All language subtitles for The.Practice.S07E14.The.Making.of.a.Trial.Attorney.HULU.WEB-DL.AAC2.0.H.264-AJP69_track3_[eng]

NYLER: That's my son there,
Marshall.

He looks like a great kid.

NYLER: Yeah, well,
I wouldn't know.

You know,
he was three months old

when I began my term.

My wife remarried,

and he was raised by, um,

you know,
he thinks of his stepdad

as his father.
Oh.

NYLER: No, hey, I mean,
I owe the guy, really.

You know,
he's been a pretty good dad.

Hey.

They're willing to move
for a finding

of your legal innocence.

That's it?

No money?

No.

Fifteen years for a murder
I didn't do,

they offer nothing?

They don't feel
they were negligent,

plus, the state doesn't like
to admit mistakes.

It goes to a fear
of getting sued.

Why haven't they moved
for a legal finding on their own

long before now?

As I said,

they don't like to formally
acknowledge mistakes.

So, if we continue on,

can we win?

Honestly, I don't know.

They'll claim,
given all the evidence,

your arrest was reasonable.

After that, it was a jury

that convicted you.

We obviously can't sue them.

We won't win.

I don't think so.

Bobby,
I know that you took this

on a contingency,

and 33% of nothing isn't much.

But given...

that I did fifteen years,

I would like to at least

give them three days...

of hell.

A summons?

DONNELL: I need you
to testify.

Why?
Because you were the D. A.

who prosecuted him, Ken.

It was one
of our first trials,

when our relationship
was formed, remember?

You blaming me?

I'm certainly not blaming.

I'm just exploring
how an innocent man

ended up serving 15 years.

Look...

I've spent a lot
of money in therapy,

you piece of crap

and I'm trying now
to be nice.

I've held out an olive branch
to your firm.

If you intend
to thrash me with it--

That isn't the case.

I just want your take.

My take.

You come after me,
I'll fillet you, Bobby,

right in the courtroom
for the jury to see.

I can see those
therapy dollars at work.

Don't do this.

That's a warning.

You have your summons.

I'll see you in court.

(paper crumpling)

(music playing)

(sighs)

Everything okay?

(sighs)

No.

Will you argue?

What?

I'm over my head.

I'm going up against
John Wicker

from Goodman.

Do you believe that?
They've got Wicker.

You said you were ready.

I am,

but let's face it, Lindsay,

I'm suing a town

for having a soccer program.

Add to that, I've been
to court twice

in my entire life.

Add to that
they've got Wicker.

Add to that--
Are you okay?

Lindsay, sometimes...

I sort of freeze.

What do you mean?

When I get nervous or--

I'll be fine.

I'll be fine.

The victim was a 70 year-old
retired school teacher,

robbed, beaten to death
with a wrench.

I was lead detective
on the case.

DONNELL: And, Detective,
what led you to conclude

that Lewis Nyler
was the killer?

Two eyewitnesses gave
a description matching his,

one picked him out
of a lineup,

he had no alibi,

his wrench
was the murder weapon,

and he confessed.

He initially maintained
his innocence.

They all do.

DONNELL: But this one
was innocent.

At what point
during your interrogation

did my client confess?

Approximately 28 hours.

He was in that room

for 28 straight hours?
Yes.

You basically wore him down?

The confession was voluntary.

Detective, a month after
my client was convicted,

another man confessed
to the killing,

isn't that right?

A man by the name
of Mark Carter?

PEGLER: Unfortunately,
we didn't think

that confession was credible.

I thought he was trying
to make a deal

on a different murder
he'd been charged with.

And last year,

15 years later,

you finally did a DNA analysis
on the wrench,

didn't you?
Yes.

And what did that analysis
tell you?

That Mark Carter was,
indeed, the killer.

We apologize.

Can't you make a call

and tell them I'm dead
or something?

They've cracked down
on jury duty now.

It's not so easy
to get out of.

Well, what about
something medical?

Well, what have you got,
hemorrhoids?

Well, does that work?

Because I can get one.

Hello, I'm looking
for Lindsay Dole.

Is she here, by any chance?

No, she actually
doesn't work here anymore,

but her office is right--
Yes, I know.

I worked
with her temporarily.

My name's Claire Wyatt.

More about that later.

Do you know where she is?

No.

Have you tried her daycare?

Right.

Thank you.

WYATT: Oh, Lindsay,

they wanna meet.

DOLE: Who?
The defendant,

the Town of Lexington,
they wanna meet.

They must have an offer.

DOLE: Let's not jump
to conclusions.

Why else would they want
a conference,

to discuss spring fashions?

They even agreed
to come here.

They must have an offer.

DOLE: Okay.

Well, if they
wanna discuss settlement,

it's best not to appear

overanxious.
Right.

And I'm sure
it goes without saying,

try not to freeze
or vomit.

Right.

(sighs)

That was hurtful.

I have never
knowingly prosecuted

an innocent man.

But you knew
about another man

who confessed
to being the killer,

a man by the name
of Mark Carter.

I heard that allegation

soon after the trial,

but I didn't believe it.

Did you interview
Mr. Carter?

As I said,
I didn't believe him

to be telling the truth.

Did you interview him?

The prosecutor
doesn't beat the bushes

for new witnesses,
counsel.

I rely on the police
for that.

They said this Mr. Carter
was a liar.

And that's what you told
the parole board six years ago,

when you urged them to deny

Lewis Nyler's parole.

WALSH: Yes,

but once the Innocence Project
did the DNA test,

we did vacate his conviction,

which I, of course,
fully supported.

DONNELL: After he served
15 years in prison

for a crime
he didn't commit.

WALSH: Hey, I wish
we had money

to spot-check
every conviction

to make sure
this never happens again.

WALSH: We don't.

DONNELL: How about just
interviewing the people

who confessed to the crime?

Did you interview him?

I didn't know about him.
Why not?

Did you follow up
on the case, counsel,

or did you just move on

once your client got convicted?
Move to strike.

You're the defense attorney

and you're coming after me,
the prosecutor,

for not being zealous enough

in securing
your client's freedom.

Am I the only one
who thinks that's funny?

All right, Mr. Walsh.

Your Honor...

just like to say,

as the D. A.
who prosecuted this man,

I have a heavy heart.

I don't deny it

but what about his heart?
Move to strike!

WALSH: Where was he
to request the DNA tests?

But for the Project Innocence,

his client would still
be locked up.

DONNELL: Move to strike!

All right,
let's just move on.

What do you mean no studies?

I can't find any.

In fact,
the Department of Justice

doesn't even track the statistic

of how many people
are falsely convicted.

That's impossible.

Bobby, next to looks,

I pride myself
on my research and--

Rebecca, can you help
Jamie out, please?

Did you try the N. I. J.?

They documented some cases,

but there was nothing
to overall patterns.

Bobby, let's face it,
this case is a dog.

I realize that, Eugene,
but the client wants to try it.

WASHINGTON:
I forget who said it,

but somebody here
recently kind of screamed at us

to make the client see reason.

Rebecca...

I was the lawyer
who lost this one.

I had an innocent man
go to prison on me.

If he wants me
to do cartwheels for him now,

then that's what I'll do.

And how do you decide
if he should be released?

HODGES: There are a number
of factors.

Is he still a danger
to the community?

Has he bettered himself
in prison?

Has he been rehabilitated?

MAN: And you decided
that Mr. Nyler

was not a good candidate
for release.

Frankly,
he was a terrible candidate.

Why?

His attitude towards us
was angry.

He wouldn't take responsibility
for his situation,

and he didn't give us
the confidence we needed to risk

letting him back out
on the street.

The police and the prosecutors
opposed release,

as well as the victim's family.

This was not a hard call.

My client was a model prisoner,

no disciplinary problems,

correct?
Yes.

The only reason
you wouldn't grant him parole

is because he refused to say
he was the killer.

He showed a profound lack
of remorse

and wouldn't accept
responsibility

for what was a heinous crime.

DONNELL: Well,
that's understandable.

I mean, isn't it?

He was innocent.

HODGES: As it turned out.

Certainly,
we didn't know that.

But you had knowledge
that another man confessed.

HODGES: We had no knowledge

that the confession
was truthful, nor did we have--

DONNELL: And you couldn't be
bothered to find out.

HODGES: Mr. Donnell,

the parole board
does not exist to investigate.

We assume guilt going in.

We have to. Otherwise--

DONNELL: You denied
my client parole

because he told the truth.

An innocent man
served extra time in jail

simply because he maintained
his innocence.

In this case,
as it worked out, yes.

And that's regrettable.

DONNELL: Regrettable?

Don't you think it's perverse?

He served extra time
for being truthful.

Mistakes were made
in this case,

but none of them were ours.

We did our job
as the law required.

As the law required.

Ms. Hodges...

had you been armed
with the DNA evidence

that conclusively proved
my client's innocence,

would you have then
granted him parole?

No.

No?

If your client
was still in prison,

refusing to accept
responsibility,

DNA evidence or not,
we'd have no choice.

We would have
denied him parole.

WICKER: I must say,
I'm only here

at the insistence
of a charitable mayor.

Against my better judgment,

which is expensive,
by the way,

I'm putting $35,000
on the table,

condition, of course,
on confidentiality.

Thirty-five thousand?

He has learning disabilities.

Ms. Wyatt, I don't think
you want the number

to reflect the merits
of your case,

because we all know
what that number is.

Well, if this
is all about charity,

why would the mayor
wanna keep it such a secret?

Most politicians
like photo ops

with their acts of kindness.

The secrecy
is at my insistence.

What would happen
if every child

who ever headed a soccer ball

came calling
to collect a check?

I would think
if the children

had neurological deficits

caused by town-sponsored
programs,

a town would consider
compensating them.

The $35,000
is on the table today.

It won't be, should you lose
at summary judgment.

Now, I won't advise
either of you

how to practice law.

You're both good attorneys.

But I will say,
come on, do the math.

Thirty-five is better
than nothing.

WICKER: What are you thinking?

Ms. Wyatt?

We'll take the offer
to our client,

then let you know.

I just hit her

first with my hand,

then with the wrench.

I don't know how many times,

but I couldn't stop myself

not till...

she was dead.

I just couldn't stop myself.

That was you, Mr. Nyler,

saying that you did it.

I had been in that room
all night.

But were you tortured?

Did any officer beat you or--

It was mental torture.

They kept me awake,

and they said that
they wouldn't let me out

till I confessed.

Finally, I, um...

I gave in.

Mr. Nyler,

when you looked
at that tape just now,

can you make room
for the possibility

that a detective or a jury

or a parole board

might consider you guilty?

They didn't see
what went on before that.

What did go on?

They just kept saying
they knew I did it.

After 20 hours or so,

I was delirious.

I just--

I was sleep-deprived.

I was mentally--

at some point,

I guess you'll say anything

to get them to stop.

And I did.

But the next day,

I told them it was a lie.

I never did it.

But they didn't want
that statement.

They wanted their conviction.

They never looked
for the truth.

I lost my family,

my son,

15 years of my life

because they never looked
for the truth.

Have you ever seen
a doctor for this?

WYATT: Yes, and he said
it's all anxiety.

He suggested
I do breathing exercises.

It's not like I black out.

It's just--

I can't talk.

Look...

you said you wanted
to talk about something.

Yes, and I appreciate
you taking time

out of your busy schedule.

I just--

Lindsay has been giving me
little pep talks

to bolster my confidence,

and, um, well,
she told me your story.

My story?

Yes, how...

a few years ago,

your nickname
was Jimmy The Grunt

and nobody
took you seriously.

Lindsay shared that?

Yes.

And well,

I guess...

I was looking
for some insight,

you know,
on turning the corner.

Well...

with me,

I just made up my mind

I wasn't gonna get knocked down.

I was the first lawyer
in my family, and--

but I didn't have
this freezing problem.

My father's a lawyer.

I think it adds
to the pressure.

I remember the look
on his face

when I told him that
I was going to law school.

And he didn't believe
I was cut out for it.

I think that's partly
why I freeze.

Claire...

maybe you should
really try to settle.

Nothing?

Not a race disparity, even?

For sentencing, yes,

but not for wrongful
convictions.

We're coming up empty.

There was one law review

that figured 10,000 wrongful
convictions a year,

but there's no hard data
on that.

WASHINGTON: Bobby, may I ask
what are you going for?

If you're planning to argue
false convictions are common,

that goes against
your negligence claim.

If you argue
they're not common,

that hurts you
on foreseeability.

What's your case?

I'm not sure.

You're not sure?

The truth is...

Walsh is right.

If anybody's to blame here,
it's probably me.

I pored through that
trial transcript.

You did nothing wrong.

I should've suppressed
that confession.

You tried.
It was voluntary.

And why didn't I push
for DNA testing?

WASHINGTON: Bobby, 15 years ago,
they weren't doing that.

But 10 years ago, they were.

The reality is...

I never went back

because I believed

my client was guilty.

I bought into that confession

just like everybody else.

Not a good thing to bring up
in your closing.

(sigh)

Thirty-five thousand.

It isn't much, but--

My son has
learning disabilities,

attention deficits.

The stumbling block
is liability.

The doctors can't establish
that heading the soccer ball

caused the injuries,

and--
The doctors think it's that,

and I know conclusively
as his mother.

He never had any
of these problems

before the headaches
after the soccer games.

DOLE: There's also assumption
of the risk issues.

BOYD: I never assumed

any risk
of neurological disability

when I let him play soccer.

DOLE: Neither of us
is suggesting that $35,000

will make you
or your son whole.

But you're telling me
to take it.

Because we don't believe
we'll prevail.

I don't think we'll even survive
summary judgment.

Thirty-five won't do it.

Mary...
Thirty-five won't do it.

When I tried this case
15 years ago,

I was a young,

idealistic lawyer

who believed very much

that our criminal-justice system

was the best in the world.

We've heard it said
so many times

that we've almost
come to believe

it's perfect.

Well, it certainly
wasn't perfect for Lewis Nyler.

First, to defend him,
he got a kid

fresh out of law school.

Sure, I'll say it,

I could've,
perhaps should've done

a much better job.

But the truth is,

criminal defendants rarely
get the pick of the litter.

And I was a novice,

looking to pick up experience

and rent money.

Imagine...

being on trial for murder

and having an inexperienced
if not inferior attorney

happens all the time

in our great
criminal justice system.

One would hope, given that,

that the state would take care
to ensure fairness,

one would hope.

Look what the state did here.

First, the parole issue.

Lewis Nyler,
an innocent man,

served an extra six years
in prison

for refusing to say
he was guilty.

Let me say that again.

An innocent man

served additional time

for not admitting guilt.

The perversity of that
speaks for itself.

The even bigger question,

how did an innocent man

end up in prison

to begin with?

We certainly know
it happens,

the Central Park jogger case,

Rampart,
all the reversals from DNA,

and the work
of Project Innocence,

we now know

that people get falsely
convicted a lot.

I hoped to present you
with studies,

but guess what?

There aren't any.

In fact, the United States
Department of Justice

doesn't even track statistics
on how many people

get falsely convicted
every year.

That's outrageous.

Add to that

nobody is trying

to remedy the problem.

With all these overturned
convictions and revelations

of enormous error,
not once

has any court or jurisdiction

gone back and tried
to figure out how it happened.

Your Honor, I'm sorry,

but he's introducing
evidence here.

I'm going to allow it.

DONNELL: In medicine,

if a patient dies, immediately,

a morbidity
and mortality commission

is assembled to figure out how.

If a building collapses,
engineers and architects

convene to ascertain
the cause,

but in criminal justice,

with so many false convictions,

we're doing nothing

to either fix the problem

or even probe the cause,

nothing.

LANDER: All right,
Mr. Donnell.

I think I will ask you

to confine yourself
to this case.

This case

is about governmental arrogance.

An innocent man was thrown
into an interrogation room

and not let out

until he signed
a false confession

28 hours later.

Despite the real killer
confessing to the crime,

Lewis Nyler
continued to serve

15 years in prison,

the last six simply
for insisting

on his innocence.

He lost his family,

a big part of his life,

and the state
offers no compensation,

nor has it so much
as thrown together a panel

to ask how it happened.

That's arrogance.

My fix,

we need a jury

to motivate the state

to re-examine its procedures,

not just for Lewis Nyler's sake,

but for the next
innocent man,

and the next innocent man
after that,

and the one after that.

We need a jury

to motivate the state

to make our criminal
justice system

every bit as good
as it's cracked up to be.

You know, 15 years later,

I still consider myself

an idealistic attorney.

I guess in the spirit

of that idealism,

as well as
in the spirit of simple...

fairness.

I am hoping...

you're that jury.

(music playing)

Very inspiring

but, uh,

let's look
at the merits of the case

instead of the politics.

First, the parole issue,

a parole board exists

not to determine
innocence or guilt,

but to determine
whether a prisoner

is fit for release,

i.e. rehabilitation,

the board assumes guilt.

Occasionally,

that results in an innocent man

being required

to acknowledge guilt for a crime

that he didn't commit,

and that is unfortunate,

but what's the alternative?

No such requirement?

We're going to start
paroling prisoners

who don't express remorse?

You really want that?

As for the bigger question,

how did he end up in jail
to begin with?

A terrible, horrific result,

no argument here,

but whose fault, really?

Lewis Nyler's wrench
was the murder weapon,

two witnesses described him,

one even pulled him out
of a lineup,

and he confessed.

Oh, Mr. Donnell,

he left that out
of his stirring speech.

Lewis Nyler confessed.

And there was nothing illegal

about that confession.

It was constitutional,

voluntary, valid.

So who do we blame?

The witnesses,
who made a mistake?

Good luck.

No witness
will ever come forward again

for fear of being sued.

The police or the prosecutors

for relying on those witnesses,

as well as the other evidence,

including a murder weapon

and a confession?

The parole board for believing

in a prisoner's guilt
post-conviction?

Now, if you are desperate

to find blame here,

you might start with Mr. Nyler.

He lied.

Maybe he was vulnerable
after a lengthy interrogation.

I'll give you that,

but let's face it,
we might not be here

if Lewis Nyler had not signed
that confession,

saying that he committed
the crime.

And as for why the state

hasn't done a better job
asking questions,

analyzing mistakes,

Mr. Donnell certainly
is idealistic.

The reason that our
criminal justice system

is the best in the world

is because it is so thoroughly

adversarial.

The check that we have

against false convictions,

the best check--
the defense attorney.

And I have to ask

if the IDs of those witnesses

were impeachable,

if that confession

was suspect,

if that DNA existed

for 15 years,

where, I ask, was his lawyer?

Now,

if Mr. Donnell
and all of his idealism,

is suggesting
that we do our jobs

as well as his,

well,

there's burden

and then there's burden.

DOLE: The thing about Lander,

he's a fair judge,

smart,

but he's extremely active.

Okay.

His docket
is also pretty congested,

which means you can expect
some intolerance.

Why?

You're suing a town

for having a soccer program.

Also,

he has a bit of a reputation

for beating up on the weak,

and...

he doesn't much like women.

Great.

You need to stand
your ground, Claire.

Right. Okay.

Would you like me
to do this?

Why do you ask that?

Well, you...

you seem uneasy.

Claire,

please, please,
don't be offended

by what I'm about to say.

Some lawyers
though very capable,

extremely intelligent

aren't quite equipped
to be trial attorneys.

It takes a certain stomach.

I'm not saying
that you lack the stomach.

I'm just saying that, uh,

that it's no great shame--

I feel quite strongly
I'm equipped.

Okay.

If, uh, if you need
any more help,

just, uh, just call me, okay?

Uh-hmm.

DOLE: I'll see you in there.

Okay.

(music playing)

No word?

Not yet.

They haven't been out
too long, really.

(clears throat)

You've been beating yourself up

pretty good over this one.

I think it should be a law.

For any crime
where the defendant faces prison

for ten years or more,

the attorney should be required

to have at least five years

of experience.

Problem is,

most lawyers, once they get
that much experience,

tend to have paying clients.

And the last thing they want

are criminal cases.

That's what makes
our work so noble,

remember?

Bobby,
you're never gonna believe

who's here to see you.

Could you get me off a jury?

YOUNG: Come on, Lucy.

(sighs) If your therapist
sent you here, I'm not--

That's not it.

Then what is it?

Look,

Bobby,

I'd be lying
if I said I...

didn't enjoy
getting the better of you.

I do.

But what I wanna clear up,
and, uh,

you can dismiss this if you--

Just say it, Ken.

When those DNA results came back

clearing your guy,

it was devastating

not because I lost a conviction,

but because...

to think I played a part

in someone doing time.

No prosecutor sits well with it.

And I bet...

though it was news
you were hoping to get

on some level,

it was devastating for you, too.

That it?

Oh, piss off, then.

(door slams)

Imagine the floodgate

of litigation.

First, we're suing
over soccer injuries.

Tomorrow, football players
will be lining up.

After that, hockey,

wrestling,

come on.

Kids sometimes get hurt

playing sports.

It's a fact.
It's common sense.

It's also common sense

that a town can't have parents

suing them every time
there's an accident.

I would add to that,
Your Honor,

that the plaintiff
signed a waiver,

waiving any
and all negligence lawsuits

based upon injuries
from soccer.

In short and accordingly,

this action
should be dismissed immediately

as a matter of law,

also as a matter
of simple practicality,

because this is just
plain silly.

LANDER: Ms. Wyatt?

Ms. Wyatt,

do you have a response?

You okay?

(clears throat)

Your Honor,

Timothy Boyd is a young boy

who chose to play soccer
in a program that--

The town is full of young boys
playing soccer, counsel.

They break legs,
bump heads, get concussions.

It's a contact sport,
for God's sake.

That's why they sign waivers.

Yes, but we're not talking about

a hazardous game
where accidents can happen.

We're alleging
that the game itself

is inherently unsafe,

that even when played correctly
without mishap,

it can still result
in neurological injuries,

as it did with Timothy Boyd.

Come on, counsel,
I got precedents staring me

right in the face here.

You can't hold a city liable

for injuries in a soccer game.

Did you read these cases?

I read them, Your Honor.

And I don't interpret them
to bar the type of lawsuit

that we're bringing.

You wouldn't.

You'll agree soccer

would be a hazardous
recreational activity

under the case law,
wouldn't you?

Wouldn't you Ms. Wyatt?

WYATT: I'm sorry.

LANDER: Let me read
some of the language for you,

counsel.

"Soccer, unquestionably,

is a hazardous activity,
within the meaning of--"

WYATT: But the hazard
they're talking about

relates to body contact.

So what?

WYATT: Look, we all know

when kids play football,

or basketball, or hockey,

bones get broken.

We can't have parents
running into court

to sue every time
something like that happens.

I totally agree.

But this case isn't that.

Soccer calls for heading.

It encourages, promotes,

and demands the very activity

that's doing the damage.

That makes this case different

from anything anticipated
by the case law

or the Massachusetts Claims
Torts Act.

But even if you're right,

counsel,

you have assumption
of the risk problems.

Certainly,
your client knew

that heading
was part of the game.

But he didn't know
it was dangerous.

The defendant didn't even know.

How do you know
what the defendant knew?

Well, I'm assuming
had they known the risks,

they would've mandated helmets.

Well, if they weren't aware
of the risk,

then how can they be negligent

for failing
to safeguard against it?

Did you hear
my question, counsel?

I heard it.

The essence
of our negligence claim

is that the city failed

to properly ascertain
the degree of danger.

Along with every municipality
in the country,

then for that matter,
the world.

That may be true,

but lawsuits,
especially ones

based on theories of negligence,

are primarily
about allocating burden.

Who's better able to bear the
burden of fixing the problem?

That's the questions courts ask.

Well, here, I ask you,

who's in a better position
to detect

whether soccer's
an inherently unsafe sport,

a municipality

or an eight year-old boy?

Fine. Then under your logic,

if it were suddenly determined

that running causes cancer,

you could sue city
field-and-track programs

because the city
is in a better position

to make the discovery.

No, that's not the same.
Why not?

Because the idea
that running causes cancer,

that's wildly unforeseeable.

The notion that kids
heading soccer balls

can cause brain damage is not,

especially since we all know

that young brains
are not fully matured,

especially since doctors
have been saying it,

especially since there are
studies documenting it.

And since
it's a question of fact,

I would also--
All right, I've heard enough.

With all due respect,
Your Honor,

I'm not quite finished.

I said...

I've heard enough, counsel.

Defendant's motion to dismiss

is denied.

The trial date will be set
the first week in March.

Adjourned.

(gavel bangs)

He really said that, right?
We won the motion?

How many times
are you gonna ask me?

Well, I just keep thinking
it's a mistake

or some practical joke.

I actually beat John Wicker

in a summary-judgment hearing.

Thank you, Lindsay.

Hey, you did it.

I just sat there.

But your being there
by my side

gave me some credibility,
I know.

Hopefully,
now I'll be able to settle.

Listen, I know I said
you could stay here

a full three weeks,

but I'd like to go back
on my word a little

and offer you a full-time job.

What?

I'd also like to retract
my doubt over you

being a trial lawyer.

You're offering me a job?

You're equipped, Claire.

You belong in that room.

KIRKLAND: Mr. Foreman,

has the jury reached a verdict?

We have, Your Honor.

In the matter of Lewis Nyler

versus the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, et al,

how find you?

As to the claim
of wrongful imprisonment,

we the jury find

for the plaintiff,

Lewis Nyler.

As to compensatory damages,

we order the defendants
to pay Lewis Nyler

$400,000.

As to punitive damages
based on intentional

or reckless false imprisonment,

we order the defendants
to pay Lewis Nyler

nothing.

KIRKLAND: Ladies and gentlemen
of the jury,

the court thanks you
for your service.

You are dismissed.

We are adjourned.

(gavel bangs)

Congratulations.

It didn't exactly
send a message, but--

It was something.

Yeah.

Listen, Lewis, uh,

it needs to be said.

No,

it doesn't, Bobby.

May I ask...

why'd you even want me
for this trial?

It's not as if--

Project Innocence got you out.

I was the one...

why?

I knew you'd be motivated.

I'm sorry, Lewis.

I wish I could give you back
those years.

Yeah.

Thank you, Bobby.

(music playing)

WYATT: I'll just be a couple
of minutes. Thank you.

MAN: No problem.

(music playing)

WOMAN: Next on "The Practice."

And you're telling me I could
actually go away for life,

simply because I happened
to look like somebody?

BERLUTI: Like somebody
who stabbed three women.

Get them to flash his rage,
push him.

Why?
Because you're the prototype

of the women he kills.

You speak as a defeatist.

I speak as a realist.

The public
wants to lynch somebody.

Right now, your son
is the only offering.

(music playing)

WOMAN: You stinker!

(music playing)