All language subtitles for the_practice_s04e18_death_penalties

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 think at the most six.

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 DA.

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, all I know is she goes tough on
mercy killing. 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.

I'm not offering manslaughter. It's a
mercy killing. It's a homicide. I'm

agreeing to plead for homicide.

Not enough, you're not. What are you
looking for, a life sentence? This man

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

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.
Well, you won't be.

I have to prevent the law from being
tortured here.

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 include
manslaughter as a lesser included

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

won't charge manslaughter, 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... 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 Donald, Eugene
Young, or Eleanor Front.

I'm Eleanor Frey.

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.

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 has to be executed in five weeks.

So, time is of the essence.

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 home. You worked
for Scott Simpson, the defendant?

Yes. I looked after his wife. She was
suffering from ovarian cancer.

Mrs. Raymond's 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 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

the 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

Isn't that right, Mrs. Raymond?

It's primarily to relieve pain.

Mrs. Raymond, 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, Alyssa 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 Stewart confessing. He never did.

And what's your son's story?

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

This is my husband, who the police just
thought was trying to cover for him.

My husband has since passed away.

Any DNA?

Stewart'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, but 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?

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.

You know, who knows?

If he really is innocent... Oh, God
bless you, Eleanor, 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 plea down on manslaughter?

Grieving husband, and I don't believe
you really believe this guy is a danger

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, too? 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?

Because a lot of inmates on death row,
they want to die. You support killing

them? I am talking about a dying woman
and extreme pain. 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? How
about the ones with six months to live?

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

Okay, well, fine. You know what? You
make a list of who it's okay to kill and

who it's not, all right? 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

to you on who's a sympathetic defendant
and who's not?

Forgive me if I don't trust your damn
judgment, and thank you for allowing me

enjoy my supper.

I was just making conversation.

Bearable 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. Raymond 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. Raymond to increase the
morphine. She said she didn't want to

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 have likely been dead in a
day.

Why? 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!

I have a meeting with the district
attorney in a little over an hour, so I

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.

Next day the police showed up.

Did you make love to Alyssa that
afternoon?

No.

And did you see her mother?

Not that day.

Do we have a chance?

When a patient reaches stage four of
ovarian cancer, it's pretty bleak. The

of survival are...

tougher yes but you were generally
encouraging to mrs simpson weren't you

i don't know if i was optimistic but you
certainly held out the hope the chemo

treatments her pushing fluids plus the
two surgeries to the bulk the cancer it

could maybe save her that was the best
chance but there never was any real

chance of saving mrs simpson's life was
there dr fields

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.

goes to my client's state of mind. Hold
on here. 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 Consul 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 are not putting on this one.

Who else have you got?

Defense rest, Your Honor.

Defense rest.

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 did commit.

I'm not going to entertain that. All
right.

Would you support me in my efforts to
try to determine where the rape kit

have gone? Of course. We're not trying
to hide anything here. Thank you. But,

Miss 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?

Look, Mary, here's the deal. If we're
going to make any progress on this,

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.

Stewart's execution is the first one
scheduled in a year.

Politics -wise, they need this to
happen. They very well could have

destroyed that rave kid, 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?

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

in to establish the suffering. No, you
weren't, Bobby.

You put Dr. Fields 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

to ignore the law.

If that's what you were trying to do,
then you went way off court.

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 a Catholic hospital.

And they just left the family alone with
the patient.

They showed us the button.

And the doctors, the nurses, they all
left the room, leaving just me and my

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.

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, starting?

Well, it depends.

Have you come to pick up bridesmaid
dresses?

What, have you come to distract me from
working on my clothing?

Alan, this kid can't be a situation
where your office is pressuring you to

murder, too.

Why not take the manslaughter?

I don't know.

What do you mean you don't know? That's
not really an answer.

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?

Dad, I couldn't tell you.

Donovan Stewart.

This would be it.

Not in there.

Well, we figured it wouldn't be there.
That would have 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. Change 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've called if they don't have
it.

That means it's most likely destroyed.

Okay, where is this lab?

Address is on the paper.

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

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.

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

First, there's a difference, ladies and
gentlemen, between controlling pain with

a dosage of medicine that could
foreseeably cause death and simply

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. Donald
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

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

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

hands.

Would I understand? Yes. Would it make
you popular in the public's eye? I bet

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 and her
closing. I did not. You said leniency.

That applied to the jury that you can be
lenient when that's not the case. A

conviction on murder tool means life.
What do you want me to do? Tell them

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

was doing. Don't be accusing me. Report
it 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

might get a lighter sentence. There will
be no further talk on sentencing. I'm

certainly not going to give an
instruction. It was a deliberate act of

deception. It was not. How could you?
You're a liar. Hey.

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.

You were totally out of line. She said
leniency. You heard it. I'm talking

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,
too. 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?

Have you been carrying that around?

You killed your mother? I don't think
that. 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

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.

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.

Birth name?

Stewart.

1992? Yeah.

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.

The Kearns.

John, Snow, Stephen, Alyssa? Yes, I said
Alyssa.

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.

Is she still there?

They tracked down the rape kit.

She's still in Philadelphia.

Meeting with the DA, 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.

Hey, you know, we should expand.

What's up with your case?

Jury's still out.

Anybody see Lindsay?

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

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

How's Bobby?

Well, he's a little unsettled at the
moment.

Something wrong?

No, 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.

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

a sentence is about to be carried out?

You bastard. Mary, the DNA technology
has improved. It is possible that a new

test could exhaust it. 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. ...dead 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'd 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.

Sorry I called you a liar.

Okay.

You don't think we can deal with this?

You know, Eleanor'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 Alyssa
Kern.

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 try. 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

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, Ms.
Sprott.

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 gonna 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 gonna 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 v.

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.

Members of the jury, this completes your
service. The court thanks you.

This matter is adjourned. Security will
take the defendant into custody.

And 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?

Okay.

I'll go with the boys.

Take them home.

Okay.

You okay?