All language subtitles for The.Practice.S05E01.Summary.Judgments.HULU.WEB-DL.AAC2.0.H.264-AJP69_track3_[eng]

We have one last pre-trial,

where I'll try to suppress
your statement.

Scott,
if I'm unsuccessful --

No, no, no.

Now, 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.

Hey, man,
I keep having this --

the dream
where everybody wakes up

and comes to their senses.

Karen's even in it.

And she's not dead.

We have a solid shot

if we can shut down
this videotape.

Oh, here you go.

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 10 days, I'll be sitting
on that beach.

Look at me, Scott.

Look at me.

If that videotape is admitted,

I believe
you will be convicted...

probably
of second-degree murder.

Now, that carries
a life sentence.

You will not
be going to Fiji.

Do you get that?

♪ (theme)

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 a 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 the humiliation
that he suffered.

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

The number Ellenor and I
think is reasonable

is $160,000 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 $240,000
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 our number.

What, you think
I killed her?

What are you -- crazy?

HELEN: I don't think
you intended to kill her,

I really don't.

So what are you saying?

LARSON: 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.

That's what happened,
isn't it?

My client was in shock

at the time
of this interrogation.

He had just
found his wife dead

less than an hour
before this.

First of all,
he was read his rights.

It isn't about that.

He was suffering
severe traumatic distress.

He wasn't fully 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 events.

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 does no such thing.

It only means if he testifies,
he does so with some risk of --

I object to this!

Your objection is noted.
The ruling is final.

(gavel pounds)

Offer's still good.

No, thanks.

If you take the 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.

I-it was like you said.
I was in shock.

Now, I can convince
the jury of that.

I'm going to recommend
manslaughter one last time.

No.

I have one other idea.

A polygraph?

I'm willing to box him.

If we both stipulate
to the admissibility,

the judge will allow us
to introduce 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.

He took it five times?

And passed every one.

Suppose he fails ours.

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.

I've earned it.

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 box 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
saying, "oops"?

If this man did not
commit the crime,

I'm not going to secure
a conviction

simply to avoid
a public relations nightmare.

I just...

Look,
I saw that interrogation.

Maybe he was disoriented
like he says.

You've got motive.

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.

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 environmental
protection agency.

We realize that.
What's the number?

$20,000.

$20,000?

Apiece.

Times 3,
that's $60,000.

MAN #2: 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 12-B-6,

you lost
the federal tort claims act --

I don't think we'll lose
at summary judgment.

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
hardheaded of craniums.

Get out!

You're obligated
to take the offer

to your clients, Miss Frutt.

However much your firm might
end up out of pocket.

Ethically, you are required
to present this offer
to the plaintiffs.

Thank you, Mr. Meyers.

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 worth 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 got to tell the clients.

We should go there again.

You can't beat yourself up,
Ellenor.

It's a miracle
you got it this far.

$20,000.

What a miracle.

LINDSAY: We should go.

When I arrived,

the defendant was sitting
right out on the driveway.

He seemed very despondent.

Inside the garage,
we found the victim

facedown 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.

BOBBY: 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 inside 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 get
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, doctor?

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 are.

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 honest 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 didn't 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 longer existed,

your case was basically over

until Ellenor came up
with the idea to sue the E. P. A.

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 nonexistent.

But Ellenor --
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 get 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,
but I --

Thank you, doctor.
That's all.

Ms. Gamble.

The Commonwealth
calls Kyle Barrett.

This seems like
a good time

to call it a day.

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

(gallery murmuring)

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 be able
to introduce

the videotape interrogation.

And you can't?

Not unless we get 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.

The 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
of "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 over.

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
supply his testimony.

Helen, I'm just
preparing our witness.

I explain the law,

tell him what's relevant
and what to emphasize.

I do it, you 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 events.

Listen to me.

Now, I know I have
the right not to testify,

but I also know that juries
draw inferences sometimes

about defendants who don't.

Now, I'm a credible
witness.

I can explain
that videotape,

and the jury
can see me as a person.

It's a bad idea.

Trust me.

Um, Ms. Frutt.

Can you excuse me
for one second?

All right. $32,500.

-Rejected.
-Aren't you going
to make that --

We don't need to present
that to our clients.

And if your intent
with that insulting lowball

is to inflame me before
we go in to argue,

it's not going to work.

You seem
a model of restraint.

You know something,
Mr. Meyers?

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.

And don't think for a second
that after we're through here

we won't go after you
for abuse of process.

MITCHELL: Let's not let
our tempers prevail here.

Come on.

Things just 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,

at being single again.

Objection.
This is all hearsay.

State-of-mind exception.

-Whose state of mind?
-The victim's.

Oh, come on.

Judge, they're aruging
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.
-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.
-Goes to bias.

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 probably jump at it,
wouldn't you?

What are you suggesting,
counsel?

Well, I'm suggesting you'd do
anything to put the man

you think killed your sister
behind bars.

You'd even get up
in that witness chair and lie.

-HELEN: Objection!
-I never lied.

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

taken 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 --

Didn't write it down?

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 like,
"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?

-HELEN: Objection!
-Overruled.

You want to put
that man away so bad

that you got up here and lied
to get the job done.

-HELEN: 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!

-Mr. Young!
-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 did 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.

The Commonwealth rests,
your honor.

Mr. Donnell?

One second, your honor.

What do you think?

Right now we still
have a chance,

but if that videotape
comes in --

Scott, it's still our opinion
that you don't testify.

It would open the door
on the tape.

But, Bobby, he is lying.
Now, I can --

-Eugene crossed him
pretty good, I think.
-Yeah, I want to testify.

-I can't let you.
-Bobby, I --

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

The defense rests,
your honor.

(gallery murmuring)

What's happening here
is obvious.

The manufacturer here
of the playground equipment

that caused these alleged
injuries to the children

has gone out of business,

leaving the parents
with nobody to sue,

so they file a claim
against the E. P. A.

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 asking for.

Since these injuries
were caused

by environmental factors,
they're suing

the Environmental
Protection Agency.

Under that theory,
since we have an F. D. A.,

you could hold
the government liable

for any harm caused
by a drug manufacturer.

Since we have an F. A. A.,

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 government's motion

for summary judgment
should be granted.

We are not suggesting

that the government be held
liable for air disasters

simply because
there's an F. A. A.,

nor are we saying that
the E. P. A. should pay damages

every time there's
an environmental crisis.

We're saying,
in this situation,

three children got hurt --

very hurt --

because the Environmental
Protection Agency

didn't do its job.

So you are 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 decks and playground
equipment everywhere --

And I mean everywhere.

With age, this pesticide
leaches into the dirt,

which is what happened
in my clients' yard,

where their children
played every day.

But why should
the E. P. A. Be held liable?

They didn't make
that playground equipment.

Our argument
is that the E. P. A. 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 the 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 E.P.A.
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.

We 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 the 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 E. P. A. is still
sitting on this information.

That chemical
is still leaching

into the dirt
at playgrounds,

children are playing
in that dirt,

and the E. P. A. still
isn't informing people.

Why? Because
the wood manufacturers

have lobbied congress to get
the E. P. A. to back off,

and the only reason why
I know about this problem

is because
of three sick children

whose parents hired me.

Closing?

Yeah.

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

He's not seeing 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.

So we're both guilty.

-He lied, Richard.
-We don't know that.

-Helen.
-Of course we do.

Oh, come on. The stuff
about his 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, 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 bunch of big, fat lies.

Now, look,
I can't prove it,

but I know it,
and so do you.

WOMAN: All rise.

Be seated.

It seems strained
that the government,

by creating an agency
to watchdog private 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
pesticides,

but to say that the E.P.A.
knew of a leaching problem

and failed either to correct 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.

(gavel pounds)

(gallery chattering)

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.

Oh, my god.

Okay, um, 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.

7:00 in our office.

Ms. Frutt, can we talk?

No.

You have anything else to say,
you say it to a jury.

Mr. Jamison, 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 her.

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 believed
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 doctors' testimony.

They can do it.
We've certainly prepared them.

The defendants have
already brought a motion

to bifurcate the trial,
which we are opposing,

which means we really
should get to work.

So we will be
in constant contact

as we draw closer.

Okay.

Ms. Frutt.

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.

Thank you.

Will the defendant
please rise?

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

We have, your honor.

What say you?

Commonwealth vs Scott Wallace

on the charge
of murder in the first degree --

we find the defendant
Scott Wallace guilty.

JUDGE WOLFE:
Members of the jury,

this completes your service.

You are dismissed
with the thanks of the court.

Defense moves
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.
(bangs gavel)

We've got some grounds.

The ruling to allow your
statement, we--

We've got some grounds.
We'll appeal.

Okay, okay,
okay.

Where are they taking me?

They're transferring
you to Cedars.

Oh.

We have grounds, Scott.
We'll appeal.

Okay. I'll be okay.

Mr. Donnell.

MAN: Mr. Bay,
can I get a comment?

Mr. Bay,
would you comment?

Will you appeal?

Yes, we will appeal.

♪ (theme)

You stinker!