All language subtitles for The.Practice.S04E18.Death.Penalties.HULU.WEB-DL.AAC2.0.H.264-AJP69_track3_[eng]

We have to make
the decision.

What do you think?

I think if we can get
manslaughter, we should take it.

How much time
would I serve?

Could be as little
as three years.

I would-- I would think
at the most six.

(sighs) Oh, God.

My kids are 13 and 11.

Six years...

Here's the problem.

Jury nullification
is risky.

Technically, I'm not
even allowed to argue it.

What about insanity?

The problem there is

your demeanor was calm
and deliberate at the time.

Now, look, Helen Gamble
is a very good D. A.

Also, on this issue,

she's on a mission
with it.

Her grandmother--
I don't know all the details--

whether she was
euthanized somehow or--

all I know is she goes
tough on mercy killings.

This was an act
of compassion, for God's sake.

You know that,
I know that,

but if we can get
manslaughter,

I think we should do it.

I can't believe
they're pushing this.

This is politics.

You did shoot her
in the head.

(music playing)

I'm not offering
manslaughter.

It's a mercy killing.

It's a homicide.

I'm agreeing to plead
to homicide.

Not enough, you're not.

What are you looking for,
a life sentence?

This man is no criminal.

I'm looking for more
than five years,

which is what he would
probably do with manslaughter,

and he is a criminal, Bobby.

He committed
premeditated murder.

What, I'm supposed to go light
because it came from love?

A lot of homicides do.

Listen to how angry
you're getting.

I'll see you in there.

Hey. Get some therapy.

Take your hand
off me, please.

I tried talking to her
last night.

So, what do we do?

I still wouldn't go insanity.
She'll pick us apart.

Plus, it's pretty obvious
he knew what he was doing.

So, what are we left with?

Self-defense?

It's viable.

You want to argue

he defended his wife
by shooting her in the head?

I should at least
be allowed to argue it.

Well, you won't be.

I have to prevent the law
from being tortured here,

and you won't--

If you consider
the strict elements--

you will not argue
he acted in self-defense.

That's ridiculous.
What else?

We'd ask the prosecution
to include manslaughter

as a lesser included charge.

It wasn't manslaughter.
It was premeditated, and--

Question for the jury.

The jury
doesn't get to decide

what defendants
are charged with.

The reason she won't
charge manslaughter is

she's afraid that's what
the jury will come back with.

I can't tell the prosecution
what to charge, counsel.

Your Honor, I--

Bobby.

Let's go in.

Ms. Gamble,
one second, please.

As I've said,

I can't tell you how
to prosecute your case,

but it seems manslaughter
is a good result here.

I don't agree.

A jury could let him
go free.

I'm aware of that possibility,
your Honor.

May I help you?

I'm Mary Donovan.

I'm looking for
Bobby Donnell,

Eugene Young,
or Ellenor Frutt.

I'm Ellenor Frutt.

Oh, hello. It's very nice
to meet you.

You come highly recommended.

I have $500. I'd like
to buy a day of your time.

$500 will get you to lunch.

Is there
something specific?

My son-- he's in jail
for a crime he didn't commit.

Ah, well--

Yes, every mother thinks
her son is innocent.

The distinction here--
Mine is.

If I could just have
one day.

If it's more than $500,
I can pay over time.

Can you tell me the crime
your son's been convicted of?

Murder. He's on death row
in Pennsylvania.

The Governor
just signed his warrant.

He's to be executed
in five weeks,

so, time is of the essence.

I'm told of your work
on the Randall Jefferson case...

What you've accomplished
in just 24 hours...

Mrs. Donovan, we were unable
to save Randall Jefferson...

Please?

I'm only asking
for one day.

What do you do
as a hospice worker?

It's much like that
of a nurse,

though I work primarily
with dying patients,

usually at their own homes.

You worked for Scott Simpson,
the defendant?

Yes. I looked
after his wife.

She was suffering
from ovarian cancer.

Mrs. Raymonds,
calling your attention

to the evening
of December 5th of last year,

do you recall what happened?

She was in a lot of pain.

Mrs. Simpson?

Yes.

We were giving her
increased dosages of morphine,

but she was still in agony,

and she was begging
that we let her die.

Finally, Mr. Simpson--
he, um,

he asked that I leave
the room, which I did.

Then what happened?

After about
two minutes or so,

I heard a gunshot.

Mr. Simpson then opened
the door,

and he said
his wife was gone.

You spoke of morphine.

Actually, on the day
in question,

you were using morphine
in conjunction

with a benzodiazepine,
isn't that right?

Yes.

And this drug is
the equivalent of valium?

It's very close, yes.

And the purpose
of a morphine-valium cocktail

is to hasten
the patient's death,

isn't that right,
Mrs. Raymonds?

It's primarily
to relieve pain.

Mrs. Raymonds, I remind you
you're under oath.

The morphine-valium
combination--

that is used to cause
the patient's death. True?

Yes.

So, on the day in question,

you were already acting
to hasten

Mrs. Simpson's death,
weren't you?

In conjunction
with the family's wishes,

I was employing a method
of pain management

that would most likely result
in the patient's death, yes.

And no one charged you

with attempted murder,
I assume.

Objection.
Sustained.

When Mr. Simpson
ended his wife's life,

he did something
in seconds

that you were basically
trying to do

in a day or so.

I can't disagree
with that.

Thank you.

He was only 19
at the time.

He was convicted
of raping and killing

his girlfriend Alisa Kearns,
then killing her mother.

This is them.

And this happened when?

1988. He's been in prison
12 years.

The evidence was one eyewitness
who placed him at the scene

plus, a lying
jailhouse informant

who made up a story
about Stuart confessing.

He never did.

And what's
your son's story?

That he was out hunting,
and it's not a story.

He was with my husband,

who the police just thought
was trying to cover for him.

My husband
has since passed away.

Any DNA?

Stuart's blood type
matched whoever did it.

That's a problem.

They didn't do
full DNA analysis back then.

Never?

In 1992,
we finally had it done.

Unfortunately, the test
proved inconclusive.

We went to try again
in '95.

By then, the rape kit

had either been lost
or destroyed.

What's his appellate lawyer
telling you?

That he's done
all that he can do.

He's giving up.

You took it?

I agreed to meet with her son
and the D. A. if I can.

In Pennsylvania?

It's an hour
and a half flight.

I'm there and back in a day,
and, you know, who knows?

If he really is innocent...

Well, God bless you, Ellenor.
If I had your heart...

You'd have a heart.

Oh, funny.

Okay, look,
can I ask you something?

And I am not trying to pick
a fight here, I promise.

Why not plead out
on manslaughter?

Grieving husband,
and I don't believe

you really believe this guy
is a danger to society.

He does time.

He shot her in the head.

Is it the method, then?
The fact that he used a gun?

Partly, yes.

So, if he used a needle
and injected her

with something
to put her to sleep,

then you'd agree
to manslaughter?

No. Seems even less
like manslaughter.

You put dogs to sleep,
not people.

Okay, so agreed,
it's a crime,

but my question goes
to why murder two?

Why not manslaughter?

Let me ask you
a question.

You're against
the death penalty.

You say it's barbaric.

It's okay to put
sick people to death

but not convicted murderers?

No, those are two
very different things.

No, they're not.
Lethal injections in both cases.

Look, there is
a very big difference

between executing
a healthy person

and allowing a terminal one
in pain to die.

Mrs. Simpson
wasn't allowed to die.

She had a bullet
pumped into her head.

She wanted to die.

Oh, is that the test--
whether she wants to die?

'cause a lot of inmates
on death row--

they want to die.
You support killing them?

I am talking about
a dying woman in extreme pain,

not a healthy person.
Oh, please don't
shake your fork at me.

What about the guy
with the brain tumor

who's got four
to six months to live?

He's not suffering,
but he doesn't want it

to ever get to that point,
so he'd rather die now.

Is it okay
to kill him if he wants?

Well, I think we need
to re-evaluate--

How about the ones
with six months to live?

I am not saying it's okay
to kill anybody. I'm only--

Okay, well, fine.
You know what?

You make a list
of who it's okay to kill

and who it's not,
all right?

Helen, stop it.

This woman
was in extreme agony.

Her husband was trying
to spare her some suffering,

and you go after him
like he's some monster.

I'm supposed to listen to you
on who's a sympathetic defendant

and who's not?
Come on.

Forgive me if I don't
trust your damn judgment,

and thank you for allowing me
to enjoy my supper.

I was just
making conversation.

The last week she'd been
in unbearable pain.

She was tough, Sally.

She'd endured a year of massive
chemotherapy treatments.

Let's talk about
the very last day.

She just couldn't
take it anymore.

We then started the morphine
with the valium.

Mrs. Raymonds said
she'd probably go into a coma

and die in a day or two,

but the pain
wouldn't go away.

What did you do?

I asked Mrs. Raymonds
to increase the morphine.

She said she didn't want
to throw her into seizures,

that that would be
more pain.

So, I asked her
to leave the room.

And then what happened?

I went to my closet,

retrieved my revolver
from the safe...

and...

I, uh...

ended it.

She would've likely
been dead in a day.

I wasn't going to
let her suffer

for another second.

For two years,

they cut out
half her insides,

filled her
with chemicals,

and the pain--

Not another minute,

not another second.

Not another second!

Hi, baby.

Hey, mom.

This is Ellenor Frutt.
My son Stuart.

Hello.

She says you can do something.
Can you really?

I don't know, Stuart.
I have a few meetings set up,

and then maybe
I'll have a better idea.

What about
this Bobby Donnell guy?

Is he coming, too?

He's in trial right now,
so, he couldn't make it.

But she's very good, Stuart.
I checked her out plenty.

Um, actually, I have a meeting
with the district attorney

in a little over an hour.
So, I read your statements,

but I'd like to hear in person
your account of things.

Okay. It's pretty simple.

I was there that day
because I needed to see her.

Why?

we'd argued
earlier that week.

She wasn't returning
my calls.

She said we needed to take
a break, so I left.

That night,
I went hunting with my dad.

The next day,
the police showed up.

Did you make love
to Alisa that afternoon?

No.

And did you see
her mother?

Not that day.

(Ellenor writing notes)

Do we have a chance?

When a patient reaches
stage four of ovarian cancer,

it's pretty bleak.

The odds of survival
are tougher, yes.

But you were generally
encouraging

to Mrs. Simpson,
weren't you, doctor?

I don't know
if I was optimistic.

But you certainly
held out the hope

that the chemo treatments,
her pushing fluids,

plus the two surgeries
to debulk the cancer--

It could maybe save her?

That was her best chance.

But there never was
any real chance

of saving Mrs. Simpson's life,
was there, Dr. Shields?

Objection.
Mrs. Simpson's oncologist

has nothing to do
with what transpired.

It is my contention
that this doctor

contributed
to Mrs. Simpson's suffering.

Hold on here.
That goes to my client's
state of mind.

Scott Simpson was
the only one to help his wife.

The doctors weren't there
in the end.

This witness is not relevant
to the issue before this court.

I will show relevance.

You are shut down here.
Step down, doctor.

Call your next witness.

The defense calls
Dr. Alan Price.

Objection.

Step up.

Offer of proof.

Dr. price is the surgeon who did
the debulking procedures.

Denied. This witness
is not relevant.
Your Honor.

I would remind counsel

that it is your client
who is on trial here,

not the doctors
who treated his wife.

My client should be allowed
to put on a defense.

You're not putting on
this one.

Who else have you got?

Defense rests, your Honor.

Defense rests.

As I've told
Mrs. Donovan,

we don't know what became
of the rape kit.

Oh, please.

Do you know where
it could have become lost?

It should be
in the police evidence room.

If not there,
I'd try the lab. Barring that--

Why aren't you trying?

Why are you just
so blasé about--

Mrs. Donovan, I was kind enough
to grant you this meeting.

You were kind enough

to prosecute and convict my son
of a crime he didn't commit.

I'm not going
to entertain this.

All right, all right.

Would you support me
in my efforts

to try to determine where
the rape kit could have gone?

Of course. We're not trying
to hide anything here.

Thank you.

But, Ms. Frutt,
let's be clear.

While I support your efforts
to retrieve lost evidence,

I totally oppose the idea
of this case being reopened.

Mr. Donovan was rightly
convicted of a double homicide.

He did not commit
that crime.

All right.

I appreciate you
making the call.

Mary?

Let's go.

Look, Mary,
here's the deal.

If we're going to make
any progress on this,

we're going to need
a modicum

of cooperation
from the police,

and that's not
going to happen

with you
antagonizing them.

That man is never going
to help, and I'll tell you why.

His boss is running
on a death penalty platform.

Stuart's execution
is the first one scheduled

in a year.

Politics-wise,
they need this to happen.

They very well could have
knowingly destroyed

that rape kit,
and forgive my French,

but that Mr. Platt
is an ass

who's capable
of concealing evidence.

Mary, I don't want you
to antagonize them.

How's it going?

(door slams)

That well.

He tried calling
the woman's doctors.

Why?

Good question.

Since I'm second chair,

I thought maybe you'd
let me in on the strategy.

That strategy is simple.

Scott Simpson endured
two years

of watching
his wife suffer.

What does that have to do with
the doctors who treated her?

I was putting them in
to establish the suffering.

No, you weren't, Bobby.

You put Dr. Shields
up there to attack him.

Helen isn't the only one
personalizing this.

What's going on with you?

Lindsay, we have
no defense, okay?

I have to convey

whatever Scott Simpson
went through,

what his wife
went through.

It's all about building up
enough sympathy

so, the jury feels compelled
to ignore the law.

If that's what
you were trying to do,

then you went
way off course.

Okay, look at me.

You were saying how
the doctors

weren't there in the end.

Now, I know that--

that you had to turn
the respirator off

on your mother--

It isn't about that.

Why did it happen
like that?

How was it that you
had to turn it off?

Hospitals wouldn't
do it back then...

At least the hospital
that she was in.

It was, um, it was
a Catholic hospital.

And they just left
the family alone

with the patient.

They showed us the button.

Then the doctors,
the nurses--

they all left the room,

leaving just me
and my dad with...

Why didn't your dad do it?

He couldn't.

My father--
he couldn't bring himself

to hit that button,
even though he knew.

So...

he asked me
if I would do it.

While those doctors
were outside comparing notes

on how well
the patient tolerated

this chemical
versus that one,

a 15-year-old kid
was left inside...

to turn off
his mother's respirator.

And now you hate them.

Yeah.

Yeah, I do.

Okay.

But we've got
a murder trial here,

and our client--

he needs you
to try this case

and this case alone.

I'm doing that.

No.

You're not, Bobby.

Maybe I should close.

I'll close.

Hey.

Oh, don't you start.

Saying "hey" is starting?

It depends.

Have you come to pick out
bridesmaid dresses?

What, have you come
to distract me

from working
on my closing?

Helen, this case
can't be a situation

where your office is

pressuring you
to get a murder two.

Why not take
the manslaughter?

I don't know.

What do you mean,
you don't know?

That's not really
an answer.

You could just plead out
if you want.

Why not do it? Really?

I don't know.

This is where you keep
all the rape kits?

Yes, ma'am,
some of the old ones.

Well, going back how far?

That I couldn't tell you.

"Donovan, Stuart."

This would be it.

It's not in there.

Well, we figured
it wouldn't be there.

That would've been
a little too easy.

So, if it's not here,

where else
might it possibly be?

I mean, how many different
people handle these kits?

This is just storage.

Chain of custody
is all documented.

Went to the lab in '92.

There's no documentation
that it ever came back.

Well, could it
still be at the lab?

They don't really have
storage capacity,

plus we called.
They say they don't have it.

That means
it's most likely destroyed.

Okay, where is this lab?

Address is on the paper.

Okay. Thank you
very much, officer.

It's the hypocrisy of it all
that gets me.

We're already helping
patients die.

We make
these morphine-valium cocktails,

and in the end, it causes them
to go into a coma and die.

Forget the crap
about pain management.

That's just
a politically correct euphemism.

It's to hasten
the patient's death.

So, what are we talking about?

The so-called victim
in this crime

was going to die
within 48 hours.

The so-called victim's death

was already
being hastened medically,

and my client
hastened it further,

and he's on trial
for murder?

That's a joke.

We can't give them
a quick-acting drug

because that would seem too much
like we're killing them.

So, we give them
a slow-acting drug,

let it take a day or so,

and we call it
pain management.

That's a joke,
and it would be funny

if it weren't for the fact

that the patient often
suffers excruciating agony

in the meantime,

which is exactly
what was happening in this case.

Everybody in this room knows

if the doctors
could have ended

Sally Simpson's pain
quickly and mercifully,

Scott Simpson would have never
picked up that gun.

But here we are,

trying to take away
his life,

trying to take him
from his children,

trying to brand him
a murderer.

More than anything, the law
is supposed to protect

the weakest members
of our society.

The law wasn't there
in the end for Sally Simpson.

The doctors weren't there
in the end.

After they cut out
half her insides,

pumping her full of drugs,
prolonging her pain,

causing it,
they weren't there in the end.

Only I-- my client
Scott Simpson--

only he was there
in the end.

And he ended
his wife's suffering.

He didn't stop a life.

He stopped pain.

And they're asking you
to call him a murderer.

HELEN: First,

there's a difference,
ladies and gentlemen,

between controlling pain
with a dosage of medicine

that could foreseeably
cause death

and simply killing someone.

Maybe in the end it amounts
to a small distinction,

but it is one.

Doctors do not kill to kill,

and even if they did,
as Mr. Donnell contends,

it is still illegal.

Second, the patient
was already dying.

Mr. Simpson
just hastened it further.

Please...

where do we draw the line?

Where do we say
death is so close,

it becomes okay to kill?

Certainly, if a prisoner
on death row

was murdered the day before
his scheduled execution,

we would hold
the killer accountable.

Third...

Mrs. Simpson was suffering.

I certainly don't dispute that,

but I definitely take issue
with the suggestion

that when a person
is in enough misery,

it becomes permissible
to take out a gun

and shoot her in the head.

Fourth, the law.

When a person
intentionally takes the life

of another human being,

it's murder.

He can be loving,
sympathetic,

even heroic
if you're so inclined

to find him that way.

But if he intentionally
takes the life

of another human being,

absent self-defense
or diminished mental capacity,

it's murder,
and that's what we have here.

Now, the arguments about
the extenuating circumstances--

take that up at sentencing
when it's time for leniency,

but here the question is,
did he commit a crime?

I suppose you could choose
to ignore your duty.

You could do here
exactly what Mr. Simpson did

and take the law
into your own hands.

Would I understand? Yes.

Would it make you popular
in the public's eye?

I bet it would.

Would it make you right?

You know the answer to that.

This isn't a forum
for policy,

but since Mr. Donnell
argued it,

I agree--

The law is designed
to protect its weakest member.

That would include the sick,
the aged, the dying.

Just consider
the potential for abuse

if we let ourselves
become open to the idea

that sometimes it's okay
to take out a gun

and put somebody down.

Your Honor, chambers.

What's up?

I want you
to instruct the jury

that a conviction
means a life sentence.

What?

She argued sentencing
in her closing.

I did not!

You said leniency,
then implied to the jury

that you can be lenient
when that's not the case.

A conviction on murder two
means life.

What do you
want me to do?

Tell them that.
He'd be looking at life.

Forget it.

You have no discretion

to be lenient, and right now
the jury thinks you do.

I think you're
overreacting.

She knew
what she was doing.

Don't be accusing me!

It bordered
on prosecutorial misconduct.

Hey, I stuck to the law,

you argued
jury nullification.

You cannot let
that jury deliberate

under the false impression

that my client
might get a lighter sentence.

There will be no further
talk on sentencing.

I'm certainly not going to
give an instruction on it.

It was a deliberate act
of deception!

It was not!

You're a liar!

Helen.

I'll hold you both
in contempt.

You want to fight the fight
in the courtroom, fine.

I will not accept that kind
of personal attack.

(door slams)

You were totally
out of line.

She said leniency.
You heard it.

I'm talking about
calling her a liar.

Bobby, the law is totally
on Helen's side here.

I mean,
who's kidding who?

Yes, she could
have gone manslaughter,

which I think
she should have,

but the facts
easily support
murder two.

So, I would be
a murderer then?

Is that
what you're saying?

Of course
I'm not saying that.

Is that
what's going on here?

You're defending
yourself?

Oh, my God...

Have you been
carrying that around?

You killed your mother?

I don't think that.
You-- You said it.

I didn't say it.
It came out of you.

Bobby...

Bobby.

Look, I understand
your problem,

but we send all samples back
to the evidence locker.

We have very limited
storage capacity here.

We don't hang on
to rape kits.

But the police
don't have any record

of you returning
the rape kit on Donovan.

Well, we have a record
of sending it back to them.

I can show it to you.
It's right here.

Well, if you
wrote it down--

Can you tell me

who you used
as a messenger service?

We don't use services.

It presents
chain of custody problems.

So, people here
would have delivered it

directly to the police.

Yes.

So, basically, you're saying
it got lost there,

they're saying
it got lost here.

Well, if I were
a betting man,

I'd say
it got lost there.

Okay. Does Jack Semler
still work here?

Who?

Jack Semler...

He was the technician who
did the testing back in '92.

Can I see your paperwork?

Yeah, sure.

Yeah, there's been
a mistake here.

What kind of mistake?

We didn't do this testing.

What?

Jack Semler works
for a private lab

we sometimes hire out
when we're swamped here.

I think our records--

they indicate we sent it
back to the police

when we may have sent it
to Kendall Laboratories.

Well, if we have it,

this is the only place
it could be.

How long do you keep
samples for?

It varies.

Let's see, Donovan,
Donovan...Donovan.

First name?

Stuart.

1992?

Yes.

Nope.

Nothing.

Well, if you don't have it

and it didn't make its way
back to the police,

do you have any idea
where it could be?

Sorry.

Unless...

What was
the victim's name?

Kearns.

Sometimes they screw up

and store it
under the victim's name.

Let's see, Kearns.
John, no.

Steven...Alisa?

Yes, that's it-- Alisa.

32665.

Yeah,
that's the file number.

Huh.

What "huh"?
What do you mean, huh?

We've got it.

You have it?

Here it is.

She's still there?

They tracked down
the rape kit.

She's still
in Philadelphia?

Meeting with the D. A.,
asking for another DNA test.

What if this one's
conclusive?

She think about that?

What's to lose? He's due
to be executed in five weeks.

We getting paid for this?

$500 cash.

You know,
we should expand.

What's up
with your case?

Jury's still out.

Anybody see Lindsay?

Ahem.

Lindsay, hey.

Hi.

Hey, uh...

you know,
you're in a men's room.

Oh, well, I hear unisex
is the new rage.

(laughs)

How's Bobby?

Well...

he's a little unsettled
at the moment.

Oh, something wrong?

You two aren't fighting,
are you?

No, no,
we're not fighting.

He thinks
he killed his mother.

You two really need
to talk more.

He thinks what?

He killed his mother.

The last day of her life...

You two have never talked
about it?

That's not something--

That's not something
I can talk about.

Well, your son needs to.

I'm afraid I can't agree.

You can't agree
to a DNA test?

No.

Why?

Miss Frutt,
this case is over.

It's been over
for 12 years.

He's about
to be put to death.

Are you saying
that we should go back

and reopen an investigation

simply because a sentence
is about to be carried out?

You bastard.

Mary.

The DNA technology
has improved.

It is possible that a new
test could exonerate--

I couldn't reopen
even if I wanted to.

This is new evidence.
Of course, you can.

It isn't new evidence.

We had the rape kit
at trial.

Look, I understand there
might be political gain

in seeing
this execution through--

It isn't that, and I'm
offended at the accusation.

You're offended
at the accusation?

How about I might have
an innocent kid...

He isn't.

Set to be put to death,

and all we're asking for
is a simple test

to confirm that you've
got the right guy.

It isn't that simple.

You're in here asking that
we reopen an investigation.

If we did that for you,

every defense attorney
in town would be

lining up outside my office
asking for the very same--

I am the only
defense attorney

with a client
slated for execution.

The answer is no.

Then we'll go to court.

Do what you think
you must.

The jury has asked

whether they could
come back with manslaughter.

What did you say?

I told them no.

It's murder one,

murder two,

or straight acquittal.

It's poker time, folks.

Obviously, they don't want
to convict on murder two,

but they might be
more reluctant to set him free.

Who's going to blink?

I'm still willing
to take manslaughter.

No.

Helen.

No.

Helen.

You're grabbing me again.

I'm sorry
I called you a liar.

Okay.

You don't think
we can deal this?

You know, Ellenor's been
asking me why I pushed this,

Lindsay asked--
truth is, I don't know.

I've been asking myself.

What's the answer?

We live in a country

where people kill each other
a lot, mostly with guns,

and whether I feel
for your client or not,

and I do,

the thought of expanding
the boundaries even--

even microscopically,

where it becomes excusable
to shoot somebody,

I can't do it.

It has to stay repugnant.

Excusable is too short
of a leap to acceptable.

I can't do it.

All we're looking to do
is a simple DNA test

to confirm whether
Stuart Donovan

was, in fact, the man
who raped Alisa Kearns.

My understanding is
we had a match.

A blood type match,

but that is
hardly conclusive.

We also had an eyewitness,
plus his fingerprints.

This isn't about that.

Now, young lady,

I was the trial judge
in this case.

Now, if you're suggesting
that Mr. Donovan

didn't get a fair trial...

That is not my suggestion.

To repeat,

I am only asking that
you authorize a DNA test.

Mr. Platt?

Under Pennsylvania law,
new evidence

must be introduced within
60 days of its discovery.

The rape kit
is 12 years old.

Defense had opportunity
to analyze it before trial.

The technology is different.

The new evidence
is not the rape kit.

It would be the results
of the testing,

so, the 60-day statute
of limitation

hasn't even begun to toll.

Analysis of evidence
is not new evidence.

This is supposed
to be about the truth.

One lousy test
brings us to the truth.

Our judicial system
is a process, Miss Frutt.

We have rules of procedure.

New evidence is one thing,

but the re-evaluation
of old evidence

is quite another.

Your Honor--

The petition is denied.

He is facing
a death penalty.

We're adjourned.

Where's my mother?

She, uh...

she's going to come by
a little later.

She's off someplace
crying, huh?

Well, she's upset, Stuart.

She just doesn't know
when to quit, that's all.

Well, I guess she and I

have something
in common, then,

because I'm not quitting.

What are you
gonna do?

I don't know,

but I'm not going
to go back to Boston,

I can tell you that.

Mr. Foreman, the jury
has reached its verdict?

We have.

The defendant
will please rise.

What say you?

On Commonwealth
vs Scott Simpson,

on the charge of murder
in the first degree,

we find the defendant
Scott Simpson

not guilty.

On the charge of murder
in the second degree,

we find the defendant
Scott Simpson...

guilty.

(gasps)

Members of the jury,

this completes your service.
The court thanks you.

This matter is adjourned.

Security will take
the defendant into custody.

(pounds gavel)

Aunt Laurie's going to take
you guys home, okay?

And you'll stay with her
for a little while

like we talked about.

Everything's going
to be okay.

They'll be okay, Scott.

I'll call you tomorrow,
guys, okay?

All right, dad.

I love you.

I'll go with the boys--
Take them home.

Okay.

You okay?

Yeah.

(music playing)

You stinker!