All language subtitles for The Practice s07e14 The Making of a Trial Attorney

That's my son, Dan Marshall.

He looks like a great kid.

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. No, 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.

15 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. 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 15 years.

I would like to at least give them three
days of hell.

Summons, I need you to testify.

Why? Because you were the DA who
prosecuted him, Ken. It was one of our

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

now to be nice.

I've held out an olive branch to your
firm. If you intend to trash me with

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.

Everything okay?

No. Will you argue?

What? I'm over my head.

I'm going up against John Wicker from
Goodman.

You believe that? They've got Wicker.

You said you were ready. I am.

But let's face it, Lindsay, I'm...

Suing in 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.

And detective, what led you to conclude
that Louis Niler 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. 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?

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...

Fifteen 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...

know. I work 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.

Oh, Lindsay.

They want to meet.

Who? The defendant.

The town of Lexington. They want to
meet. They must have an offer.

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.

Okay. Well, if they want to discuss
settlement, it's best not to appear over

-anxious. Right. And I'm sure it goes
without saying, try not to freeze or

vomit.

Right.

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

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

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

deny Lewis Niler's parole.

Yes. But once the Innocence Project did
the DNA test, we did vacate his

conviction, which I, of course, fully
supported. After he served 15 years in

prison for a crime he didn't commit.

Hey, I wish we had money to spot check
every conviction to make sure this never

happens again.

We don't. 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 the 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,

I'd just like to say...

As the DA who prosecuted this man, I
have a heavy heart.

I don't deny it. But what about his
heart? Move to strike. Where was he to

request a DNA test?

But for the Project Innocence, his
client would still be locked up. 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

statistic of how many people are falsely
convicted.

That's impossible.

Bobby, next to looks, I pride myself on
my research. Rebecca, can you help Jamie

out, please? Did you try the NIJ?

They documented some cases, but there
was nothing to overall patterns.

Bobby, let's face it. This case is a
doll. I realize that, Eugene, but the

client wants to try it.

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?

There are a number of factors.

Is he still a danger to the community?

Has he bettered himself in prison?

Has he been rehabilitated?

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.

Well, that's understandable.

I mean, isn't it?

He was innocent.

As it turned out, certainly we didn't
know that. But you had knowledge that

another man confessed. We had no
knowledge that the confession was

did we have the... And you couldn't be
bothered to find out. Mr. Donald, the

parole board does not exist to
investigate. We assume guilt going in.

to. Otherwise... 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, has it worked
out? Yes.

And that's regrettable. 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

the law required.

As the law required.

Miss 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.

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

on the table.

Conditioned, of course, on
confidentiality. $35 ,000?

He has learning disabilities.

Ms. Wyatt, I don't think you want the
number to reflect the merits of your

because we all know what that number is.

Well, if this is all about charity, why
would the mayor want to keep it such a

secret? Most politicians like photo ops
with their acts of kindness.

The secrecy is in my insistence.

What would happen if every child who
ever headed a soccer ball came calling

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 its 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.

35 is better than nothing.

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'd 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... 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 him
to stop.

And I did.

But the next day, I told him 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?

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,

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 going to 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.

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.

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

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

negligence claim.

If you argue they're not common, that
hurts your unfeasibility.

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 poured through that trial transcript.
You did nothing wrong.

I should have suppressed that
confession.

You tried. It was voluntary. And why
didn't I push for DNA testing?

Bobby, 15 years ago, they weren't doing
that. But 10 years ago, they were.

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.

35 ,000.

It isn't much, but my son has learning
disabilities.

Attention deficits. The stumbling block
is liability.

The doctors can't establish that hitting
the soccer ball caused the injury.

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

There's also assumption of the risk
issues. I never assumed any risk of

neurological disability when I let him
play soccer.

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.

35 won't do it. Mary.

35 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 neither.

First, to defend him, he got a kid fresh
out of law school.

Sure, I'll say it.

I could have, perhaps should have, 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

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.

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 what 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 hope to present you with studies, but
guess what?

There aren't any. In fact, the United
States Department of Justice doesn't

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.

In medicine, if a patient dies
immediately, a morbidity and mortality

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. All right, Mr. Donald, 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

signed a false confession 28 hours
later.

Despite the real killer confessing to
the crime, Lewis Niler continued to

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 Niler'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.

Very inspiring.

But let's look at the merit 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

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?

Terrible, horrific result. No argument
here. But whose fault, really?

Lewis Niler's wrench was the murder
weapon.

Two witnesses described him. One even
pulled him out of a lineup. And he

confessed.

Mr. Donald, he left that out of his
stirring speech.

Lewis Niler 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

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. Niler.

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 Niler 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.

Donald certainly is idealistic.

The reason that our criminal justice
system is the best in the world is

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

if that DNA existed for 15 years, where,
I ask, was

his lawyer?

Now, if Mr. Donald, in all of his
idealism, is suggesting that we do our

well as his, well, there's burden.

And then there's burden.

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

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

to be trial attorneys.

It takes a certain stomach.

I'm not saying that you lack the
stomach. I'm just saying that it's no

shame. I feel quite strongly I'm
equipped.

Okay.

If you need any more help, just call me.

Okay? Mm -hmm.

I'll see you in there. Okay.

No word?

Not yet.

They haven't been out too long, really.

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?

Robbie, you're never going to believe
he's here to see you.

Could you get me off a jury?

Come on, Lucy.

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 want to clear up and... You
can... Dismiss this. 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.

Is that it?

I'll piss off then.

Imagine the floodgate of litigation.

First, we're suing over soccer injuries.

Tomorrow, football players will be
lining up. After that, hockey,

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

them every time there's an accident.

I would add to that, Your Honor, that
the plaintiff signed a waiver, waiving

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

plain silly.

Ms. Wyatt?

Ms.

Wyatt, do you have a response?

You okay?

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 council. They break legs, bump

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

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've got

precedent 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?

I'm sorry.

Let me read some of the language for
you, counsel.

Soccer. unquestionably is a hazardous
activity within the meaning of... But

hazard they're talking about relates to
body contact.

So what?

Look, we all know when kids play
football or basketball or hockey, bones

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

Massachusetts claims towards that.

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
risk, they would have 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 question

courts ask.

Well, here I ask you.

Who's in a better position to detect
whether soccer is 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 facts, I
would also... All right, I've heard

enough. With all due respect, Your
Honor, I'm not quite finished. I said

heard enough, counsel.

Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

Trial date will be set the first week in
March.

Adjourned.

He really said that, right? We won the
motion? How many times are you going to

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.

Mr. Foreman, has the jury reached a
verdict?

We have, Your Honor. In the matter of
Lewis Niler versus the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts at all, how find you?

As to the claim of wrongful
imprisonment, we the jury find for the

Lewis Niler.

As to compensatory damages, we order the
defendants to pay Lewis Niler $400

,000. As to punitive damages based on
intentional or reckless false

imprisonment, We ordered the defendants
to pay Lewis Nyler nothing.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the
court thanks you for your service.

You are dismissed.

We are adjourned.

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 do 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'll give you back those years.

Yeah.

Thank you, Bobby.

I'll just be a couple of minutes.

Thank you.

No problem.