy was charged with murder, but made a deal with the prosecution and plead guilty to a lesser included offense.

The same kind of thing can, and does, happen in home invasions. The TV/Movie/NRA fantasy of blowing away anyone who violates the sanctity of your property just doesn't fly in the real world.

Posted by: cancermatt

and I don't play one on TV either, but I think The Practice has "jumped the shark" that started a while back, around when Bobby went on trial and the mousy DA (Jason Kravits) was killed, the one who everyone hated, yet everyone spoke of him like he was the Second Coming, mutually respected, their best friend when the show continually proved each episode everyone hated him...

That out of the way, just watched this season's first ep. and it was average to below average. I was partially surprised Lindsay got convicted and immediately wondered aloud "What scheme do they have in store to get her out?" Bobby (or someone else) states matter of factly they'll be in the Supreme Court by "next week" (I assume state's? what about appeals court?) so there's no way Lindsay will stay in the pokey until the season finale, as someone else suggested. I think Bobby was in jail for a total of four or five episodes, if that, so I don't really think she'll stay there as long. 'Course, I could be wrong, hope so, at least.

A little curious to see how the new girl works out, she'll get main stage with Lindsay in jail, I'd assume. I do think David E. Kelly has stretched himself a little thin, having multiple series airing within the same season, writing, directing, producing for all.

BTW, what happened to Ron Livingston on the show? Did he simply disappear?

Matt

Posted by: JTAnderson

When The Practice was young I thought, as a non-lawyer, that it raised a lot of interesting legal questions. I don't really know how legally accurate it was, but it seemed plausible to me. But the program only became really popular when it turned into a soap-opera.

Last year, one of my favorite new programs was Law & Order: CI. I love the Goren character (Vincent D'Onofrio). Not because he is believable, but because he is so entertaining. We were soon calling him, and the program, Smart-ass. It wasn't long after that that we began calling Bobby, and The Practice, Dumb-ass. So, on Sunday nights, first we'd watch Smart-ass, then we'd watch Dumb-ass.

Posted by: daperlman

quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
For shooting somebody who, if I understand correctly, was let in, did not actually enter the house, was just standing there, and was unarmed?

They don't know he is unarmed
He was order to stay away from her by a court of law
no one was let in

As far as the law goes, I am sure that I DON'T know anything compared to a lawyer. But I do know that people are shot and killed everyday for breaking to cars and houses, and almost never is the victim of the crime, who shot the criminal tried for assault, manslaughter or murder

Posted by: Rcrew

quote:
Originally posted by daperlman
...people are shot and killed everyday for breaking to cars and houses, and almost never is the victim of the crime, who shot the criminal tried for assault, manslaughter or murder

Perhaps a distinction needs to me made. I think AJ alluded to it. That is, what the laws specify, and what is within the discretionary power of the DA. So although you insist prosecution never (always have a problem with absolutes) happens, it can still fit within the definition of the crime. To me than it is a crime.

Also just remembered this, kind of goes along with your claim, and the equal force. Heard, or was told, if you ever, find yourself having shot someone at your home, just be sure to drag the body completely into your house before calling the cops...

Last note, I find it just a bit hard to accept that shooting someone for breaking into a car would be just dropped. Meaning a burglary, not a car jacking.

Posted by: AJRitz

The reality is that people are prosecuted on a regular basis for using excessive force the results in a killing. The vast majority of such cases are settled by plea agreements rather quickly, as the kinds of defenses that would be worth raising at trial (i.e. it wasn't me) are much harder to make when the person is dead in your house or yard. As a result, the cases rarely get much focus in the news cycle - they're easy to miss if you don't live with someone who's at the courthouse on a daily basis :-)

As for Rcrew's note about dragging the body completely into your house before calling the cops - this is a VERY bad idea. Touching the body at all, beyond confirming death, could get an obstruction of justice charge added that can't be avoided by pleading self-defense. There are very few ways in which I could think of you being able to kill a "trespasser" where there wouldn't be significant evidence that the body had been moved if you were to move it. Even worse, you add the obstruction charge and you give the prosecutor more arguments that you must have been doing something more than just defending yourself, if you felt the need to tamper with the crime scene before calling the police.

All I can recommend (and this is the only bit of my legal musings that you should consider "legal advice" by any definition of that phrase) is that if you should find yourself in the unfortunate situation of having killed someone who intruded into your home, you should immediately do two things: 1) Call the police. Do this FIRST. Simply report the event and hang up. 2) Call the best criminal defense lawyer you know of, and have them meet you at your house ASAP. Say NOTHING to the police without your lawyer present - I don't care what they or the prosecutor might say, it is NEVER in your interest to give a statement without the assistance of counsel. If you don't know of any criminal defense lawyers, look one up in the phone book (if they end up not so great, you can always fire them and replace them later). If you really don't recognize any of the names, go with one who took out a big ad - it means that they're at least successful enough to be able to pay for the ad ;-)

Posted by: grecorj

AJ, thanks for the posts! Very enjoyable reading!

Here's some interesting reading from the fine folks at FindLaw; too bad it looks like the guy stopped writing reviews.

Posted by: loopey

Anyone want to bet that she's found not-guilty at this next trial?

Posted by: NatasNJ

Not taking that bet...

My question is why does it look like (the big chick) is trying this case again? They feel bad that she screwed up the first one and are giving her a chance to redeem herself?

I like this show. At first I thought this trial woudl go on for the whole season and the finale would be Lindsey getting set free. If they resolve this next week than I was way off..

Posted by: harvscar

The big chick is Eleanor and I thought in the partner's meeting it was decided that Eugene or outside counsel would be handling the case.

I love The Practice, but the lectures have got to go. Rebecca's speech was very beautiful, however, I doubt she would have been allowed to continue as she did. It seems like every episode now is turning into "...And Justice for All." :rolleyes:
"You're out of order, the whole damn system is out of order."

I guess there's only so much ground you can cover.

Posted by: Pan Chun

I enjoy seeing the D.A. get dressed down on the show...he's SUCH a dick! :up:

Posted by: NatasNJ

Next week previews show the court case for Lindsey and it "looked" like Eleanor was trying it. But I could have mistaken it. We will see..

Posted by: harvscar

quote:
Originally posted by Pan Chun
I enjoy seeing the D.A. get dressed down on the show...he's SUCH a dick! :up:

And he's so good at being a dick. You can just see the venom dripping off his fangs as he talks about putting Lindsay away FOREVER. One of he best scenes from last season was one of his and Eleanor's out-of-court confrontations. I just don't buy that the SJC would dress him down as they did, everything he brought up SHOULD have been attacked by defense.

Nate, I didn't see the previews so I'll trust what you saw. It wouldn't be impossible for her to gain back some credibility by helping to slam dunk the second trial.

Posted by: cancermatt

Nah, look up, I predicted it: Lindsay's free sooner than later (although I was one episode off, I was sure she would be free in one episode) so it'll take two episodes now. Man this is getting thin on believability. I'll stick around just a little longer, rolling my eyes the whole way.

The new girl should have been fired. And why wasn't she, for going around everyone's back and confronting a client? She's the new girl. She'll pay her dues (we shall see).

Matt

Posted by: Rcrew

Watched it twice, because I had to have my GF see Helen get relegated to the corner by the Judge (taking a page from the news where the parents of the teenager that died were stood in the corner by a judge...). So, lots to observe here...

1) Helen Gambel - anyone else think she's getting just a little slimy? Traded off by her trying to temper the vindictiveness of Lindsey's prosecutor, and helping get Lindsey permission to attend the appeal hearing. Will she step up to try and disqualify that prosecutor in Lindsey's next trial?
2) Jamie Out On Her Own - I think there was room for one, possibly two mistake on her part. The firm encourages independant thinking, just not independent actions. She wiggled out of this one, we'll see how it goes. Is Eugene making more decisions now because Bobby is so pre-occupied with Lindsey?
3) Ellenor was clearly told she wouldn't head the re-trial, but I too saw her in the preview in what appeared to be a lead position. But when more than one lawyer is on a case, often they each take on specific wittinesses. Or will she be given an opportunity to redeem herself?
4) Seeds for another episode or episode fluff - Lindsey's prosecutor telling Helen No plea, then Bobby saying in his meeting No plea, or just setting the stage for the coming battle? And will it take two episodes to resolve?

I could accept almost everything in Sunday's episode, but I'm not in the practice. That is except for one, to me, glaring problem. I can't believe any attorney would march their crime committing client (the kidnapper) directly into the DA's office to confess. I have to believe a responsible attorney would go and negotiate a deal before bringing them in. And to talk about it in front of another DA, possibly limits what Helen can do. Great climax for the show, but completely out of reality.

6) Lastly, Helen sort of got what she wanted, Jimmy bringing in the real kidnapper. How will that play with returning the practice to favor with the DA's office, or at least getting them just a bit out of their hole, especially with Lindsey's pending re-trial?

Wow, do you think I'm hooked on this series for the season???

Posted by: smak

As for bringing the kidpnapper to the DA. I agree. Jimmy could have easily (and who knows maybe off camera he did), gone to Helen and said. The real kidnapper would like to turn herself in, and give the girl back to her mother, but not get any jail time. If we don't get this deal, she'll never turn herself in. The mom just wanted her kid back, she would have convinced Helen to make the deal.

-smak-

Posted by: Pan Chun

Except there IS something to be said for the argument that "the crime (of kidnaping) is ongoing" and therefore unprotected...! Of course that's to be determined by "higher courts", but I think the argument is interesting, nonetheless! :)

Posted by: Rcrew

Valid point Pan, just think it's unrealistic for Jimmy to just walk in without some kind of prior discussion.

This could be one of those side plots that just ends there, is never brought up again, and we're just left to imagine our own final outcome.

Posted by: AJRitz

Just a few comments about Jimmy and the kidnapper:
1) Even if it was an ongoing crime, unless there's death or serious bodily harm involved, the ethical rule is a "may reveal" as opposed to "must reveal" matter. Jimmy therefore had discretion and chose not to reveal.

2) I agree that marching the real kidnapper in to the DA's office was a silly and would never be done in real life - at least not unless there was some amazingly compelling reason (like an imminent execution of something). OTOH, the woman who was in the process of being tried already couldn't have just walked out of jail like that either. By then, the court had jurisdiciton and had likely ordered her held without bond. She could only be released by court order, and the DA would have to appear in court, tell the judge that they were dropping the case, and then the judge could order her released.

3) What prevented the new girl from being fired was the Jimmy recognized that she was right - he was in too deep, he was acting irrationally, and ultimately she did save his bacon (the failure to disclose that he was representing the real kidnapper to his accused-kidnapper client was probably a disbarable offense - especially with his disciplinary record).

Other random thoughts from this episode:
1) The Bill Smitrovich DA is digging himself in way too deep. The SJC was clearly upset at his tactics, and he appears likely to continue to pursue them. After watching this episode last night, my wife and I speculated that in the re-trial he'll let his feelings about the firm get to him again, and get so outrageous and over the top (improper argument, throwing out questions or statements that his knows to be inadmissible, only to withdraw them unanswered - but after the jury's heard them) that the judge will order a mistrial, with prejudice (meaning that Lindsey goes free and cannot be retried).

2) Rebecca's argument may have been a bit preachy, but it wasn't totally off base for appellate argument in a criminal case. She didn't have a lot to work with, but she did have a strong core argument that she needed to dramatize as best she could. She was stuck with the facts as presented in the trial court - she could only argue about legal errors that were made at trial. Her arguments were also stronger than they appeared on TV - her answer to the judges about why the Constitutional error issues hadn't been raised at trial was awful. The correct answer is that objection at trial is virtually irrelevant to Constitutional error. If error is of a Constitutional magnitude, then it is the trial judge's responsibility to deal with it or else the door is open for the appellate court to do so. Rebecca sort of says this, but not very well or very clearly.

We stopped watching The Practice for a while last year, but to us at least it's starting to make a comeback. They just need to have at least one season where no member of the law firm is being stalked, and they might win us back completely.

Posted by: Demandred

I'm just not sure how I feel about this show. Most weeks it's lame, but then sometimes they have a good episode, so I keep watching.

To quote Denis Leary, "All your generation ever did was watch TV!" "Well yeah, what did you expect, we saw Lee Harvey Oswald get shot live on TV one morning, and we were afraid to change the channel for the next 25 ****ing years!"

Posted by: Pan Chun

After this week, how does Walsh keep ANY credibility when arguing against Donnell and company? He's back next week bigtime (according to the promo)...but after his performance both in court and with the press THIS week, I'm surprised the justice department (at least the MASS DOJ) isn't suspending him pending an investigation or something! :confused:

Posted by: NatasNJ

Agreed.. His late speech to the press made me think that he was about to pull out a gun and shoot himself.

Posted by: tstowell

quote:
Originally posted by NatasNJ
Agreed.. His late speech to the press made me think that he was about to pull out a gun and shoot himself.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this. I was waiting for him to pull a gun out and shoot either himself or Lindsay.

Travis

Posted by: loopey

What happend to the kidnapping storyline. I thought they had a storyline with the kid going from one parent to her real mom. I thought that was this week..

Posted by: fmowry

It appears the kidnapping storyline is dead unless it resurfaces after next week. No mention of it in next weeks previews.

Frank

Posted by: Pan Chun

This DA character is getting further and further away from the world of sanity...or am I off-base here?

Posted by: harvscar

Lindsey and the DA are both off, the DA's just funnier. I thought it was a very touching scene he had with Ellenor. The show has its hits and misses, but overall it continues to be hell of a ride.

Posted by: Todd

I liked the old DA better. This new guy is just to mean and crazy.

Posted by: Philosofy

When I saw the word "Mother" on the door, I was thinking possible "Shark Jump". Lindsay is acting completely out of charecter. And whatever happened to Elanor's kid?

Posted by: fmowry

Funny rant from the DA about "big boned" Eleanor and the new lawyer's sexual activity. sperm magnet. Doh!

Frank

Posted by: Steavis

Not to mention she was more offended by "cherubic" than by "sperm magnet."

Posted by: loopey

Probably because she didn't know what it meant!

I love the term sperm magnet.

Posted by: Rcrew

Caught up on this series yesterday. Am a bit disturbed by the Mother on Lindsey's door too. So she's not going to work late or weekends, and now being a mother is more important. Ok, since she was on the verge of loosing everything in her life, maybe this isn't too far over the line, for now.

And now two guys from the DA's office have propositioned Ellenor...

Bobby & Eugene get a reasonable deal worked out, and the judge nixes it...

It was an ok episode, but mostly filler after the huge Lindsey shows. More substance please...

Posted by: fmowry

More Eugene please too....I've had about enough of Bobby and Lindsay.

Frank

Posted by: AJRitz

I agree that Lindsey has become tiresome. Either let her hang out at home with the baby (maybe she could provide daycare for Eleanor too) or get her some serious counseling and have her make only-on-TV progress and recover quickly - just get that already overwrought plot-device (yet another attorney kills stalking former client) done with.

As for the judge nixing the plea agreement - it happens all the time in the context they showed. AFAIK, "allocution" (specifically admitting, in court and on the record, to every element of the charged offense) is REQUIRED now in all federal courts. Theoretically at least, allocution is supposed to make sure that defendants are not unduly pressured by their attorneys (or by prosecutors) to take deals that they really didn't want to take, and it's supposed to cut down on post-conviction (post-plea) motions to overturn convictions because the defendant wasn't fully informed of what was being admitted when taking the deal.

I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with SM (as I will forever after be referring to the "Sperm Magnet"). Unfortunately, I see a paranoid Lindsey thinking that SM is having an affair with Bobby while she's out of the office as all too likely.

Posted by: Pan Chun

For those who weren't aware, the "Sperm Magnet" is the daughter of Kate Capshaw and step-daughter of Steven Spielberg...! :)

Posted by: loopey

I liked tonight's episode. The practical joke on sperm magnet, the Bobby going nuts story. I am waiting for him to off himself. I wonder if he's going to get out of the criminal defence practice and he and Lindsey are going to start a "parents" practice - and a new show :). Naa, he'll be back to normal soon enough I'm sure.