MovieChat Forums > The Practice (1997) Discussion > Has there EVER been a satisfying guilty ...

Has there EVER been a satisfying guilty verdict on this show?

posted 14 years ago by jdhs223
41 replies | jump to latest

I'm addicted to the plotlines as much as anyone, but it does bother me that every single guilty as hell Donnell et al client gets acquitted. I don't get nervous anymore when the jury reads its verdicts in criminal trials when there's a "scum" defendant with a seemingly hopeless case because I ALWAYS know it's going to be NOT GUILTY - the writers have shown us this consistent pattern with NO exeptions that I can think of.

There's also a pattern of Guilty verdicts often coming down when there's either an innocent client - often being framed by or covering up for someone else - or a technically guilty client with either a heartwrenchingly sympathetic story or a relatively petty crime that incurs an absurd sentence: doctors and family members getting convicted of murder in mercy killings of their consenting, terminally ill and suffering families and patients; life sentences for both a deaf mother who killed the man who raped and killed her young daughter and Christian Scientist parents who denied thier sick son medical treatment, genuinely believing prayer to be the best thing; a teenage boy who got 20 years for perjury when he refused to incriminate his father for murder.

When I'm actually rooting for the main characters in a case because I'm led to believe the client is innocent and there's an acquittal, it usually means I'm going to find out later that they were guilty afterall. George Vogleman, a Latino teenage guy who was dating a priest or minister that pretended to report an anonymous congregant's confession, Alan's friend, played by Patrick Dempsey, and a pregnant woman who claimed to have killed her husband in defense of herself and their unborn child - but then gives birth to a mixed race baby who clearly was not her husband's - were all thought to be innocent by their lawyers and by us until after the trial.

In other words, justice is almost never served on this show, giving the frustrating impression that the system is not just imperfect but absurdly arbitrary.

OCCASIONALLY Donnell et. al will save an innocent or sympathetic client. Their two death row exonerations, the moral passion defense for Gerald Braun, Rachel Reynolds in the pilot, Steven Frenault who Eugene thought was guilty until after the trial Season 1... I know there are others. These are the only cass where I get to really feel good about what they're doing and satisfied with the result.

I think the closest the prosecution came to winning a case I was glad for them to have won was the guy whose brother burned his adulterous wife to death in a Middle Eastern country (I forget which one). Even then, I had some mixed feelings though, because it seemed the brother on trial might not have known about the killing in advance -it wasn't clear to the audience. He did pardon his brother for the crime, but if he hadn't his brother would've been sentenced to death... so yeah, mixed feelings if I'd been on the jury. Every time I was unambiguously rooting for the prosecution - which was a lot - they lost.

I'd like for Helen Gamble to SOMETIMES get the satisfaction of successfully putting away a heinous criminal. When she's not pursuing a client she knows is likely innocent or a mercy killer, I actually tend to like and sympathize with her.

[–] rock525 14 years ago

Poor Richard's Almanac episode.

[–] ng_480 14 years ago

Yeah, the one episode in which Richard (in his final appearence) won the case and, unfortunately, was assassinated because of it.

[–] furienna 14 years ago

I can't think of a satisfying guilty verdict either. But almost every not-guilty verdict was satisfying.

Intelligence and purity.

[–] greenegg 14 years ago

Lawrence O'Malley's (Eat and Run) not guilty verdict was one of the most dissatisfying verdicts in the entire series.

Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!

[–] furienna 14 years ago

Yes, there were two maniacs, who both were after Lindsay, who were free to go thanks to technicalities. But it was far more common, that the wrong person was convicted for a crime. Like when a senator rather took the blame for a murder, that his wife had commited, than admitting he was gay. Or when the wrong identical twin was convicted for a rape. Or when a woman was convicted of murdering her brother-in-law, when his wife and her husband probably were the ones, who had done it.

And there were also many cases, where a person was technically guilty and thus was convicted, even though they had a sympathetic story. Like the deaf mother, who shot her daughter's murderer, or the girl, who shot a guy, who had raped her. And yes, the Christian Scientist couple were also treated far too cruelly. They hadn't actually murdered their son. They had only chosen not to take him to a doctor, as medical care was against their religion.

Intelligence and purity.

[–] greenegg 14 years ago

Great examples!

Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AltaireIII 14 years ago

I found the guilty verdict against the Christian Science couple completely satisfying. Freedom of religion only goes so far.

As for the son who got 20 years for perjury, that too was fine with me. If he doesn't want to incriminate his father then that is how he feels. But if the law compels him to testify then he has to tell the truth.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AltaireIII 14 years ago

"I blame Eleanor on this! "

That case was out of character for the Eleanor character. She seemed like a very smart attorney with a great legal mind. But on this case she totally went dumb. The Eleanor before this case knew about the felony murder statute and perjury. She knew about such things very well. She normally would have seen the consequences coming a mile away. It was bad writing with regards to the Eleanor character.

It would have been a better story if the kid said, "I understand the consequences and I am still going to change my story. Screw you." The real Eleanor would not have taken that so easily.

[–] Trevor-5 10 years ago

Who is "Eleanor"? There is no character by THAT name in the cast or recurring characters.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Trevor-5 10 years ago

Surprisingly, yes! Much more than I thought I would. Thank you.

[–] furienna 14 years ago

I found the guilty verdict against the Christian Science couple completely satisfying. Freedom of religion only goes so far.

But they hadn't actually murdered their son!

As for the son who got 20 years for perjury, that too was fine with me. If he doesn't want to incriminate his father then that is how he feels. But if the law compels him to testify then he has to tell the truth.

But should a son really be forced to testify against his father? As I understand it, you have the right to refuse to testify against your husband or wife.

Intelligence and purity.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] X-Hal 10 years ago

Wow there are still people like you? People who have respect for the law JUST because it's the law?

Horrifying.

- - -

Whether they find life there or not, I think Jupiter should be considered an enemy planet.

[–] DocBrown88 14 years ago

The Season 2 episode where the guy imitated a serial killer, The Poet, by cutting off a woman's hands and head.

It was the first major loss for Bobby during the show, and he said "I want the jury polled!" because he was in disbelief over losing. The guy was totally guilty though.

This was also the episode where Bobby and Helen broke up, because they were on opposite sides of the case.

[–] cshep79406 14 years ago

Actually, with the Christian Scientist couple, didn't they acquit the father and convict the mother? The reason was that the father genuinely believed what he was doing was right, but the mother had doubts and thought the child should go to the hospital. They convicted the mother for not acting on her beliefs.

[–] PrepaidVenerealDisease 14 years ago

I remember that episode. It was the wife. As the jury was being polled the camera cut to the wife grinning. Sometime during the episode the husband even accused her of doing it. Claiming she knew about the affair and wanted to get even by framing him for the mistress' murder.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] auntie_vals_vaginal_douche 12 years ago

why do you end every sentence with an exclamation mark![?]

natural po-lice...

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] auntie_vals_vaginal_douche 12 years ago

i asked a valid question; it wasn't meant as an insult. i'm genuinely curious - did you lose a bet or something? before i asked the question, i had a look at some of your more recent posts, and you still do it. also, people tend to hit the forums when they watch something, not necessarily just after you've posted something. if you think i'm a loser for responding to your out of date post, you really shouldn't have responded to my response.

natural po-lice...

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] auntie_vals_vaginal_douche 12 years ago

okay, let's wind this back a notch, and look at the question i asked you: why do you end every sentence with an exclamation mark? i really want to know. i just started watching 'the practice', and you're all over the boards; and you really do do it every time. please, please just humour me and tell me why you do it.

natural po-lice...

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] auntie_vals_vaginal_douche 12 years ago

you aren't necessarily correct in your comment, but i am a woman, so you are clearly very perceptive.

now, why do you end your sentences in exclamation points?

natural po-lice...

[–] lancer165 12 years ago

On reflection regarding the OP. Perhaps the writers did not want the viewer to be satisfied.

I worked in the Law and order section for the greater part of my life in what you USA call correctional. I was a medic so there is not real sense of my being a bully, corrupt or all those other constantly negative views displayed for our entertainment. I was never even attacked by the many and i mean high percentage of low educated and 'mental' patients. Yet one memory of a recent episode was the police going to great lengths to implicate Eleanor if they could as either the perpetrator or corrupt regarding the podiatrists guilt. This for me would have been a great story if it had played out as the tale of sad low esteemed female on a revenge trip having stalked the podiatrist teach him a lesson. However as she was the one who was able to feel that she was not going to fall into the trap of having a relationship with some she perceived as having less visible qualities than her. Her trial might have been interesting with perhaps Lindsay defending her after the 'penis' snide.

We are offered up the indignation of our defence team every week using the law as it has been translated today to justify defending scum. We all know that the real reason behind these TRUTHS WE ALL HOLD TRUE nonsense is that come lawyers especially the PDs income is based on the very volume of offenders. If they fail to get them off especially the three times loser then the pool and the pot reduces. I believe that the methodology is self serving.

Take the cause that offended Eleanor so much when they as a CONSPIRACY of lovers threw out the potential Asbestos client. I see that was her trying to up her own part of the law firm pot but had an earlier episode not shown Lindsay trying to bring in something in oder to help the victims of Asbestos. I know this never really went anywhere but as a firm could they have justified serving two masters.

USA viewers should really take a look at British Law on film.

What you call a law firm is probably the same as our solicitor firms. No not groups of HOOKERS.

We too have Judges who are viewed as having certain leanings [which I feel is despicable if the law is blind and even handed]. We have learned how to chase ambulances as shown by that other side of law. I enjoy so much the Lawyer character in Breaking Bad. Over the top but it is implied that he exists in great numbers.

But we also have this thing know as the Barrister who takes the cases to argue in open court. He is not allowed to have knowledge of guilt in the same way that our so called heroes are aware. He is not even allowed when he takes the case to ask the accused to give him something which he can work around as he then becomes an accomplice. Watching USA TV legal drama and when it is inserted into other dramas it seems to be natural for this privilege nay the SANCTITY of the confession, the journalistic information, the client lawyer confidentiality thing is overplayed. Why not make it a law that witnesses are not allowed to tell what they saw heard or anything.

Back to OP.I think that although the format does tend to get a little lazy, we are supposed to be a little disappointed with the outcomes especially the ones that are to come back later to haunt.

If any of you UK and USA or those who have an interest would care a writer to look up [for tv stories is Jimmy McGovern. He has a page on IMDB. Mostly known for the series CRACKER / FITZ which has traveled to the USA. I am unsure about how it has played out in the USA but was a very hard hitting series over here. He has written a few other things which I found exceptionally hard multi layered tales with not always the predictable outcome. If you can get viewings of THE STREET and the ACCUSED give a serious watch. Be aware that the language English is spoken as of the area of the story. This might be difficult for some americans but if they can understand their mid west, or southern of northern variances in dialect why should the English variations cause a problem.

I like to see the baddies go away and the good be recompensed. USA law in the hands of Bobby, Eleanor and Eugene cant allow that.

The worst thing to date I have seen so far was the occasion that Rebbecca found herself defending a petty criminal who might have been a serial killer and was admonished by a judge for sharing this fear. She was looking for genuine advice and was not aided all due to the 'niceties' and the rules of the legal system.

I am genuinely waiting for the ongoing regarding the serial killer who has now donated an excuse to go dog walking with Lindsay.

I don't remember seeing any Boston Legal to date but will wait until I have exhausted the practice.

[–] jimmyberluti1 12 years ago

You will not like BL.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ldeliane 12 years ago

.. an extremely satisfying guilty verdict in the episode, "Brothers Keepers": a man is found guilty for 'allowing' his wife to be burned alive by his brother.

[–] juviejay 11 years ago

Well, there was the episode where Helen got the kid to serve time for killing that woman's cat. Personally, I thought the sentence was too stiff, but the show kind of implied that it was a just result.

Then there was the one with the doctor who gave too much morphine to his patient. Helen pressed and pressed and the jury convicted him. Then she said something about time served and community service to Bobby afterwards. Not sure if she could have done that after the trial, but it was, perhaps, satisfying. Personally, I thought it was too lenient.

Then there was the one where she went after the TV show producer who aired an assisted suicide. I did find that one appealing.

One thing about Helen, she could make a sympathetic defendant seem less sympathetic with her tenacity and the validity of her arguments.

Then there was the flasher who accepted a plea to go to counseling. Not really a verdict, but a judgement. Eugene gives him a speech about how he needs to feel like he had a small victory.

Also, as far as judgements go, the judgement that Jimmy won against the guy who's dog bit the girl's face was very, very satisfying. And, I liked the settlement with the tobacco company, too. And Jimmy's case against the gun manufacturer, that was great.

And, well, I did actually find the conviction of Lindsey satisfying. Not that I didn't like her, and I was glad that she got out, but she did murder that guy.

I'm sure there were more, but I can't recall them now.

[–] juviejay 11 years ago

Okay, just watched an episode in which a guy was found guilty of raping an 11 year old. That was as atisfying guilty verdict.

[–] aprilkepner 10 years ago

I've been rewatching this show lately and I just saw the most ridiculous episode with the most ridiculous, unsatisfying verdict. It's the episode where the black former athlete got into a physical altercation with a store owner, jumped him along with a few other random shoppers leaving him badly beaten, beat up a security guard and then tossed him through a glass window KILLING HIM. It was all caught on the surveillance camera...and he was found not guilty!? What the fvck. And it was played like we were supposed to be HAPPY that he got off. He was claiming self defense and racial profiling. His actions in the video CLEARLY showed him initiating a fight and then allowing it to escalate beyond reason, to the point of murder. I could not believe that he was not charged. He was SO guilty! That's literally the only really, really stupid episode of this show I've seen. Everything up until that point had been superb and excellent television. That was just...I'll say it again, ridiculous.*

*I'm black, as if it matters.

[–] xbq3 10 years ago

I don't think you got the right message out of that episode. It wasn't about that guy's guilt. There is no question he was guilty, the lawyers knew that and were just trying to find a way to have the jury dismiss the idea he was. They first came up with the racist angle, that was deemed despicable because it was, and Eugene and Rebecca got all enraged about this line of argument. Then Eugene argued that it was all about pressure of society, where the black man is always seen as guilty, and that he just had enough. The message of the episode is that this is also NOT a satisfactory excuse. Bobby confronts Eugene at the end and displays it for him, but also for us as the audience. First time I watched this, I thought this was an episode about racism. It still is. But now I realize it also sets this limit, and does so in a pretty clever way I might add.

[–] michaelsmith1963-805-894271 10 years ago

Very good summation of my thoughts exactly. I hated David Kelly's cynical approach that every guilty murderer or rapist would go free, and just about every innocent person would get convicted. It was such a jaded and pessimistic view of our criminal justice system. He's free to move a country with a better system if he hates it so badly.

For me, given the firm's win-at-all-costs no matter how heinous their defendents were, I think a fitting finale would have been for one of their own to get murdered, and then the killer gets off as the rest of them sit in the courtroom and see how it feels, like all the victims' families they robbed of any closure or justice.

[–] ADz-83 10 years ago

I was very satisfied with the episode where the two Christians got sent down due to their idiotic beliefs. People like that who impose their beliefs on their children to the extent it puts their life in danger deserve to be put away for life.

[–] flobiwan-1 9 years ago

I liked that verdict too. Actually, they were Christian Scientists, not Christians. I am a born-again Christian and am adamantly opposed to people who deny their children medical treatment under the label of religion. If you are going to refuse to let your child get life-saving medical treatment insisting that God will miraculously heal them, then you had better be right. And, if you're not, you should willingly accept the consequences.