Original subtitles

Previously on "The Practice"...

My client was in shock at the time of this interrogation.

He'd just found his wife dead less than an hour before this.

She said that if she turned up missing

that I should call the police

because Scott probably did something to her.

BOBBY: Objection!

We find the defendant Scott Wallace...guilty.

You got to get me out.

-Scott-- -Get me out!

You got a problem.

The man is on the verge of a psychotic breakdown.

He needs to be transferred to a mental facility right now.

I'm convinced that Kyle Barrett

lied on the stand

after being coached by the prosecution.

Mr. Barrett, you had a meeting

with Richard Bay and Helen Gamble, did you not?

On the advice of counsel,

I'm exercising my fifth amendment right

not to answer your question.

I have been ordered to conduct a full hearing

into this perjury business.

That hearing has been thwarted by the primary witness

exercising his fifth amendment right.

The conviction of Scott Wallace is hereby set aside.

It is the order of this court that he be granted a new trial.

This is the part that kills us.

That's the bomb.

This time you will have to testify.

I can handle all the witnesses. We're in good shape there.

But that videotape

and your response to it on the stand--

that's what will decide this case.

I'm ready.

REPORTER: Do you feel pressure because he's your friend

or because you failed him?

Both.

I want to get him out because I care about him

and, yeah, because I tried a lousy case.

Of course I feel pressure. How could I not?

This guy committed murder,

and the only thing standing between him and the street...

is me.

It's a bit unusual for the lead prosecutor

to suddenly flip and think he's innocent.

Helen Gamble started feeling guilty over tactics,

and she became clouded by her conscience.

That's all.

She claims you coached a witness to lie.

She's wrong.

Richard Bay will do anything.

D.A.s like him make it easier for defense attorneys like me

to stay passionate about what we do

because to me, he basically represents a police state.

Oh, I don't expect it to be at all civil.

Bobby Donnell fights for clients

like it was his life on the line

and Richard Bay prosecutes like the victim was his mother.

Isn't that good-- zealous advocates?

Isn't that what it should be about?

One would think,

but when fights get this ugly,

it's rarely in the interest of truth.

It's messy. It gets personal.

Do you think you'll win?

I know I will.

How can you be so sure?

Because this time I have the video,

which means Scott Wallace

will have to take the stand and explain it,

and when he does, I'll get him.

He'll lose it up there.

You watch.

♪ (theme)

(horns honking)

(siren wails)

BAY: Witnesses are never objective.

Of course, I want you to appear neutral,

but you need to be every bit the advocate I am.

Never forget-- your goal is to help the prosecution

secure a conviction,

to put a murderer in prison.

That means you're gonna have to stand up to Bobby Donnell.

You can't be steered,

and he will absolutely try to do just that.

His whole defense is reasonable doubt.

Every question he asks you, it's to build reasonable doubt.

At the first trial

he got you all to admit things were possible,

and you all did so too submissively.

This is why I've brought Cindy Keller in tonight.

She's our behavioral psychologist.

When the defense lawyer

forces you to say the words that he wants you to say,

you can, nevertheless,

use body language to convey your opinion.

It's all a presentation,

and you have to train your witnesses

to be showmen a little.

The key is, they can't come off too much like advocates.

If they do, they have less credibility.

We used to have an advantage. People trusted the police.

That advantage is gone now.

BOBBY: Because they cheat,

and Richard Bay will cheat. He absolutely will.

That seems to be a refrain with you.

One that I have to be mindful of the entire trial.

What will be different about this trial?

I'm gonna win.

I mean tactics, evidence, witnesses.

What will be different there?

That tape...

that damn videotape.

He'll play it every chance he gets.

HELEN: We think you had an argument.

You hit her... maybe by accident.

She was unconscious.

You were afraid of how it might look.

You put her in the car to make it look like a suicide.

That's what happened, isn't it?

Detective Larson, does that videotape

fairly and accurately depict what happened in that room?

Yes, it does.

What did happen in that room?

From my experience,

Scott Wallace admitted to killing his wife.

Objection.

Overruled.

Did he ever say he killed his wife?

-No, but-- -In fact, he maintained his innocence,

and he still does, doesn't he, detective?

But when confronted--

When you say "admitted,"

you mean the behavior we just witnessed on this tape.

-Right, detective? -Correct.

With words, he's always maintained his innocence,

hasn't he, detective?

With words, yes.

Are you a psychologist, detective?

No, I'm not.

And if a psychologist was of the opinion

that Mr. Wallace's behavior on that tape--

Objection. He's trying to introduce psychiatric testi--

I'm posing a hypothetical to the witness.

I'll allow it.

If a psychologist was of the opinion that

Mr. Wallace's breakdown on that tape

was more the product of despondency--

Your honor, if he wants to introduce psychiatric testimony, he--

Mr. Bay, your objection is overruled.

BOBBY: Once again,

if a psychologist looked at that tape

and concluded that it did not constitute

an admission to the crime,

do you have any medical training

which would enable you to overrule him?

Do I have any medical training?

No. But--

Thank you, detective. That's all.

How many suspects have you interrogated

in the course of your career?

Hundreds.

Hundreds. Do you think you would recognize

a silent admission if you saw one?

Absolutely.

Based on your experience as a police officer

who has conducted hundreds of interrogations,

what did Scott Wallace's silence convey to you?

An admission that he committed murder.

Thank you.

Do you have any formal training in behavioral psychology?

No, I don't.

Thank you.

When we first started, it was just Bobby and me,

and he was so wide-eyed--

every case, his eyes--

Oh, and if it was a murder case,

God, the light coming out from his eyes...

and it didn't bother him a bit if the guy was probably guilty.

He'd say, "Bec, we defend the guilty

because ultimately it protects the innocent."

Or he'd say that was the high--

You know, when you got a guy that was actually innocent.

And now he hates it when they're innocent,

like this one.

It's too much pressure.

That's why none of us last on this job.

You can only bear defending the guilty.

And how long can anyone last doing that?

He was screaming at her, calling her a liar.

She was pleading with him to stop screaming.

Are you sure this was around 9:30 p. m.?

Yes. That's when I walk my dog.

You recognized my client's voice screaming

because you'd heard him scream before?

-Many times. -So there wasn't anything

hugely unusual about them arguing that night.

No. They fought a lot.

And, in fact, you didn't call the police

or try to intervene, did you, sir?

No.

I wasn't crazy about calling that witness in the first trial.

I wasn't thrilled about it here.

But I have to establish a time line.

As a rule,

when you come across anemic little wimps like Mr. Berenson

who haven't got the guts to get involved at the time,

you can be sure

they'll be pretty impotent as witnesses, too.

But I needed to get in the time line.

REPORTER: Why are you so sure he's innocent?

Because I am. I know him.

Plus, he passed the polygraph. That's what really gets me.

I mean, they may not be admissible,

but lie detectors are pretty damn reliable.

And the prosecution and the police--

they believe in them more than I do.

Here we got a guy who passes over and over and over,

and they still prosecute.

Why, do you think?

Because the media declared this a murder,

and there was an ensuing public outcry

to get a conviction.

There seems to be such a huge distrust here.

You have no idea.

When I first started,

the D. A. s and defense attorneys--

we'd all go out at the end of the day.

There were watering holes

where we'd congregate, swap stories.

You fought hard in court, but after, it was a--

it was a brotherhood.

Today we go our separate ways.

They don't trust us, we don't trust them.

What happened?

It became too much about winning and losing.

We analyzed a skin fragment

found under the defendant's fingernail.

It was a genetic match to Mrs. Wallace.

Did you do any other DNA testing, Dr. Wang?

Oh, yes. We found shed skin cells

all over the victim's head and neck.

They belong to the defendant Scott Wallace.

If Scott Wallace were trying to save his wife,

resuscitate her,

it's possible his skin cells

could have gotten on her that way, am I right?

In my experience, that would be unlikely.

I asked if it were possible.

I suppose it's possible.

And it's possible, isn't it, doctor,

that Mrs. Wallace had decided

she wanted to compete in the Olympics,

and while practicing a back flip,

she accidentally hit her head on a blunt instrument

-being held by the defendant? -Objection!

As long as we're going for far-fetched possibilities...

Move to strike!

Mr. Bay, that is quite enough.

Dr. Wang,

based on your years of experience

as a forensic pathologist, did you form an opinion

as to the likelihood of what happened?

Yes, I did.

Could you state that for the court, please?

She was killed by the defendant.

The defense has suggested

Mr. Wallace discovered his wife in the car,

she wasn't breathing, he pulled her out,

and her head struck the concrete floor,

causing the fracture.

Yes, I think this is a bit of a fairy tale.

The fracture-- she was hit very hard.

Is it possible that she could have gotten this

after she died by her head hitting the floor?

Anything's possible.

My medical opinion is somebody hit her.

Doctor, in the first trial,

you testified that this fracture was severe enough to be fatal.

Didn't you say that?

I did.

Was it the cause of death?

No, the cause of death was monoxide poisoning.

So it's possible that the head fracture

came after she died of the car exhaust, right?

That's not what I think happened,

but I can't declare it to be impossible.

Doctor, you're employed by the commonwealth, aren't you?

-Yes. -Do you ever get afraid of losing your job

if you don't secure convictions--

-Objection! -Sustained.

BOBBY: Goes to bias, your honor.

The objection is sustained. That's it!

Now let's move on.

It's what he does when he's losing.

It's an excellent sign for the prosecution

when Bobby Donnell starts to resort to crap like that.

It means he thinks he's losing.

In the first trial,

he was getting his possibles, then resting.

He was more desperate just then.

Did you see it?

He's going down again...

this time with nothing to appeal.

You know, I keep thinking it'll all get corrected.

They've made this terrible mistake,

and this is the land of truth and justice,

it'll all get cleared up.

But here I am.

REPORTER: The thinking is for you to get acquitted,

it'll come down to your testimony.

Yeah, I know this.

I know this.

Are you scared?

It's way beyond that now.

BOBBY: I think that's enough.

REPORTER: The arrangement is complete access.

Well, that's all. You'll have to leave.

Bobby, Kyle Barrett isn't testifying.

Why?

Bay just notified the court they're resting. We're up.

Well, call Dr. Murphy. He's going to--

I did. He's on his way.

Why isn't her brother testifying?

I don't need him.

Plus, he'd get peeled like an onion up there.

He's a liability.

REPORTER: I thought you said he was telling the truth.

I never said that.

I only said I don't know if he's lying.

That sounds a little questionable.

Hey, question away.

I only put on the witnesses I think will help me win.

Kyle Barrett doesn't qualify.

But this is the witness

who got you the conviction in the first trial.

In the first trial, I didn't have the video.

Scott Wallace was suffering from clinical depression.

Were you able to determine the cause, doctor?

Twin positional traumas.

The first was his wife's death.

The second, his being accused of that death.

Doctor, you recommended

that Scott Wallace be hospitalized, did you not?

I did.

Can you tell us why?

I found him to be very close

to a complete mental breakdown.

Doctor, you've seen this tape before.

I want to play you a small portion again.

HELEN: ...look like a suicide.

That's what happened, isn't it?

You've heard the prosecution characterize that moment

as an admission of guilt by Scott Wallace.

I think that conclusion

is as dangerous as it is absurd.

He'd only just discovered within the last two hours

that his wife was dead,

then he's taken down to the police station,

he's hit with the accusation that he murdered her.

To a guilty man, that wouldn't be as much of a shock,

but to an innocent one,

that could cause the very trauma I'm talking about.

And when he dropped his head...

It was in shock.

That was likely the beginning of his breakdown.

You can state that for a medical certainty?

No, but--

And you were not in the room at the time, were you, doctor?

No, I was not.

But if that makes me incapable of drawing a conclusion

on the basis of the video tape,

why are you asking the jury to do so?

You spoke of twin positional traumas,

one of those traumas being the loss of his wife.

Yes?

For this to be so,

he would have to have loved his wife very deeply, I assume.

And he did, from my observations.

Well, if this wife who he loved deeply

told him she was leaving him,

-couldn't that be traumatic? -Certainly.

Is it possible that's when this mental breakdown started--

when she said she was leaving him?

I suppose it's possible, but I don't think likely.

Doctor, according to your diagnosis,

you said Scott Wallace

was in danger of becoming psychotic, didn't you?

He never became psychotic, Mr. Bay.

Sometimes when you get a tough witness,

you take what you can get and sit the hell down.

I thought I handled him well.

REPORTER: And now you have the victim's psychiatrist.

I'm not afraid of him.

How can you not be?

He's going to testify that she was depressed.

He'll say depressed, then on cross,

I'll get him to say she wasn't suicidal, then on redirect,

Bobby will claim he has motive to say she wasn't suicidal

so he doesn't have her blood on his hands.

It's vintage Bobby Donnell.

He gets a witness to help him, then he hangs him out.

You watch.

You seem a little more agitated now.

I'm not agitated. This is adrenaline.

It's a fight. This--

I'm not agitated.

My little informal poll in the gallery--

they think you're losing.

I'm not losing.

Why would people think you are?

Because with galleries, it's about popularity.

Bobby Donnell is good-looking.

With juries, it's about weighing evidence,

and they'll do that.

I'm not losing.

What were you treating Karen Wallace for?

Anxiety, depression.

Depression?

Yes.

What was she depressed over?

Mainly her marriage.

She felt it was rather loveless.

Also her life.

Did you regard her as suicidal?

No, I did not.

But, doctor, now that she's turned up dead,

do you now think perhaps she was suicidal?

No, I do not.

Many people experience depression and hopelessness.

That doesn't mean they take their lives.

I mean, the very reason that Mrs. Wallace had come to me

was to improve things. She was looking forward.

I don't believe at all that she had the mental state

to take her own life.

How did it make you feel

to learn that a patient you had been treating for depression

killed herself?

Obviously, it was distressing to hear it.

Certainly a person experiencing hopelessness,

suffering depression, found dead from monoxide poisoning

with a hose connected to the exhaust pipe of the car--

you had to wonder if maybe she did kill herself.

Didn't you at least wonder, doctor?

I wondered,

but I still don't believe she took her life.

Well, if it were foreseeable that she might take her life

and you did nothing,

you might be held liable, isn't that right, doctor?

What are you saying, Mr. Donnell?

I'm saying you have motive to deny she was suicidal.

Objection-- leading.

After she's found dead, you don't even

notify the police that you were treating her?

-No. -What were you trying to hide?

-Objection. -Permission to treat the witness as hostile.

-Objection. -Overruled.

Why not come forward to anybody and say,

"Hey, I was treating her"?

-There's a privilege. -Which does not survive the patient's death.

You were trying to hide the fact

that you were treating her

because you knew she was potentially suicidal.

Objection! It's argumentative...

I knew nothing of the sort. Mrs. Wallace--

-Your honor -- -Just like you are now. You let this man go down...

because you were afraid of being hit with a judgment.

All right! Mr. Donnell, dial it back.

REPORTER: Did you tell that witness

you would be going after him like that?

-No. -Because...

Because I needed him, and he never would have cooperated

knowing what he was in for.

Why didn't you just call him as a hostile witness

to begin with?

Because I knew I'd get more out of him this way.

First as an ally and then blind-siding him?

I don't think I blind-sided him, but...yes.

Don't you think that perpetuates

the very distrust you spoke of before

between D. A. s and defense attorneys?

My goal here isn't to repair trust.

It's to get an acquittal.

And you're comfortable with yourself?

Yes.

ELLENOR: The truth is,

he isn't comfortable,

and when he and Lindsay have this baby,

it's going to be the beginning of the end

of his criminal defense days.

REPORTER: Why?

Because with Bobby, this job is who he is,

and when he starts to see himself

through his son's eyes or his daughter's eyes,

forget it. It's over.

It's gone as well as we could have expected.

That videotape is still the biggest piece of evidence,

and you'll have to account for it.

I understand.

Just tell the truth, Scott.

The truth is on our side here.

Yeah.

Uh, you want to go over my testimony again or...

Actually, I prefer not to.

I don't want it coming off rehearsed.

Now, Richard Bay--

he's going to come at you all rabid.

That's his style.

I can protect you, but I prefer not to.

I can handle him.

Lastly,

your anger towards your wife

for what she did to you--

let's play that down tomorrow.

We don't want them seeing anger.

Okay.

You all right, Scott?

I'm nervous.

Other than that...

REPORTER: You look scared.

This has been a long haul.

Have you seen any good appeal issues so far?

No.

That's the thing about Judge Hiller.

Her trials don't get overturned.

So basically if you don't win here,

Scott Wallace is never coming out.

REPORTER: Were you surprised

Bobby said yes to the cameras?

Not really. If he loses, he hopes you catch

some prosecutorial misconduct on tape,

give him grounds for appeal.

What if he wins,

and Richard Bay spots misconduct on Bobby's part?

Doesn't matter. Double jeopardy.

Not guilty is not guilty.

(reporters shouting questions)

No comment.

Bay's got the monitors set up.

It looks like he plans to show the tape again.

What a shock. You tell Scott?

He's ready.

SCOTT: She just announced that she planned to leave me.

BOBBY: Did you see this coming?

Not at all. We'd had our problems,

and I knew she was unhappy,

but I never expected her to walk out.

Did you want to stay married?

Yes. I asked if we could get therapy.

She said it was too late.

She'd already made up her mind,

and she said that she wanted to live life without me.

She, uh, she said it had been years

since she felt the slightest twinge of happiness with me.

I mean, that was how she put it--

"the slightest twinge,"

and she said she wanted out.

And then what happened?

We argued.

Uh, we engaged in some name-calling.

Did you call her a liar?

Among other things, yeah.

Then I went upstairs to the bedroom,

got ready for bed, and watched TV.

Your wife tells you she's leaving you,

and you watch television?

Well, I had hoped that when she came up

after things calmed down a little bit,

that I could, you know, maybe talk her out of it.

So what happened?

Well, I waited.

After about an hour and a half,

she still hadn't come up,

so I figured she'd probably had a drink

and decided to sleep on the couch.

So I went down and, uh, she wasn't there.

I thought, well, maybe she left,

but I thought I would have heard the car pull out.

So, uh, I went to check,

and, uh,

uh, when I opened the door to the garage,

uh, I just smelled the exhaust,

and it was all smoky in there.

And then what?

I went in,

and, uh, I had to open the garage door

because I couldn't breathe the exhaust,

and, uh, and I saw the hose.

Mr. Wallace?

It was a garden hose.

It was taped to the exhaust

at the exhaust pipe of the car,

and, uh, the car was running,

and it-- the hose went into the front window.

What did you do then?

I ran to the car.

I opened the door, and there she was.

She, uh, her head was back and her eyes were closed,

and she wasn't breathing.

It looked like she was sleeping.

Uh, I screamed "Karen" and I shook her.

She wouldn't wake up, and I pulled her out.

She fell,

and, uh, I tried giving her mouth-to-mouth

and chest compressions, but she wasn't breathing.

She didn't have a pulse.

I, uh,

kept, uh, you know, holding her nose closed

and trying to blow air into her lungs,

but she wouldn't come back.

She wouldn't come back.

And when the police arrived,

did you tell them all this?

Yeah, yeah.

Uh, they asked me to come to the station.

Scott, on that videotape,

when they accused you of killing Karen,

why didn't you deny it?

I don't think I could believe what I was even hearing.

I mean, I, uh, I still couldn't believe she was dead,

and then some district attorney was saying that I killed her?

I remember feeling nauseous,

like I was gonna black out.

I'm going to give you another chance

to answer that question.

Did you kill your wife?

No.

I'm sorry.

It's just for a-- for six months,

you have been asking me not to speak to anyone,

and I never have,

and I've waited for this day to come before everyone

and finally say I didn't kill her.

I did not commit any crime.

Thank you.

You're an investment banker.

Is that correct, Mr. Wallace?

Yes, that's right.

In the month or so

prior to your wife's sudden death,

how were things going for you at work?

It had-- it had been rough.

The market was off.

Had you been told you might be let go?

Well, my firm was scaling back, yes.

I was told that my position was tenuous.

How about your own personal assets?

You suffered some losses, hadn't you?

A few, yes.

At the time of your wife's sudden death

you were nearly broke, weren't you, sir?

Well, I would hardly say I was broke, Mr. Bay.

I did live in a million-dollar house.

Fully paid for?

No. We had a mortgage of about $400,000.

Any other assets?

Uh, my savings, some stocks.

Totaling more or less than $50,000

at the time of your wife's sudden death?

At the exact time, less, but stocks have a--

Thank you, sir.

So at the time of your wife's sudden death,

your assets totaled about $650,000.

A divorce would have cut that in half.

Add to that attorney fees plus alimony,

plus you were looking at unemployment.

Did you have a life insurance policy on your wife

at the time of her sudden death?

-Objection. -JUDGE HILLER: Overruled.

Did you, sir?

There were life insurance policies for both of us.

The policy was to pay you over $1 million

in the event of her death. Isn't that correct?

Yes.

When did you renew that policy, sir?

We both renewed them--

When did you both renew that policy?

Oh, I think it was around May.

Approximately a month before her sudden death.

Did you kill your wife for money, sir?

No, I did not.

Gee, you seem capable of denying it now.

-Objection. -Sustained.

You've got a suicidal woman on your hands.

You get into a big fight,

and you go upstairs and watch television?

Well, I didn't know she was on the verge

of taking her life,

and, hey, I was angry that night, too.

-Angry enough to kill her? -No.

Angry enough to have a mental breakdown?

Angry enough to have a mental breakdown, sir?

Objection. Calls for a medical opinion.

I'll put it in layman's terms.

-Angry enough to snap? -No.

You're about to lose your job.

You've already lost your money.

Now you're hit with losing your wife, your house.

You weren't going to let that happen, were you, Mr. Wallace?

-But that's not the way it happened. -You snapped.

-I did not. -You hit her from behind.

-I never hit my wife. -You cracked when you knew you were caught.

-I didn't. I did no such thing. -We saw the tape.

I explained--

You killed your wife--

I did not!

Are you about to get violent, Mr. Wallace?

BOTH: Objection!

Withdrawn.

Nothing further.

BOBBY: Chambers, your honor.

It's bad faith.

-Why? -Bad faith?

Never, ever in the first trial

did they suggest financial gain as motive.

None of the police ever said it. Now suddenly--

So what?

You decide on a new motive

between the first and the second trial.

Why can't I?

Without any new evidence that amounts to unfair surprise.

You got to be kidding me!

You can't just fabricate a new motive.

All right. Bobby, there is nothing to prevent

the prosecution from changing strategies.

At a minimum, it's bad faith.

If he truly believes that money was a motive,

they would have argued it in the first trial.

I didn't try the first one. Helen Gamble did.

Oh, come on, Richard.

What are you asking for?

The commonwealth does not have a good faith belief

in its motive theory, and to spring it

at a second trial constitutes unfair surprise,

and I'm asking that it be stricken.

-Forget it. -Your honor--

Don't even waste my time, Bobby.

You don't know what Mr. Bay does or does not believe.

They are not bound by the strategy of the first trial.

REPORTER: Do you believe it--

that he killed her for money?

I certainly don't know that he didn't.

That wasn't my question.

You're not asking a question.

You're making an accusation, and I'm getting sick of it.

The idea of giving you access was to let you observe.

It wasn't for you to charge in here with opinions.

Was I doing that?

Yes, you've been doing that, and I'm getting fed up.

You want to point your damn cameras, fine,

but enough with the judgments.

REPORTER: What are you thinking right now?

I'm thinking this is why you shouldn't represent people

you feel emotionally--

family members, friends.

The best legal advice you can give them

is to hire somebody else.

You think you've tried a bad case again?

I was caught off-guard with motive.

I let the jury see me angry with a witness.

I...

Yeah.

I made some mistakes.

I don't agree.

What do you think, Lindsay?

I think it's pretty even,

and ties go to the defendants in this business.

Bobby closes a lot better than Richard Bay.

This isn't over.

The question I have--

you have a client charged with a violent, angry crime.

You told him not to flash anger.

What happened?

I don't know.

When I first became a lawyer,

I used to call my mother and tell her about my cases.

I'd explain all the intricacies, and she'd get bored

and snap at me, "Just nutshell the damn thing."

And I discovered when I did nutshell,

most of those cases which I thought

were so complicated were actually quite simple.

The nutshell on this one--

man in financial trouble renews insurance policy on wife.

She announces she's leaving him.

She's found dead with a whack on the back of the head.

That pretty much says it all.

In the way of proof, there's certainly a lot more.

All the DNA evidence points to him.

Not most of it-- all.

Her skin found under his fingernails,

his skin cells and prints found on her head and neck.

His admission caught right on videotape,

his anger displayed right here on the stand.

His own treating psychiatrist diagnosed him

borderline psychotic.

She didn't commit suicide.

The psychiatrist who was treating Karen Wallace--

he told you she wasn't suicidal.

This woman was murdered.

All the evidence tells you so,

and Scott Wallace...

HELEN: You put her in the car

to make it look like a suicide.

That's what happened, isn't it?

He told you so, too.

Didn't he?

The only reason Scott Wallace was ever arrested

was that perceived admission.

The DNA evidence, the head fracture--

all that came from him trying to save her.

The prosecution's entire case

is his reaction to being accused of the murder.

It wasn't a normal reaction, they say.

That's not how people normally respond.

Have you ever been in this situation?

Your wife die recently?

Your husband?

Any of you accused of murdering a spouse

in the immediate wake of discovering the death?

We're really going to sit here and discuss normal reactions?

Seems to me

a mental breakdown of some sort is the most normal.

That's what Dr. Murphy told you Scott was experiencing.

Scott himself told you that.

He was feeling nauseous in that interrogation,

about to black out.

As Dr. Murphy said,

he was suffering from twin positional traumas.

How dare they charge him with murder

because they didn't like the way he responded

to being accused?

They better have more than that, and they don't.

And now--

now the D. A. wants you to find guilt

because Scott Wallace got angry in the witness chair.

You saw his rage, didn't you? Let's convict on that.

First, they arrest him because he didn't get angry,

and now they want you to convict because he did.

You know, people ask me

how I can spend my days being a criminal defense lawyer,

defending guilty people.

Well, I am in this

to defend the innocent ones,

and there is an innocent one sitting right over there.

For six months now,

they've kept him locked up.

He couldn't even go to her funeral.

He's never been to her grave.

They've taken away his life.

Karen Wallace took her own.

The police have taken his.

Enough is enough.

Give freedom back...

to an innocent man.

Nutshell--

borderline psychotic man in financial trouble

renews insurance policy on wife a month before her death.

She threatens to leave him.

He's heard screaming at her.

She's found dead with a fractured skull.

When accused of the crime,

he doesn't even deny it.

REPORTER: You like Bobby Donnell, personally?

He's a pretty good guy.

It's one thing for two men

looking at the same evidence

to have different opinions,

but you two seem so convinced

in opposite directions.

D.A.s come to prosecute

those they believe to be guilty.

Defense attorneys come to believe

those they choose to defend.

That certainly makes the D. A. s sound more noble.

We are.

REPORTER: Does he usually hibernate

when he waits for a verdict?

Yeah. Waiting-- it can be a killer.

A lot of lawyers just go about other business.

Bobby-- he can't.

Aren't there other clients?

Plenty, and he could be out right now

bringing in new ones.

Bobby Donnell--

if you're looking to build a law practice,

he's not the guy to hire.

But if you ever get charged with murder...

(telephone rings)

LUCY: Hotline. Hello?

Okay, thank you.

Jury's back.

Mr. Wallace, would you please rise?

The jury has reached its verdict?

We have, your honor.

What say you?

Commonwealth vs. Scott Wallace,

on count one-- murder in the first degree,

we find the defendant Scott Wallace

not guilty.

(gallery murmuring)

Count two-- murder in the second degree,

we find the defendant Scott Wallace

not guilty.

(gallery reacting loudly)

JUDGE HILLER: Members of the jury,

this concludes your service.

On behalf of the commonwealth, I thank you.

Mr. Wallace, you are free to go.

We are adjourned.

(gavel pounds)

SCOTT: Thank you, buddy.

REPORTER: It wasn't as ugly as you predicted.

No. I thought they all behaved very well.

It was nice to see for a change.

Do you think it was the right result?

Probably.

I suppose there was reasonable doubt.

But do you think it was the right result?

I haven't the slightest idea.

♪ (theme)

You stinker!