The Practice 10/5/2003 (1 Viewer)

[Dan Rudolph]

I was wodnering about the end of this. Why would double jeopardy or privilege apply in this case? The case wasn't dismissed with prejudice, or at all. There was no verdict. The DA just withdrew the charges. Since the trial wasn't seen to completion, I wouldn't think this would be double jeopardy.

Also, Eleanor and Jaime had recused themselves as his lawyers. They were not his counsel when he confessed. And even if they were, they can't subborn perjury, so they would still be able to report what he told them to the judge. Hopefully this will be addressed next time and it won't be a big mess of legal plotholes like last season.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Does Jamie just stand there next to Eleanor to pretty up the scenes?

I thought the whole "double jeopardy" angle was poorly done as well. Plus, what a creep that guy was (Chris O'Donnell's character). Both he and his child should serve plenty of time for what they've done. That guy is one scary sociopath.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I was wodnering about the end of this. Why would double jeopardy or privilege apply in this case? The case wasn't dismissed with prejudice, or at all. There was no verdict. The DA just withdrew the charges. Since the trial wasn't seen to completion, I wouldn't think this would be double jeopardy.

I wondered exactly the same thing. Was this just a very big mistake by the writers or is this an attempt to make the audience believe that the creep is protected and then we find out, ‘oh, not really double jeopardy’.

If the latter, it is poor writing and if the former, poor research.

Or will next week’s script be revisionist history?

 

[Shayne Lebrun]

I don't think double jeopardy applies. Notice he kept asking 'am I right in assuming that it applies?' and they never really answered.

 

[Win Joy Jr]

I think jeopardy is attached since the Jury was empaneled (sp?) and the Proscution withdrew the charges...

 

[Shayne Lebrun]

and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).

He wasn't punished.

So no, double jeopardy wouldn't apply to this.

 

[Gene S]

How many times is The Practice going to do this same storyline?!?
Person A is on trial, person B (usually a family member) confesses at the last minute. Person A gets off and later confesses that he/she actually did the crime and person B helped set it up that way.
And they wonder why the series is going down the tubes. :rolleyes

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Chris O'Donnel's character isn't a lawyer, so i don't have a problem with him thinking this is double jeopardy or privilege. The problem was that Eleanor said at the end they needed to find away around these issues and I don't see why they would.

 

[Shayne Lebrun]

No, I think she just said 'we need to take him down.'

The problem is, as the lawyer, she can't just tank the case; she'd get punted, he'd get a new lawyer. She has to be sneaky about it.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Except she's not his lawyer anymore, so she wouldn't have to punt the case. Really, the best way to defend his daughter is to turn him in, which he doesn't realize she can do.

 

[Shayne Lebrun]

No, she's still his council. Attourney/client still applies.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

No, she isn't. She recused herself earlier in the episode when she became a witness.

 

[Shayne Lebrun]

She recused herself from defending him in that murder trial. That murder trial was ended by the DA. She can now be his council again. She can still be his council for other things, such as this.

Even if she isn't his lawyer anymore, she still can't reveal anything that was revealed to her during the attourney-client relationship, methinks.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

She can be his counse again, but he hired her to represent his daughter, not him. So her meeting with him wasn't attorney-client. She may have to get the daughter to agree to reveal anything, though.

 

[Patrick Sun]

"Counsel" (the use of "council" was getting to me...)

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Fixed. I should have known better. Thanks.

And even if Eleanor and Jaime were representing Brad, they can't be accesories to crimes. Since he had used them to help defraud the court through false testomony, I believe they'd have to turn him in.

 

[Shayne Lebrun]

No, they can't be accessories, but they also can't reveal privileged information unless somebody's about to die.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I thought it's if someone if they have foreknowledge of any crime, not just murder. Any lawyers here who can clear this up?