Original subtitles

We have one last pretrial where I'll try to suppress your statement.

Scott, if I'm unsuccessful... No, no, no. I'm not taking manslaughter, Bobby.

Please don't ask me that again!

I'm sorry, man. It's just getting to me.

Okay. You understand the risks?

I do.

So what? We go in the morning.

We argue the motion. Trial starts after lunch.

Eugene will be with me. Okay.

I keep having this dream where everybody wakes up and comes to their senses.

I mean, Karen's even in it.

She's not dead.

We have a solid shot if we can shut down this videotape.

Oh, hey.

See this?

Fiji.

That's where I'm going when I walk out of that courthouse.

I'm going right to a travel agent.

In ten days, I'll be sitting on that beach.

Look at me, Scott.

If that videotape is admitted, I believe you will be convicted.

Probably a second -degree murder.

Now, that carries a life sentence.

You will not be going to Fiji.

They're inside.

Okay.

This thing was built to bring children joy.

And it's toxic.

Come on.

The fact that they called for the meeting, that they're coming to us, it's

very good sign.

How much?

We have no idea. Nothing is good enough for what they did to our kids.

Of course not.

But you have to remember, if we go to trial, we will want your son to take the

stand and talk about his seizures.

We'll need your daughter to talk about her motor problems.

And your youngest son may have to discuss his learning disabilities and

humiliation that he suffered.

We've talked to them, Eleanor. They're ready.

The number Eleanor and I think is reasonable is 160 per child.

It seems low.

Of course, nothing.

can make up for your children's injuries.

But the present day value of that is probably around 240 if you figure in an

appeal. And given our problems proving liability, that would be an excellent

settlement. We're not sure we can get that.

But that's her number.

You think I killed her?

What, are you crazy?

I don't think you intended to kill her. I really don't. So what do you say?

Mr. Wallace, things will go much better for you if you cooperate.

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.

It's what happened, isn't it?

My client was in shock at the time of this interrogation. He had just found

wife dead less than an hour before this. First of all, he was read his right. It

isn't about that. He was suffering severe traumatic distress. He wasn't

processing all the stuff being thrown at him here. And that tape makes it look

like he was acquiescing to something when he wasn't. He was just under shock.

You can certainly argue that, counsel.

Your Honor, if the jury sees that tape, the prejudice alone... He certainly had

the presence of mind to give us a nice, coherent, exculpatory version of the

event. He gave you the truth. All right.

I'll allow the videotape for impeachment purposes only.

Your Honor, that will effectively prevent my client from testifying. It

such thing.

It only means if he testifies, he does so with some risk. I object to this.

objection is noted. The ruling is final.

Offer still good?

If you take this stand, the tape comes in.

And I don't know how we win this without you getting in that chair.

I can explain that tape. Now, it was like you said, I was in shock.

I can convince the jury of that.

I'm going to recommend manslaughter one last time.

A polygraph?

I'm willing to box him.

If we both stipulate to the admissibility, the judge will allow us

the results.

Bobby, do I have the word dope stamped on my forehead, or is it just that you

know me?

Obviously, if you've come to us asking that we give your client a lie detector,

you've already given him one, and he passed.

We've given him five with four different technicians, and he's passed every one.

You took it five times? And passed every one.

Suppose he fails ours. Are you willing to stipulate to admissibility?

Right now.

This man is innocent.

I've never done this before.

Done what?

Traded on our personal relationship, Helen.

We know each other.

I have never asked for a favor on the basis of our friendship. I'm doing it

here, and I've earned it one time, Helen.

Now, you trust the accuracy of lie detectors? Give him one if he passes.

Kick it.

You want to run that by me again? Our case is circumstantial.

Evidently, he has passed a polygraph over and over. His lawyer is willing to

him with our own polygraph.

Helen, the trial starts in two hours. I realize that, Kate.

And you want to what? Put out a release thing?

Oops. If this man did not commit the crime, I'm not going to secure a

simply to avoid a public relations nightmare.

Look, I saw that interrogation.

Maybe he was disoriented like he says.

You've got motives.

There's forensics. The whack on the head.

They were heard fighting.

Nobody described the woman as remotely suicidal.

The man did it. I don't care if he passed 50 polygraphs. I'm not so sure.

Well, let me make it easy for you.

You're prosecuting this case.

All right, I think it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway.

This offer in no way admits to any liability on the part of the

Protection Agency.

We realize that.

What's the number?

$20 ,000.

$20 ,000? A piece.

Times three, that's $60 ,000.

More than the case is worth.

And we're only offering it to avoid the publicity that this hearing might

generate. We have children with severe learning disabilities.

Motor skills... Look, even if that thing is toxic, the government didn't

manufacture it. Yes, that's been your argument. But you lost the 12b -6. You

lost the Federal Tort Claims Act. I don't think we'll lose a summary

You represented on the phone on Monday and then again this morning that a

serious offer was coming in. The figure represents the maximum authorized by the

agency, so... Then why are we talking?

Because we have faith that logic eventually seeps into even the most hard

-headed of craniums. Get out! You're obligated to take the offer to your

clients, Ms. Frutt.

Thank you, Mr.

Myers.

Our clients...

are low -income parents whose children have lifelong handicaps due in part to

the agency you represent.

You have the indecency to come in here and tell us that their injuries are

only $20 ,000 and then to add to that insult, you are lecturing me on

ethics?

Get the hell out of here before I throw you out.

You're tilting at the wrong windmill this time.

You haven't seen us tilt yet.

How you doing?

I just went into the bathroom and threw up.

We gotta tell the clients.

We should go there again.

You can't beat yourself up, Eleanor.

It's a miracle you got it this far.

$20 ,000.

the defendant was sitting right out on the driveway.

He seemed very despondent.

Inside the garage, we found the victim, face down on the floor next to the

vehicle, bleeding slightly from the back of the head.

She was dead?

Yes. There was a garden hose taped to the exhaust pipe leading to the rear

passenger side window.

It appeared to be a suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning.

Did you run prints on the garden hose?

We found prints matching the victim.

And the defendant.

You said Mr. Wallace seemed despondent.

Could he have possibly been in shock?

Possibly. Did my client tell you that he pulled the hose out of the car?

Yes, he did. And that he pulled his wife from the vehicle?

He said that, yes.

I was walking my dog at 9 .30, and I heard him screaming at his wife from

the house.

Are you sure you heard Scott Wallace?

I'm 100 % sure.

He's my neighbor. I know what his voice sounds like.

And I was about 20 feet from his front door.

He and Jill were both yelling at each other.

Do you know what about?

No. But I found out later she was planning to leave him.

Objection sustained.

You're sure this was around 9 .30?

Positive. That's when I walk my dog every night.

One last thing.

You said you could recognize the defendant's voice.

You could recognize his screaming voice?

Yes. You heard him scream before?

Many times.

He and his wife had a lot of nasty screaming fights.

Once we even called the police.

You called the police that night?

No. You hear any signs of violence?

No. In fact, you heard nothing that caused you any sense of alarm.

Well, I... You didn't feel the need to intervene?

No.

There were shed skin cells on the victim's head, neck.

DNA analysis revealed an exact genetic match.

With who?

The defendant.

We also analyzed a skin fragment found under the defendant's fingernail. Were

you able to identify it? It was a genetic match to the victim.

If my client were trying to resuscitate the victim, it's possible that shed skin

cells could get on the victim's head and neck. Right, Doctor?

That's possible, yes.

And while trying to save her, it's possible that a piece of her skin could

under his fingernail, right?

That might be less likely.

I'm asking you, is it possible?

Of course.

And all this DNA evidence we're talking about, it could have come as a direct

result of my client's efforts to save his wife. Isn't that right, Doc? That's

not what I think happened. But it's possible.

Yes, it is.

Thank you.

I can't believe it.

We were just as shocked as you were. I thought it was going to be a substantial

offer.

Didn't they tell you that?

They intimated that we would be very happy, yes.

Our suspicion is they did that to lull us a little, thinking if we were

expecting settlement, we really wouldn't prepare that hard for their motion.

Were they right?

Absolutely not. We're very ready.

After what they did to our children.

The hearing's tomorrow. If we win, we think their numbers will come up.

I have to be on it.

And say that I am very disappointed with the two of you.

We had a few people tell us that we should have never hired you, that you

have the resources to.

But we liked you.

Well, right now, I feel deceived.

I feel like you promised things to get the case.

Things which you obviously can't deliver.

Can I respond to that?

When we took this case, we thought we would be suing the manufacturer of that

play gym.

That was a much stronger case.

Then when we discovered both that company and the chemical company no

existed, your case was basically over until Eleanor came up with the idea to

the EPA.

She beat them in the motion to dismiss. She got through the administration

level, earning the right to keep going.

I'm sure there are other firms out there that could have gotten it this far, but

the reality is they wouldn't have tried. Most lawyers would have dropped this

case as soon as they found the manufacturer to be non -existent.

But Eleanor and me with her kept going out of commitment to you.

Maybe we failed.

But I take exception to the suggestion that it was a mistake to hire us.

We're just disappointed.

That's all.

We all are.

Let's just do our best at summary judgment and hopefully we'll survive to

this to a jury.

The cause of death was monoxide poisoning.

What about the bleeding from the back of her head?

That contusion was the result of being struck with a blunt object.

You said blunt instrument. Could that instrument be a cement floor?

If she fell on the garage floor, hitting the back of her head, could that have

caused the trauma we're talking about? A fracture like that couldn't have

happened by someone simply falling down. If my client discovered his wife in the

car, he grabbed her, pulled her out, and as he was pulling her out, her

head crashed onto the floor.

Objection. Overruled.

Doctor, if my client discovered his wife in the car unconscious, pulled her out,

causing her head to hit the floor, could that have caused the fracture we're

talking about?

It's a possibility. Thank you, Doctor.

That's all.

Ms. Gamble?

Commonwealth calls Kyle Barrett.

This seems like a good time to call it a day.

We'll begin with Mr. Barrett in the morning.

Get Mr. Barrett to my office now.

He's going to walk?

I'm not saying that, but... But what?

He killed my sister. Don't tell me now that he's... Mr. Barrett, as we have

explained from the start, our case is hugely circumstantial. We had hoped to

able to introduce the videotape interrogation. And you can't? Not unless

him on the stand.

This will only happen if his lawyers think he's losing.

Which I'm sure they don't think right now.

Case has gone pretty well for them.

The only witness that we have left that can put them in the necessary hole is

you. Which means when we ask you, did your sister seem suicidal, a response

I didn't think so, isn't going to do it.

Also, to the extent that you talk about anything your sister told you, that's

hearsay. But under the law, one of the ways around the hearsay rule is an

exception called the state of mind. Richard.

Basically... If you can say she wanted to start a new life. Richard.

Mr. Barrett, we certainly don't mean to put words in your mouth, nor would it be

permissible for us to do so.

But you need to realize, unless you do damage, Scott Wallace probably

won't testify, in which case he could in fact go free.

You knew your sister, sir.

If she was planning to start a new life, if she was in a positive place, there

is no way she would ever take her own life. Not in any circumstance.

Certainly not in this situation where she was looking forward to starting

She was murdered.

If you know it.

She did not commit suicide. You absolutely know it.

I got it.

We'll see you in there.

First you tell him how to beat the hearsay rule, then you practically

testimony. Helen, I'm just preparing our witness.

I explain the law, tell him what's relevant and what to emphasize. I do it,

do it.

And besides, you said it yourself.

This witness is all we have to get Scott Wallace in that chair.

Be glad I coached him.

I have to testify.

I've explained this, Scott.

If you get up there, they can put in the video. But if I don't tell my side...

We've backdoored your story.

The jury knows your version of the event. Now, listen to me.

Now, I know I have the right not to testify, but I also know that juries

inferences sometimes about defendants who don't.

Now, I'm a credible witness. I can explain that videotape, and the jury can

me as a person.

It's a bad idea.

Can you excuse me for one second?

32 -5.

Rejected. Aren't you going to make that... We don't need to present that to

clients. And if your intent with that insulting lowball is to inflame me

we go in to argue, it's not going to work.

You seem a model of restraint.

You know something, Mr. Myers?

I have a thing about smug.

I don't like smug.

I know how you people work.

You hustle in clients.

All right, all right, John.

No, no, Mitchell.

The courts are clogged by bottom feeders like you who sue without bothering to

even consult the law. We consulted the law, trust me.

Don't think for a second that after we're through here we won't go after you

abusive profits. Let's not let our tempers prevail here.

Come on.

Things have got worse.

Judge Gilmore got appendicitis. The case was transferred to Judge Aldrich.

What?

Judge Aldrich is sitting?

I'm afraid so.

Oh, great.

He'll kick this before we even get through the door. Let's just go for it.

There's nothing else we can do at this point.

She was both excited and terrified.

Excited and terrified of what, sir?

Well, excited to be starting a new life and being single again.

Objection. This is all hearsay.

State of mind exception.

Who stayed in mind? The victim.

Oh, come on. Judge, they're arguing that she killed herself. The fact that she

told her brother she wanted to live directly rebuts that.

I'm going to allow it. The objection is overruled.

You said your sister looked forward to meeting a man she could love.

Yes. She was planning on telling Scott that she wanted a divorce.

And why was she so terrified, if you know?

She was afraid of Scott's temper.

She told you this?

Yes. She at one point wanted me to be with her when she told him.

Why was that?

She was afraid that he might try to harm her.

Objection! I'll allow it.

Did your sister say anything else, sir?

She said that if she turned up missing, or if I didn't hear from her, that I

should call the police, because Scott probably did something to her.

Objection! Overruled.

Mr. Barrett, you've heard speculation that maybe your sister took her life.

That's ridiculous.

Why, sir?

My sister and I talked every day.

We were extremely close. She hid nothing from me.

If she was in so much as a bad mood, I would see it.

She was not depressed.

She was not despondent. She had no mental deficiencies.

And the idea that she took her own life is absolutely preposterous.

I have nothing further.

Mr. Barrett, you think my client killed your sister, don't you?

Objection. Ghost Tobias?

I'll allow it.

You think he did it?

I know he did it.

And if you think this man killed your sister, you'd want him to go to jail,

wouldn't you?

In fact, if you had the opportunity to help put this man in jail, you'd

jump at it, wouldn't you?

What are you suggesting, counsel?

Well, I'm suggesting you do anything to put the man you think killed your sister

behind bars.

You'd even get up in that witness chair and lie. Objection! I haven't lied.

Well, I have your statement to the police right here.

Taking the night your sister died.

And you didn't say anything about her telling you, if I disappear, call the

police. You didn't say anything about her telling you she was afraid of being

harmed. Did you, Mr. Barrett?

I believe I did.

Where is it?

Here's your statement.

Where is it?

Maybe the officer didn't write it down, but I'm sitting right now. The officer

forgot to write that down. Look, I have always maintained that your client

killed my sister. Yes, you've always maintained it. It has always been your

opinion. But this is the first we're hearing of any facts, any statements

he'll try to harm me.

This is the first we're hearing of this because you just decided to make those

statements up, didn't you, Mr. Barrett?

Objection. Overruled. You want to put that man away so bad that you got up

and lied to get the job done.

Objection. All right, Mr. Young.

You say your sister wasn't depressed.

She had no mental deficiencies.

Didn't my client share with you his concern that your sister had huge mood

swings, that she might even need medication?

Hearsay. Overruled. Didn't he come to you once, seeking your help as her

brother, to convince her to get treatment?

Absolutely not.

You're a liar. Objection. You're under oath here, Mr. Barrett.

Objection. Sustained, Mr.

Young.

Don't make me warn you again.

You say your sister wanted you to come with her that night.

But you didn't.

Because I didn't think he would really kill her.

I was wrong.

What'd you do that night, Mr. Barrett?

I'm in a weekly card game.

Your sister told you she was afraid for her life?

But you couldn't help her because you had a poker game.

I think I got it.

Ms. Gamble.

Commonwealth rest, Your Honor.

Mr. Donald.

One second, Your Honor.

What do you think?

Right now, we still have a chance. But if the videotape comes in... Scott, it's

still our opinion that you don't testify. We'd open a door on the day.

Bobby, he's lying.

You know, I lost him pretty good, I think. I want to testify. I can't let

Bobby, I... Scott, if you get up there, we'll lose.

Bobby.

The defense rests, Your Honor.

What's happening here is obvious.

The manufacturer of the playground equipment that caused these alleged

to the children has gone out of business leaving the parents with nobody to sue.

So they file a claim against the EPA.

The plaintiffs have cited no persuasive case law state or federal that would

allow for a United States agency to be sued for the conduct of a private

business. And, Your Honor, let's consider the logic of what they're

Since these injuries were caused by environmental factors, they're suing the

Environmental Protection Agency.

Under that theory, since we have an FDA, you could hold the government liable

for any harm caused by a drug manufacturer.

Since we have an FAA, you could sue the government for every plane crash.

I understand that we live in a litigious society, but the idea of suing the

federal government for the actions of any regulated private industry, that's

ludicrous.

As a matter of law, this claim is untenable, and accordingly, the

motion for summary judgment should be granted.

not suggesting that the government be held liable for air disasters simply

because there's an FAA, nor are we saying that the EPA should pay damages

time there's an environmental crisis.

We're saying, in this situation, three children got hurt, very hurt, because

Environmental Protection Agency didn't do its job.

So you're alleging the kids got hurt by toxic playground equipment?

Yes, there is a preservative, which is also a pesticide known as chromated

copper arsenic, CCA. It's used to pressure treat wood, and it's found in

and playground equipment everywhere. And I mean everywhere.

With age, this pesticide leaches into the dirt, which is what happened in my

client's yard where their children played every day.

But why should the EPA be held liable? They didn't make that playground

equipment. Our argument is that the EPA knew about the dangers of this

pesticide. They've known about it for almost 30 years, and yet they have

continued to let the wood preservers use this stuff. This is a complete lie.

Would you shut up? Counsel. He's arguing the merits. Let me deal with him.

The basis of your claim is that the EPA knew of these dangers.

Our claim.

is that when a governmental agency knows of a toxic condition that causes

developmental problems in the nervous system of children, when a governmental

agency knows of a toxic chemical that is being regularly used to make playground

equipment, when that governmental agency does nothing to stop it, then yes, that

agency is blameworthy, and yes, that agency should incur some liability.

Ms. Frutt.

First, I can do without the tone.

Second, we could complain every day about the government not doing enough.

can't prevent every disaster, you know that.

Yes, but this disaster was preventable. As are most automobile casualties, too.

The government could mandate that every car be built like a tank. They could

legislate that every airline passenger be equipped with a parachute.

There are lots of things the government could do to make things safer.

But there are economic realities.

I understand that.

And if the economics of fixing a problem is prohibitive, fine.

But how about simply informing the public that a problem exists?

They know there is a chemical that causes harm. How about simply alerting

public? Would that be too much of a burden on the federal government?

Maybe not.

My question is, do they have a duty to?

Our position is that they have a duty to make known all toxic, dangerous

conditions that they know of. The EPA is still sitting on this information.

That chemical is still leaching into the dirt at playgrounds. Children are

playing in that dirt. And the EPA still isn't informing people.

Why?

Because the wood manufacturers have lobbied Congress to get the EPA to back

And the only reason why I know about this problem is because of three sick

children whose parents hired me.

Close it?

Yeah.

If a client wants to testify, it's his right.

He's not being straight. The guy is talking about Fiji. He's competent. He

wanted to testify, and you prevented it. And what would the result be of that

videotape? He's competent. His decision was to testify.

And you sat silent.

He lied, Richard. We don't know that. Of course we do. Helen. Oh, come on. The

stuff about her sister being afraid or call the police. Where did that... We

don't know that it's untrue. I know what you said to him, how you coached him to

be... Hey, Helen.

The man committed perjury, Richard. We both know it. That testimony could

convict. Even if he did perjure himself, all we have is suspicion.

Yes. We're both technically covered. That doesn't solve it.

We could have an innocent man here who could end up serving a life sentence

based on lies which we put into evidence.

First of all, he's not innocent. I think he is. Your opinion isn't relevant.

Second, there's nothing we can do about it now.

The witness said what he said.

For all we know, it could be true. So we just do our job and argue the case,

period.

Oh, and I suppose you'll never be able to live with yourself now.

Actually, I was thinking how I'd never be able to live with you.

If you can't bring yourself to close, just say the word.

The word here is the most damaging prosecution witness just concocted a

big, fat lies. Now look, I can't prove it, but I know it, and so do you.

All rise.

It seems strained that the government, by creating an agency to watchdog

industries, could thereby become liable for the conduct of those industries.

I am further troubled by the reality that it's the taxpayers who pay these

judgments, should there be any.

True, the Environmental Protection Agency is mandated to regulate

But to say that the EPA knew of a leaching problem and failed either to

it or to warn about it makes them negligent to the point where they should

assume responsibility is a hard leap for me to make as a juror.

But it is in fact a question a jury should be deciding, not a judge.

Defense motion for summary judgment is denied. Trial date is set for next

Tuesday.

Adjourned.

What happened?

We won the motion.

That's what happened. We're still alive.

I don't believe it. I mean, I do, but I don't.

Okay.

Okay, we've got a lot of work to do on our damage claim, and the trial is set

for next week, so we've got to get together tonight.

Seven o 'clock in our office.

Miss Rutt, can we talk?

No.

Do you have anything else to say?

You say it to a jury.

Mr. Jameson, nobody wants a long trial here.

After eight months, that's what you say to me.

Go to hell.

Take your friend.

They have no case.

They find my client's prints on the garden hose.

Yes, because he yanked it out of the car.

They find his prints and DNA on the victim. Yes, because he tried to revive

There was a fracture on the back of her head.

Yes. Because Scott Wallace pulled her out of the car, causing her head to hit

the cement floor.

And seeing how anemic the case is against Scott Wallace, the man he

killed his sister, Kyle Barrett took the stand and lied.

He testified his sister was afraid Scott would harm her. Well, Kyle Barrett

never told the police that, never. He just made it up.

It was a desperate lie that cannot be corroborated by anyone.

And it's with that lie alone that the prosecution is trying to convict an

innocent man.

My sister was afraid he'd harm her.

If I disappear, Scott did something.

And he goes off to play poker?

The reason Kyle Barrett made up these lies is because sitting in this room,

listening to the evidence, he recognized what you have to recognize.

The prosecution has no case.

A woman announces to her husband that she's going to leave him.

They're heard in a screaming argument.

And she suddenly turns up dead.

We're supposed to think suicide?

Is there anybody who knew her?

To describe her as suicidal, or even depressed for that matter.

Does it make sense?

As she decides to move forward with life, she then decides to end it?

As for the brother's testimony being a lie, where's the evidence of that?

Did defense call anybody to contradict him?

Let's all use a little common sense, shall we?

A woman tries to leave her husband.

She ends up dead in the house.

A whack to the back of the head.

No witnesses.

Figure it out.

Every day, they need to be there.

Yes. Our case is your children, and we want the jury to see their faces every

single day, even during the doctor's testimony.

They can do it.

We certainly prepared them. The defendants have already brought a motion

bifurcate the trial, which we are opposing, which means we really should

work. So we will be in constant contact as we draw closer.

Okay.

Ms. Frett?

I apologize for what I said before.

You don't have to. Yes, I do.

I know how hard both of you have worked.

And as I watched you in the court, well, I felt ashamed

for doubting you.

That was something.

Will the defendant please rise?

Mr. Foreman, the jury has reached a unanimous verdict.

We have, Your Honor.

What say you?

Commonwealth v.

Scott Wallace on the charge of murder in the first degree.

We find the defendant, Scott Wallace, guilty.

Members of the jury, this completes your service. You are dismissed with the

thanks of the court.

Defense will have to set aside the verdict or for a new trial.

You can file those motions later.

Security will take the defendant into custody.

We're adjourned.

We have grounds, Scott.

We'll appeal.

We'll have a comment.

Yeah, we will appeal.